2001-08-3039110REPS3061112001-08-30—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills30611R139530611Bill presented by Mr McGauran, for Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.3061109:32:0030611McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill proposes to amend the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges acts 1995. The acts were passed to ensure that, when plaintiffs go to court to recover damages for personal injuries, they would repay to the Commonwealth the cost of any Medicare and residential care benefits received because of the injury. The bill arises from a review of the acts undertaken for the government by the former Commissioner for Superannuation, Mr George Pooley. In consultation with the Health Insurance Commission, the legal profession, insurers and the minister's department, Mr Pooley examined the operations and the administration of the acts. Mr Pooley found that the compensation recovery program, governed by the acts, has proved cumbersome and burdensome for all parties. He made a number of recommendations to improve these processes, and to minimise the burdens and frustrations for all parties—but especially those waiting for their compensation payouts to be released to them. Currently, 50 per cent of every dollar recovered by the Commonwealth is consumed by administration costs. This bill will provide for a saving of $6.5 million in the first full year of operation. The proposed amendments simplify the recovery process for notifying claims, and streamline the processes to allow a clearer and more manageable path from claim to resolution of incurred Commonwealth debt. The proposed reforms in this bill will significantly reduce the number of settlements and judgments that are required to be notified to the Commonwealth by setting the minimum amount of a judgment or settlement that must be notified at $5,000 or above.Importantly, the bill eliminates any necessity for the notification of a potential judgment or settlement. This removes the excessive requirement placed on insurers and/or the injured party to notify the Commonwealth of a possible compensable case, regardless of the likely success of any claim for compensation.The bill will also provide a genuine power to audit the integrity of claims and to allow a more effective checking process of claimant details and medical history to ensure that there is an appropriate recovery of Commonwealth debt. More emphasis will be on the claimant to provide assurances, through the provision of statutory declarations, on the level of Medicare or residential care costs associated with their judgment and settlements.The advanced payment option that currently allows claimants to receive 90 per cent of their judgment or settlement moneys once the case has been resolved has been retained for the time being. In addition to that arrangement, a provision has been included to allow the Commonwealth to set a sliding scale of the advanced payment option by regulation, which will allow claimants to receive a better targeted share of their award initially on settlement or judgment. This will provide flexibility in the future to ensure that injured persons receive as much as possible of their settlement as early as possible. That predetermined percentage will still be forwarded to the Commonwealth for reconciliation of debt. The balance will, as now, then be forwarded to the claimant upon debt clearance. This will result in the debt to the Commonwealth being more effectively recovered and the claimant having greater and faster access to more of their money without having to wait until final debt liability is verified.The review examined the appropriateness of continuing the advanced payment options, considering that at the time of their introduction they were only to be a temporary measure. This was the case as the initial period of recoveries resulted in major administrative backlogs in processing the claims by both insurers and the Commonwealth. As the processes have been streamlined over time and further streamlining occurs through these proposed changes, such a temporary arrangement should be strategically removed. This helps lawyers and insurers more than the claimants. This bill, therefore, includes a provision for the insertion of a sunset clause for the advanced payment option arrangements from 2004. This will provide an introductory period of time to enable the new streamlined arrangement to be bedded down. The new arrangements will be simpler, more efficient and keep impositions on claimants to a minimum. Simpler claiming and administrative processes will allow the speedier release of final compensation settlements or judgments and reduce the worry and red tape for recipients and their families.I commend the bill to the House. I table Mr Pooley's report with the thanks of the government and the parliament for his hard and considered work. I also thank all those who played such a constructive role in contributing to the review which has led to this very important and, indeed, landmark legislation. I also table the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Bills30612R139730612Bill presented by Mr McGauran, for Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.3061209:37:0030612McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill contains a number of amendments to legislation under the Health and Aged Care portfolio. The first set of amendments relates to therapeutic goods. The proposed changes to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 will enable the mutual recognition agreement, entered into between Australia and Singapore, to be implemented. The amendments will allow the Secretary to the Department of Health and Aged Care to accept the conclusions of good manufacturing practice (GMP) inspections and manufacturing certificates as evidence that the manufacturing processes employed in Singapore in the manufacture of medicines that are exported to Australia meet with Australian requirements. The certificates are issued, pursuant to the mutual recognition agreement by inspection services designated as such by the government health regulatory body in Singapore, and approved by the secretary in Australia to provide certificates of good manufacturing practices for medicines imported into Australia. The certificates are taken into account for the purposes of determining whether medicines imported from Singapore may be supplied to the general public in Australia. Provision is made for the minister to declare other countries to be covered by mutual recognition agreement (MRA) similar to the MRA with Singapore, as Australia enters into, or becomes a party to, other binding agreements. These other MRAs, features of which may be prescribed in the regulations, will enable Australia to accept GMP certificates as evidence that the manufacturing processes employed in the manufacture of medicines imported to Australia from those countries meet with Australian requirements.The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) extended its oversight of the blood system to include fresh blood components in 2000. These therapeutic goods, which are manufactured from individual blood donors, are not possible to define in ways that would lead to their inclusion in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. They are therefore regulated through the use of standards, the licensing of blood establishments and the assessment of technical data. To demonstrate satisfactory compliance with these measures, the TGA frequently requires information from the blood establishments. At present the only way to elicit this information is through the conduct of an audit for good manufacturing practice of the establishment, which is a complex process. Through these amendments, the TGA will be able to request information related to the quality and safety of blood components without having to undertake an audit of the blood establishment. The TGA already has the ability to obtain information for standard medicinal products included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. Currently, applicants seeking to register their medicines in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods must pay fees when an evaluation of an application to register a medicine in the register has been completed. However, following the completion of an evaluation, the results of which are usually communicated to an applicant, but before the secretary notifies the applicant of his/her decision to register or not to register the medicine, an applicant may withdraw. Where this occurs, the secretary is not able to recover the cost of the evaluation that has already been completed. The effect of these amendments is to enable the secretary to recover the balance of the evaluation fees owing for the evaluation work completed.There are also amendments to the Professional Services Review (PSR) Scheme, that commenced in 1994. The scheme is a process of peer review under which an individual health practitioner's conduct can be examined to ascertain whether inappropriate practice is involved in the rendering or initiating of Medicare services or in prescribing under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). A comprehensive review of the PSR Scheme was undertaken in 1999. As a result, significant legislative amendments were made to the provisions of the Health Insurance Act governing the scheme. The PSR amendments contained in this bill clarify certain aspects of the operation of the earlier changes and overcome administrative difficulties that have emerged in their implementation. In particular, the amendments clarify the scope of the investigations that the Director of the Professional Services Review Scheme and the PSR Committee are able to undertake concerning referred matters. The Health Insurance Commission has statistical data, and the director also has access to patient records, but many problems will never be evident from statistics or records alone. Examples are the invalid performance of tests or the unjustified repetition of diagnostic procedures. They are only a couple of the examples which require the clarification of those amendments of 1999. The amendments in this bill make clear that referrals need not specify particular conduct to be examined by the Director of the Professional Services Review Scheme or a PSR committee. They are not excluded from investigating concerns about a practitioner's conduct in connection with referred services, whether or not such concerns have been identified in the referral processes. The bill also makes clear that the investigations are not limited by the reasons stated in the referrals. The conduct able to be investigated must still relate to the referred services.The bill also includes amendments to strengthen and streamline the administration of the scheme. In the PSR process, normal procedural fairness safeguards will continue to apply. The services to be investigated are clearly identified in advance, so the practitioner knows where investigations will focus. The commission's and the director's reasons for referral indicate the likely direction of inquiry, but this is ultimately a matter for the PSR Committee. Both the person under review and the committee can be assisted by legal advisers. There is protection against self-incrimination. The person under review is also entitled to comment on a draft of the committee's report and later a draft determination prior to a final determination being made.There is also an amendment concerning number of commissioners of the Health Insurance Commission. This amendment relates to legislative changes made at the time of the separation of Medibank Private from the Health Insurance Commission. Under the Health Insurance Commission (Reform and Separation of Functions) Act 1997, the number of commissioners (in addition to the chairperson and managing director) increased for a five-year period from seven to nine, but then was to decrease to five. The amendment contained in this bill will operate so that, after that five-year period (that is, from November 2002), the number of these additional commissioners will decrease from nine to seven (rather than from nine to five). The bill will make some minor amendments related to private health insurance arrangements. Currently, health funds may only offer discounts to contributors who pay at least six months in advance. This will be amended to allow discounts to be offered from a starting point of three months in advance. It will also remove an anachronism that currently prevents employers contributing directly towards health expenses incurred by employees who have an agreement under part VIB of the Industrial Relations Act 1988. This will be beneficial to contributors and to private health insurance generally. The bill also makes some minor technical amendments. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills30614R140230614Bill presented by Mr Abbott, and read a first time.3061409:46:0030614Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Trades Practices Act 1974 to ensure that the workplace relations system better meets the needs and circumstances of small business.There is a compelling case for the passage of this bill. A vibrant and innovative small business sector is crucial to Australia's economic growth and social welfare. The changes introduced in 1996 to the Workplace Relations Act significantly improved access for small business employers and employees to the workplace relations system. Many small businesses in the federal jurisdiction now have a greater choice of agreement types, including non-union agreements and individual agreements. There is less scope for uninvited third party intervention and there is a simplified award safety net underpinning workplace bargaining. However, further reform is required to maximise the opportunities for small business growth, and to drive unemployment down even further.The bill will help achieve this. Its reforms will create more jobs, protect small businesses and their employees from unwanted and unwarranted third party interference, reduce red tape and create more choice.This bill demonstrates the government's continuing commitment to small business and shows that the government is serious about reducing workplace relations red tape and unjustified third party interference.The bill proposes amendments to the principal object of the Workplace Relations Act and the objects of particular parts of the act to include reference to the special circumstances of small business. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission will be required to take into account the circumstances of employers and employees in small business in the exercise of its powers, including, where appropriate, modifying its principles and procedures. The president of the commission will be required to undertake a review of the rules of the commission, in the light of the changes to the act, in particular the changes to the objects of the act. The president will provide a report to the minister within an eight-month period after the commencement of this bill about the outcome of the review of the commission's rules and will be encouraged to consult with small business employers and employees in the process of the review.Many small businesses are not members of registered employer organisations and, consequently, are not represented in the commission's hearings and cases. They often do not have the resources or opportunity to influence commission proceedings and outcomes. These changes are intended to make the commission, and the system generally, more accessible and responsive to small business.Survey evidence suggests that potential unfair dismissal claims discourage a significant proportion of small businesses from recruiting additional staff. For example, the Yellow Pages Small Business Index survey conducted in October and November 1997 found that 38 per cent or proprietors surveyed indicated that they would be more likely to recruit new employees if they were exempted from the current unfair dismissal laws. The government is determined to continue to pursue the exemption for small business employers from unfair dismissal provisions when employing new employees. This bill contains a proposal that is essentially the same as the exemption contained in the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998, except that this bill would exclude employees in businesses with fewer than 20 employees rather than 15 or fewer employees. The proposal would not affect existing employees or trainees or apprentices and would not exclude new employees from making unlawful dismissal claims—for example, dismissals for discriminatory reasons.Defending an unfair dismissal claim, however groundless that claim may be, is especially burdensome for small business. In larger enterprises more expertise and resources can be put into recruitment, human resource management and termination procedures and consequences. Small businesses have limited resources. Even attending a commission hearing, particularly for regional and rural Australians, can be extremely difficult, given that the location of proceedings is usually in capital cities and many small business operators would have to attend in person.The bill proposes other amendments to continue to ease the burden of unfair dismissal claims on small business. Members of the commission will be given the power to decline to deal with unfair dismissal applications against small employers when they are first lodged. The commission member will be able to seek further particulars from an applicant and a response from the small employer by correspondence, rather than having the parties appear in person. Claims that are then determined to be clearly not within the commission's jurisdiction or unmeritorious or vexatious could be rejected without any hearings being convened. This process will not apply to applications concerning unlawful dismissal.This amendment will complement the proposed small business unfair dismissal exclusion, by providing a simple and appropriate means for dealing with invalid applications by excluded employees. For applications by small business employees who are not exempt—for example, apprentices, trainees, or employees employed before the commencement of the exclusion—commission members could dismiss an application if reasonably satisfied it is frivolous or vexatious or lacking in substance or falls outside the commission's jurisdiction.These amendments will build on the recent success the coalition has had in enacting the Workplace Relations Amendment (Termination of Employment) Act 2001 which starts to lighten the burden of unfair dismissal claims on all businesses, particularly small businesses.The bill proposes to further encourage agreement making, particularly for small business. The proposed amendments will provide employers and employees with simple and more streamlined agreement making processes. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Workplace Relations Act's focus on the right of all employers and employees to determine their own working arrangements at their workplace, whether those arrangements involve formalised individual agreements, AWAs, formalised collective agreements, CAs, or informal agreements.While agreement making at the enterprise level has been enthusiastically embraced in Australian workplaces, small business has been consistently under-represented among workplaces with agreements in place. The current procedures for certifying agreements need to be made less time consuming, less complex and less costly, particularly for small business.This bill introduces provisions to streamline agreement making processes, as well as limit the scope for the unwelcome involvement of third parties. For example, the legislation removes the current requirement to recommence the 14-day `consideration period' for a collective workplace agreement each time a new employee begins work during that period. In addition, the current practice of the commission conducting formal hearings for the certification of collective agreements will be limited to exceptional circumstances. This aspect of agreement making has long been seen as unnecessarily formal and difficult, especially for small business. The new provisions mean that no longer will parties have to wait for their application to be listed for hearing and then take time out of work to attend.The current filing and approval processes for AWAs will be amalgamated to provide a much simpler and quicker one-step formalisation process. An AWA will take effect from the date of signing, the date specified in the agreement or the date employment commences, whichever is the later. Employers will be able to start new employees on AWAs as soon as they agree, rather than having to wait for a specified number of days. The act will also provide for a cooling-off period to protect employees who may subsequently change their mind.The Employment Advocate will be able to approve all AWAs, without being required to refer an AWA to the commission where there are concerns about whether or not it meets the no-disadvantage test. The proposed amendments also remove the requirement for employers to demonstrate that they have not acted unfairly or unreasonably in failing to offer identical AWAs to comparable employees.The bill proposes amendments to section 87 of the Trades Practices Act 1974 to allow the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission, the ACCC, to bring representative actions in respect of contraventions of sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act. Section 45D of the Trade Practices Act prohibits secondary boycotts undertaken for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage. Section 45E prohibits certain contracts, arrangements or understandings with organisations of employees which affect the supply or acquisition of goods or services.At present, section 87 of the Trade Practices Act allows the ACCC to bring representative actions in respect of contraventions of all of part IV of the Trade Practices Act, except for sections 45D and 45E. The problem of access to remedies for contraventions of section 45D and 45E will be addressed by ensuring that the ACCC has clear powers to enable it to bring representative proceedings on behalf of businesses and consumers. In the absence of these amendments, business, particularly small businesses, will continue to be effectively denied the protection purported to be offered by the Trade Practices Act and hence will continue to bear the costs of the loss or damages produced by unlawful conduct.The bill also proposes amendments that will enhance the ability of small business to resist attempts to rope them into federal awards. A dispute with an employer with fewer than 20 employees will only be taken to exist, in a roping-in or log of claims process, where the union demonstrates that it has a member employed by the employer. The identity of individual union members, however, will be kept confidential.Further, the commission will be required not to make any finding of dispute in respect of any employer where the alleged dispute was notified on the ground that the employer had not agreed to demands set out in a log of claims, unless satisfied that:· the log of claims, when served, was accompanied by a notice containing prescribed information, including the rights an employer has to defend itself against the log of claims;· the alleged dispute was not notified until at least 28 days after service of the log;· the party notifying the alleged dispute had given the employer at least 28 days notice of the time and place for hearing of the dispute notification; and· the log of claims did not include any demand requiring conduct or provisions contrary to the freedom of association provisions of the act, or outside the scope of the employment relationship, or inadmissible because it restricts the use of contractors. The bill will also require the commission to inquire into the views of identified small business employers affected by the making of an award, rather than only attending to the views of employers who appear or are represented at hearings.The bill proposes to limit the disruption to business, in particular small business, caused by union entry to the workplace. This will be achieved by requiring unions to provide five working days written notice of their intention to enter the workplace and allowing the relevant employer or occupier, within certain limits, to propose an alternative date in writing for union entry. This will ensure greater flexibility for businesses and their employees and allow them to avoid disruption during critical periods.An invitation from a member employed at the workplace will be a prerequisite to union entry, ensuring that unions exercise their right to enter workplaces only where there is support from members. Invitations will be valid for three months from the date given to the union, or, where the inviting employee wishes to remain anonymous, from a date certified by the registrar.Employees who issue an invitation to a union can choose to do so confidentially. In such cases the union will be able to apply to the registrar for a certificate that can be shown to the employer or occupier in place of the invitation.In addition, union entry for discussions with employees will be limited to once every six months. More frequent entry for inspection purposes will still be permitted.The bill also proposes to ensure that all parties are well informed about the new arrangements. In their notice to the employer and occupier and upon entry, union officials will be required to provide prescribed information setting out the rights and obligations of employers, occupiers and union officials in relation to workplace entry.Other amendments propose to ensure that the relationship between a business and a contractor, including contractors hired through intermediaries such as labour hire firms, is essentially a commercial and not a workplace relations arrangement. It includes amendments to ensure that awards and agreements do not restrict employers from entering into contracts for services, or require employers to include particular terms or conditions in such contracts. It goes without saying that small business proprietors should not be prevented from engaging contractors to provide services to their businesses or their clients.Award restrictions on the use of contractors commonly require a respondent employer that contracts out work covered by the award to include a term in the contract binding the contractor to observe the rates and conditions of the award. Such clauses may raise complex compliance issues for contractors, as a different award may also bind them.At present provisions in agreements constrain the use of contractors in a number of ways, for example by:· defining and limiting the circumstances in which contractors may be used;· placing procedural requirements on the use of contractors; · requiring contractors to make certain types of industrial agreements; and· requiring contractors to observe certain industrial behaviour, such as observing work bans or strikes.Preventing such restrictive provisions will benefit an important segment of the small business community by improving the freedom of contractors to make commercial arrangements according to their business needs. These changes will enhance labour market flexibility and efficiency by removing artificial restrictions on the use of contractors and labour hire.The bill provides an exemption to maintain appropriate protections for low-paid workers in the textiles, clothing and footwear industry.In introducing this bill, the government is demonstrating its commitment to making the workplace relations system better meet the needs and circumstances of small businesses. This is vital to maximise the opportunities for growth and innovation for the approximately 1,075,000 private sector, non-agricultural, small businesses in Australia. These businesses account for 96 per cent of all businesses—and the workplace relations system must be more responsive to their needs. The changes made to the Workplace Relations Act in 1996 improved access for small businesses and their employees to the workplace relations system. This bill accelerates that process of reform. Measures which benefit small business in Australia are good for jobs. Small business is the engine room for jobs growth in our economy. It is clearly in the public interest to open the door to the new jobs that can be created by small businesses if we continue to ease the pressure that excessive industrial regulation presents for Australia's hardworking small business men and women.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills30618R140330618Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.3061810:03:0030618Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Excise Tariff Amendment (Crude Oil) Bill 2001 contains amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921.On 15 August 2001, the government announced an overhaul of the Excise Tariff Act to encourage oil exploration and production, both onshore and offshore, perhaps leading to associated increased gas discoveries. The changes, which apply retrospectively from 1 July 2001, will streamline current legislation and reduce certain crude oil excise rates.The changes arise from the government's response to concerns raised by industry groups that the high excise impost on old oilfields versus new discoveries discourages full commercialisation of those existing valuable resources.These amendments will promote exploration, with a view to higher production levels of oil and gas. Ultimately, the consumer and Australia will benefit from efforts to meet future energy needs and enhance Australia's self-sufficiency in oil and gas.Increased domestic gas production is an important alternative source of energy for Australian industry. New discoveries of gas, in particular, could underpin the government's efforts to promote a gas to liquids industry in Australia. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills30618R140130618Bill presented by Mr Slipper, for Mr Williams, and read a first time.3061810:05:0030618Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.As members would be aware, the Federal Magistrates Service was established under the Federal Magistrates Act 1999. The service began hearing cases on 3 July 2000.After little more than a year of operation, the Federal Magistrates Service has been a resounding success, with many thousands of Australians benefiting from its cheaper, simpler and faster court services. This success could not have been achieved without the cooperation and assistance of the Federal Court and the Family Court and, on behalf of the government, I acknowledge with appreciation the contribution that those courts have made.The Federal Magistrates Service was established to deal with a range of less complex federal disputes that were previously handled solely by the Federal Court or Family Court, as part of the Commonwealth government's commitment to ensuring that all Australians have a greater range of options for resolving their legal problems as quickly and as cheaply as possible. The service has developed procedures that aim to be as streamlined and as user-friendly as possible, reducing delay and costs to litigants. Much of the work of the Federal Magistrates Service to date has been in family law, but the widening jurisdiction of the Federal Court in recent years has led to an increasing number of routine matters coming before that court. This has had the effect of diverting the judicial resources of the Federal Court from the more complex areas of the law upon which it was intended to focus. Having the Federal Magistrates Service dealing with less complex cases has meant a better use of judicial resources and, again, less cost for litigants.The service currently shares jurisdiction with the Federal Court in administrative law, administrative appeals, bankruptcy, human rights and consumer protection matters.Many migration matters are of a routine nature and would also be suitable for the service to handle. This bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to give the Federal Magistrates Service concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court in migration matters. The bill also amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to remove the restrictions on the service hearing migration matters under those acts.Proceedings can be transferred between the Federal Magistrates Service and the Federal Court and vice versa. This would also apply to migration matters. This system ensures that cases of a particular level of complexity are dealt with in the most appropriate forum. The transfer arrangements have been working well for the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Service, and I am confident that they would also do so in the migration area.I note that conferring this jurisdiction on the service would make no difference to the number of levels of review in the migration system. Appeals from the Federal Magistrates Service in non-family law matters go straight to the Full Court of the Federal Court. If the Chief Justice decides it is appropriate in particular cases, a single judge can hear the appeal, but that judge is exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court.The migration workload of the Federal Court has been increasing in recent times. The service is able to resolve cases in six months and often in less time. Conferring migration jurisdiction on the Federal Magistrates Service will allow the more efficient disposition of these cases. This is consistent with ongoing reforms that the government is undertaking to ensure that the migration system operates in the most equitable and efficient manner practicable.In conclusion, I note that the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Hon. Murray Gleeson, recently acknowledged that the Federal Magistrates Service would have an increasingly important role in the Commonwealth legal system. Given the outstanding success of the Federal Magistrates Service in its first year of operation, I am confident that the Chief Justice's prediction will be fulfilled. I commend the legislation to the chamber, thank the minister for his support and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills30619R138930619Debate resumed from 29 August, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.10:11:0030619McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My remarks on the Royal Commissions and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 were interrupted last night, and I note from the Hansard record that I had particularly strong support from the Prime Minister in relation to the industrial relations matters which the shadow minister raised during this debate on the establishment of royal commissions. I note the Prime Minister's particular interest in industrial relations and record my pleasure from his visit to the Alcoa plant in Geelong, where the Prime Minister looked at the particularly forward looking management, which had put in place annualised salaries of their work force and which had divided the work force into working groups. The plant, even though it is an older plant, is now operating at very efficient levels. While the Prime Minister was particularly impressed with that operation in Geelong, the building industry has a different position, which the shadow minister alluded to in his remarks. In Geelong the building industry is running riot, buildings are not being completed on time, there is coercion and intimidation of management on various sites, there is a Geelong agreement where particular local rules apply and, generally speaking, it is very difficult for anyone in the construction industry in Geelong to achieve their targets in getting a building constructed on budget and on time—so much so that some of the local building contractors have gone broke in recent times. One well-known builder owes creditors up to $7 million, and it would be fair to say that the aggressive attitude of union members in the local area would be a factor involved in that.Two royal commissions have now been appointed, and the bill before the House is to allow these royal commissions to reach a genuine conclusion, unfettered by restrictions of the exchange of information. As I said last night, a royal commission will be held into the HIH debacle in the insurance industry and also ASIC will be investigating the operations of HIH in terms of the directors' responsibilities and in terms of their ability to comply with the Corporations Law. We have the unusual situation, as you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, of having a royal commission and of having ASIC look at the aspects of commercial law.Basically, this bill will allow the exchange of information, both in the building industry inquiry and in the HIH inquiry, so that the information that these other bodies have in their possession will be able to be exchanged in a legal sense—so that, in the case of the construction commission, they will be able to look at financial dealings through AUSTRAC, which is able to identify transactions over $10,000, suspicious cash transactions and international funds. So we will be able to identify in the building industry— which the shadow minister was so adamant about in terms of some of the other industries—exactly what is taking place. Are some of the contractors taking money illegally or in strange and suspicious circumstances? With the passing of this bill, in a legal sense the commission will be able to observe these matters so that there will be no contraventions or civil difficulties that may have restrained the two royal commissions.The bill allows communication with the Attorney-General in the ACT, which will allow both these commissions to operate more effectively. We see also a development of protocols to ensure that these federal government agencies can operate in a cooperative way with the royal commission.We saw this debacle of HIH and the insurance industry, and that gives me an opportunity to raise another matter of insurance which has been drawn to my attention over a number of years and which I think is almost something that should be looked at by a royal commission: it is the matter of the tax on fire insurance policies. We have a situation in Victoria and New South Wales where the CFA levy, as it is called, is so huge that we have a remarkable position. I will quote from a report from Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu talking about this remarkable position. In their press release, they say:New Tax Hikes to Take Insurance Policyholders into Unchartered WatersPerhaps for the first time in Australia's history taxes on a product or service could exceed the cost of the product or service.In the case they present in Victoria—and this is related to fire levies, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, and you would be interested in that, representing a country electorate—where the premium in Victoria might be $100, the fire service levy is $69 and, if you add the GST—which is comparatively small—of $16, we now have a figure of $185, plus stamp duty of 10 per cent, or $18, which gives a total figure of $204. I know those figures sound quite complicated, but there is a premium of $100 for the insurance paid and yet the extra levy, particularly this fire service levy and other taxes, tally $104. Mr Walter Spratt, who is a good friend of mine, has been advising me of these matters. He is the national media relations person for this firm and he has been drawing this matter to my attention for a number of years. So we have this remarkable situation of this amazing extra premium that is paid for the fire insurance levy. If we compare these levies nationally and on an international basis, the fire insurance for land-holders is 84 per cent in country Victoria, 71 per cent in Melbourne and 65 per cent in New South Wales; but if you go to the UK it is only five per cent, in Canada it is only three per cent, in USA it is two per cent and in Singapore two per cent.What has been identified here is that this might be a matter for the royal commission to look at: this outrageous impost on those people who take out fire insurance, both rural and domestic, who are being hit to leg because of the add-on of their domestic insurance premiums. Mr Hill, who is a spokesman for the industry, makes the comment that:The collapse of private health insurance membership led to Federal government intervention in the introduction of tax and other incentives for those who insured.He is saying that unless something is done in this area of insurance then those sensible people who take out insurance are really paying for the service on behalf of those people who do not take out insurance.I am particularly worried about this. The add-on cost of people taking out normal insurance is a problem facing country people, particularly in Victoria, and it is the state governments who have added this fire levy. It has been a matter that I think you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would be aware of. It has been a matter of contention for people over a number of years that insurance holders are paying the fire levy, as I say, on behalf of those who do not take out insurance.I will conclude my remarks by saying that the HIH debacle is a lesson to all regulators in Australia that people take out insurance in good faith. I raised at another time in this parliament how the underwriting and the rearrangement of insurance can go wrong. I hope that the royal commission will identify these areas and that future generations who take out insurance policies, be they public liability or household insurance, will do so knowing that governments of both political persuasions have put in place a regime of prudential control that will ensure they get paid when some unfortunate catastrophic event occurs.I commend the legislation of the two royal commissions. I anticipate that the royal commission into HIH will be a long and enduring affair, probably taking four or five years, and maybe some of us will not be in this parliament when the conclusions are reached. Likewise, there is yet another royal commission into the building industry and I alluded to that. I hope that, as in the Gyles royal commission, further evidence will be put on the table about the activities of unions, employers and people involved in the industry in a fair and equitable manner and that the Australian people can see for themselves what is actually happening in that industry.I commend the legislation. I seek the support of members opposite in making sure that these two royal commissions can reach sensible conclusions and that they are assisted by these other authorities in a legal and transparent sense.10:22:0030621Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. I agree with quite a lot of what the member for Corangamite said and certainly the opposition has indicated that we will support this bill. I was a bit alarmed to hear him at the conclusion of his remarks talk about the HIH royal commission perhaps running for four or five years. The government has indicated that it is scheduled to report by 30 June next year and we have been disappointed that it has taken the time to start up that it has. It is scheduled to start at the commencement of September, so we expect it to be up and going quickly now. It has taken quite some time to get going, but a delay of four or five years would be a matter of considerable public concern if something like that were to occur.This bill is designed, amongst other things, to ensure that the royal commission into HIH has sufficient powers to do the job that it has been given and, as such, it has our support. However, Labor has indicated, and I have indicated on a number of occasions, that we believe that the terms of reference of the royal commission into HIH are inadequate. We believe that one of the things that needs to be canvassed is the role, if any, played by political donations. The royal commission should call the federal treasurer of the Liberal Party, Mr Ron Walker, as a witness and ask him to identify on how many occasions he sought and received political donations from Mr Ray Williams as chief executive officer of HIH, and whether on any of those occasions Mr Williams sought any political favours or any political action to be undertaken by the Liberal Party. The royal commission should also call Mr Andrew Peacock as a witness and ask him whether at any stage he received an HIH consultancy and whether he used HIH office space for his business activities. If so, how much was he paid, what activities did he carry out and what work did he do on behalf of HIH? The royal commission should also call Mr Alan Stockdale as a witness and ask him what work was done by HIH for the Victorian Liberal opposition prior to the state election in 1992 and what political donations were made to the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party. Mr Stockdale should be asked to identify the nature of the work done by HIH for the Victorian Liberal Party—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I seek your ruling as to whether this is interference in a judicial function. The royal commission is operational at the moment. This is just a foul political attack. It is gratuitous and it may very well, to an extent at least, prejudice the operations of the royal commission.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—While it might be political comment, I do not see how it could impinge on the rights of the royal commission. I believe that the member is in order.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: we have a senior member of the opposition and therefore a person of some standing within the parliament canvassing individuals who should be examined by a royal commission. It may well be that the royal commissioner sees this as interference in his functions. The royal commissioner does not need gratuitous advice of a highly political kind that the shadow minister is offering. It is an improper use of the forum of this parliament.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—While the member may well be offering some gratuitous advice, a royal commissioner is independent and can form their own opinions as to whether they take that advice or not. I think that the member is in order.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—The minister may not be aware, but I have referred to these matters previously. I have referred to them again to reinforce Labor's concern that the terms of reference are not adequate and need to be broadened. It is our view that the royal commission should add to accountability in relation to the HIH collapse and certainly should not be used as a vehicle to avoid and hide from scrutiny in any way. These are matters which ought to be the subject of royal commission consideration, just like the issues raised earlier by the member for Corangamite when he suggested that there were matters that the royal commission should be looking at. I believe that he was entirely in order to suggest that the royal commission ought to examine certain issues. He referred to fire insurance levies and things of that nature. In our view, these are matters that the royal commission ought to be examining as well.The royal commission should call—and I dare say it will—Mr Rodney Adler as a witness and ask him to identify what political donations he made to the Liberal Party both during the period when he was associated with FAI Insurance—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—I raise a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I accepted your ruling on my earlier point of order and I listened carefully to what the shadow minister said. I can interpret his words no other way than to be pressuring the royal commissioner. I ask you to revisit this matter. He referred to the member for Corangamite raising issues that the royal commission should properly examine. They are of a generic kind and they are issue based. This member of parliament is pressuring the royal commissioner to examine individuals and he is using the cover of the parliament and the supposed limitations, as he alleges, on the terms of reference to attack individuals in a very unscrupulous manner. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—To help the minister, I will refer to House of Representatives Practice, page 498. Because this royal commission has not yet been set up, the question as to whether the proceedings before a royal commission are sub judice is therefore treated with some flexibility to allow for variations in the subject matter, the varying degree of national interest and the degree to which proceedings might be, or appear to be, prejudiced. I believe the member is in order.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—I seek clarification. As I understood it, the royal commissioner has been appointed, the terms of reference have been settled and his conduct of the inquiry is under way. If formal hearings have not yet been convened, which I freely concede, he would be in a preparatory stage. How can the naming of individuals in this parliament by the opposition be interpreted other than as to be seeking to influence the conduct of the royal commission? In my view, it is an improper attempt to influence the royal commissioner.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The bill sets up the royal commission, so the royal commission at this stage has not been set up. While the member may well be canvassing some of these issues, I do not think it is unique in a parliament to do such things, and the member is in order.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Thank you for your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that the minister is seeking to avoid accountability in this way. The royal commission will not commence until the start of September. That has been clear and it is on the public record that the royal commission has not yet commenced.The royal commission should ask Mr Rodney Adler to identify what political donations he made to the Liberal Party both during the period he was associated with FAI insurances and during his subsequent period with HIH insurances. It should ask him whether on any occasions he requested Liberal Party parliamentarians or personnel to take any action concerning insurance matters which would have been of assistance to FAI or HIH, including in the course of this legislation making its way to the parliament. It should also ask him whether FAI engaged in artificially closing files to improve the look of its balance sheets and whether FAI sold off its reinsurance cover such that the cover was not available when it was supposed to be available. It should also ask him about the extent of personal trading in HIH shares and whether any such personal trading was in conflict with his duties as a director. It should also ask him about the use made of money from a $10 million trust fund that was set up using HIH money to which Mr Adler had access, and in particular whether $6 million or a similar amount was used to purchase shares belonging to Mr Adler in stocks that he owned in other companies which were losing value as a result of the so-called tech wreck. The federal parliamentary Labor Party pushed strongly for this royal commission to be established, and we believe that these issues need to be examined to ensure ongoing public confidence in the integrity of general insurance in Australia and indeed in the integrity of Australia's political processes.I next want to turn to the question of how the royal commission ought to handle the role played by auditors. The appropriateness of the conduct of the audits by Arthur Andersen on both HIH and FAI leaves many doubts. The specific issues that need to be addressed in order that the royal commission is able to arrive at an appropriate conclusion include the audit of FAI as at 30 June 1998 and subsequent impacts. Close examination is required of the rationale for the auditors, Arthur Andersen, signing off on the accounting treatment of National Indemnity and of General and Cologne Reinsurance Australasia contracts at 30 June 1998. I have been told that a profit of $56 million was booked on these contracts at 30 June 1998, with an unbooked future loss on the contracts of $68 million not recognised at that date. The accounting treatment of the reinsurance contracts helped to offset both the consequences of the deterioration of the FAI underwriting results and the overvaluation of investments, thereby leaving HIH with an unexpected loss of $68 million to be written off after acquisition. The rationale of an internal support paper which was prepared by FAI senior management, including executive directors, to justify the treatment of the reinsurance contracts as risk transfer needs to be closely examined. The royal commission needs to ensure that processes are put in place so that financial reinsurance transactions are not allowed to be accounted for as risk transfer transactions. If FAI were not allowed by Arthur Andersen to account for these transactions as risk transfers, the acquisition by HIH would probably never have been made, or at least not been made at the price paid. The actions of those involved in this transaction require very close scrutiny, as they allowed the financial results of FAI at 30 June 1998 to be presented in a light which was materially more favourable than they would have been without the contracts.FAI cooked the books before it was sold to HIH—there is no doubt about it. The question is: why didn't the auditors, Arthur Andersen, who audited both FAI and HIH books, pick this up? To what degree was all available information on the reinsurance transactions made available to the auditors? I have been given information that a certain letter from FAI to GCR concerning recoverability under the treaty was withheld from the auditors. That letter effectively said that there would be no recoveries made under the reinsurance treaties with GCR. If known by the auditors at the time, the recognition of the profit on the treaties should not have been able to be booked.What were the instructions issued to the reinsurers by FAI, and were these ever made available to the auditors? To what degree was Arthur Andersen compromised by allowing the FAI treatment of reinsurance contracts at 30 June 1998 when considering similar HIH reinsurance contracts at subsequent reporting dates? Allegations have been made to me that HIH pressured Arthur Andersen to allow the June 1999 HIH reinsurance transactions to be accounted for in the same manner which had been used by FAI on pain of exposure over the 1998 contracts. The Australian public wants the royal commission to find out whether Arthur Andersen signed off on dodgy HIH books at June 1999 for fear of being exposed as having signed off on dodgy FAI books for June 1998. What was Arthur Andersen's view on the valuation of FAI goodwill in the books of HIH at 30 June 1999 and 30 June 2000? Hindsight clearly says it was not justified. The valuation at 30 June 1999 was clearly overly optimistic.The determination of the value of goodwill at 30 June 1999 and subsequent adjustments at later recording dates need to be closely examined. The methods applied provide examples to auditors of what they should not allow clients to include in goodwill calculations. What was Arthur Andersen's view of the valuation of FAI's investments at 30 June 1998 and 30 June 1999, and how did they arrive at those conclusions, given Rodney Adler's publicly stated view that they were overstated at the time by some $80 million as at September 1999?We need to ask: what audit work did Arthur Andersen undertake in respect of the actuarial reserves of FAI at 30 June 1998? If they discussed the nature of reserves with knowledgeable claim staff as opposed to senior executives, what conclusions did they draw from those discussions? Did those discussions fully cover the inwards reinsurance and Medical Defence Union exposures of FAI? To what degree did Arthur Andersen understand the treatment of related body assets in the determination of the solvency calculations of FAI as required under the Insurance Act? We had a situation where a round robin of intercompany loans effectively generated a greater than existed value of assets in the main APRA regulated insurance entity. Just because APRA had approved these assets for solvency purposes does not mean that Arthur Andersen could or should have accepted that as being correct. The question is: were Arthur Andersen and APRA relying on each other to agree to the treatment of these transactions for solvency purposes? Was it that neither party understood that and each relied on the other? Again, another trigger for concern was missed. In respect of the audit of HIH, close examination is required of the mechanisms that HIH used to manage the reporting of underwriting results. HIH suffered significant deterioration of a number of one-off insurance arrangements, including US liability, international aviation and Charman. The combined deterioration on these accounts was well in excess of $60 million, and that was offset at an underwriting level by benefits which arose from non-insurance transactions, including a tax recovery, favourable settlement of an investment dispute and unrelated goodwill adjustments. By not disclosing the deterioration of the underwriting performance, the financial statements left users unaware of the extent of the adverse prior year development of claims.HIH's dilemma was exacerbated by holding no prudential margin on its claims reserves as protection against such adverse developments. Other means were therefore required to offset the deterioration on the underwriting account. Somewhat weak reasons for justifying the treatment of these one-off items over time were accepted by Arthur Andersen in 1998 and subsequently. Clearly, a firmer stand at the time would have assisted with more appropriate disclosure being made by HIH. What was the rationale for Arthur Andersen signing off on similar reinsurance contracts in HIH at 30 June 1999 which generated a similar bottom line impact? The reinsurance transactions were realistically only entered into in order to allow profit in the June 1999 year to be boosted and the cost of the FAI induced deterioration deferred into future periods. Arthur Andersen allowed the transaction to be accounted in a manner which was, with hindsight, clearly inappropriate.The accounting for the reinsurance contracts worked along the lines that HIH held discounted booked claims reserves, a reinsurance contract was written which provided cover and excess arrangements, and a premium was paid for the cover. As the recovery from the reinsurer would not be for many years, the arrangement was for the reinsurer to invest the funds with the expectation that they would grow by the time the claims were due for payment. The discounted benefit of the recovery from the reinsurer is calculated using a rate that generates, in this case, a recovery of $260 million. So a profit of $60 million could then be booked on that contract.We also had a situation where the extent of actuarial work undertaken by Arthur Andersen on the adequacy of claims reserves booked by HIH was very limited. There was minimal reliance on the official HIH actuary, David Slee. Having effectively disregarded David Slee, the alternative approach used by Arthur Andersen was very limited. I have been told that it mainly relied on the audit manager, Jon Pye, reviewing triangulations with Dominic Fodera. I further understand that Mr Fodera has mentored Mr Pye throughout his career and that Mr Fodera provided a reference for his promotion to partner in mid-1999 as the June 1999 accounts were being audited. So the relationship between HIH personnel and Arthur Andersen personnel was simply too close and too cosy, and the level of general insurance experience of the Arthur Andersen audit staff was limited except at the senior manager level. There is a range of matters which the royal commission into HIH needs to investigate. I have outlined some of them. No doubt others will come to light in due course.10:42:0030625Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Royal Commissions and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. The guts of this legislation is to expand the power of royal commissions to gain access to information from other agencies and to be able to cross-reference data that at the moment may not be available to them. In doing so, it will allow royal commissions to more fully investigate the matters that are the subject of their inquiries. It is on the public record that we support the principle of this legislation in trying to provide access to that information to assist the work of royal commissions.Today I want to make some comments in relation to a shocking industrial dispute which has gone on for some time in my electoral district. I am talking about the G & K O'Connor meatworks dispute at Pakenham, in the western end of my electorate. This is no small dispute. It is a substantial industrial dispute which warrants proper investigation of the sort that royal commissions are supposed to do. That is the reason I mention it in the context of this debate. What has taken place at G & K O'Connor meatworks at Pakenham is one of the most appalling series of actions by an employer in the history of our country. We have seen a company engage in conspiracies, in illegal actions and in the sort of behaviour you would expect to see from a criminal agency, not from an employer and a company in this country. The company wanted to reduce the pay of their workers by an average of 17 per cent. In order to achieve that end, they involved themselves in a series of criminal activities, including the employment of what were essentially hired thugs to engage in a conspiracy to try and convince workers at the meatworks to engage in illegal and criminal activities themselves. As honourable members would be aware, this matter was a feature of an inquiry which was organised by the Sunday program on Channel 9 some months ago. It was very interesting to see what people involved with the company had to say when confronted with these allegations. In particular, I remember the proprietor of G & K O'Connor being asked a series of questions in relation to his knowledge of some of the shady characters involved in the intimidation and the attempts to coerce workers into illegal activities. It became very apparent very quickly that the proprietor of G & K O'Connor meatworks was involved in this right up to his eyeballs. He was involved in this deliberate conspiracy and this deliberate act of criminality to try to undermine those workers in his employ.That really is shameful conduct. It is not the sort of conduct which we would ever want to see encouraged, and it is not the sort of conduct which any government should go out of its way to promote. Yet the previous Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, the member for Flinders, said that he supports what G & K O'Connor meatworks has attempted to do. When it comes down to his political philosophy, with his hand on his heart he said that this was just an ordinary small business trying to get on with being a small business and doing well. If a minister of the Crown in this government thinks involving hired thugs to try to entrap workers and to convince workers to involve themselves in illegal activities—such as acts of theft from a company— in order to get them sacked is a fundamental tenet of small business and that is what typical small business people do, then he is sadly mistaken and completely out of touch with the realities of small business and the attitude of people in our community towards these types of actions.G & K O'Connor meatworks have entered into shameful conduct—there are no two ways about it—and that is not just my view. This matter has been before the Federal Court on numerous occasions and, as has already been mentioned by the shadow minister for industrial relations and member for Brisbane, Arch Bevis, this lockout, this industrial situation engineered by the proprietors of G & K O'Connor, actually is the longest lockout in Australia since the Great Depression in the 1930s. That is amazing, given the enormous difference between the circumstances in the Great Depression and the circumstances which Australia finds itself in as a nation right now.This lockout went on for nine months and it has been before the Federal Court, so what did the Federal Court say? Justice Spender of the Federal Court said that this lockout was a `baseball bat lockout', and he invoked the name of Pinkertons Inc. to describe the type of conduct which G & K O'Connor had involved themselves in. I think most people in this House would know a little about Pinkertons Inc., but I might say a few words about them for the benefit of those people listening to this broadcast.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! I indicate to the honourable member for McMillan that, if he is going to describe the relevance of Pinkertons to the legislation, it would be very helpful to the charitable decision of the chair if he remembered standing order 81 in his contribution. I would ask the honourable member to couch his debate and argument in terms of the motion before the chair and therefore the legislation before the chair. 84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am always appreciative of your charity. The relevance of Pinkertons Inc. to the debate which we are having is that Pinkertons Inc. was a company which was involved in essentially union busting activity in the United States. That has some relevance to this debate we are involved in, because one of the royal commissions which we are giving consideration to is the royal commission into the construction industry, where allegations have been made of freedom of association rules and regulations being breached and where fundamental tenets of the right to organise or the right to freedom of association for employees choosing not to be in unions have been called to question. So that is the relevance and why I mentioned Pinkertons. I think it is especially significant in the context of the G & K O'Connor dispute, where a justice of the Federal Court has made reference in his remarks to the type of behaviour involved at G & K O'Connor meatworks being similar in conduct to that behaviour which—EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I do not raise this point of order lightly because I appreciate that the member opposite feels very strongly about this. But I do think it would assist the House if he wants to make these sorts of statements that he do it in the adjournment or some other appropriate forum.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—On the point of order: the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business may not have actually heard the minister who introduced the bill, the Minister for Defence. If he reads the second reading speech, he will see that the minister, in introducing the bill, spoke about both the HIH inquiry and the royal commission inquiry into the construction industry. It was indeed the minister in introducing the bill who made this germane to the bill, and the contribution of the member is totally in order.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Further to the point of order: if the member for McMillan wishes to talk about the royal commission into the construction industry, I accept that that would be perfectly in order. But he does not want to talk about that. He wants to talk about the G & K O'Connor dispute and he wants to go into a lot of detail on that point. I do not think it is appropriate to this particular debate.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Batman is not assisting the chair. I gave some guidance earlier to the honourable member for McMillan about his obligations under standing order 81. If he would couch his contribution in such a way as to be relevant to the question before us, it would be helpful to the smooth operation of this chamber.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am always happy to take your advice; I am not at all happy to take any advice from the minister for workplace relations. It is relevant to talk about the G & K O'Connor dispute because it is a significant dispute and the sort of dispute which should be, in my view, subject to a royal commission. The types of activities which were engaged in by the company should be subject to the types of inquiry that the powers of a royal commission would provide. I do not intend to go into any more detail in relation to the G & K O'Connor dispute. Suffice to say there has been shameless conduct on behalf of the proprietor of that company, and that will all come out. The role of the minister for workplace relations at that time, the member for Flinders, will be revealed—there are no two ways about that—but right now I need to talk a little bit more about the construction industry, because the one of the royal commissions that we are talking about specifically relates to the construction industry. I want to say at the outset that I know a little bit about the construction industry because my father was a building worker. He is retired now. For many years my father worked on building sites mostly around the Latrobe Valley, and as a young fellow I spent a bit of time with my dad. Having had that little bit of experience of the construction industry as a young boy, and subsequently as a member of parliament and during my life, I know that the construction industry is a tough industry. It is the sort of industry where you need good occupational health and safety and a good union to make sure that occupational health and safety regulations are enforced. Things can get out of hand very quickly on construction sites. When things do get out of hand very quickly, it is not a case of giving yourself a paper cut or having to sit down and rest your legs a little while. If things get out of hand on a building site, workers' lives are lost or permanent injuries are sustained. That is the reason why we have strong unions in the construction industry: because historically too many lives were lost in that industry. Members opposite might have a hard time understanding that, but those people who risk their lives regularly on building sites understand full well why it is so important that we have strong occupational health and safety regimes and strong unions on building sites to make sure that people are not put at risk, lives are not lost and permanent injuries are not incurred by workers on those building sites.When we are talking about these things, we are not talking about statistics. We are not talking about the number of hours lost in terms of down time on building sites; we are talking about people. We are talking about workers who have wives and children. We have to take into consideration the human effect that occupational health and safety can have on families and on the lives of those people who make up the work force on construction sites. It might be that people on the other side find it very hard to understand what we are talking about when we speak about these things, but those of us who have had some exposure to the industry—and in particular in my electoral district we have long had a large number of construction workers resident in the Latrobe Valley— understand why we have these types of occupational health and safety and strong union regimes in place on construction industry sites.These things did not develop by accident; these things did not develop for no reason. The gains that have been made in occupational health and safety in the construction industry have all been made not because of some broad concept of progress but because of workers' hard work, dedication, commitment and being prepared to take action, and because of the courage which has been shown by trade union leaders in getting better conditions and safer workplaces for their members. So the construction industry is not to be treated lightly, and people in this place need to understand that we have strong unions and occupational health and safety regimes in the industry because we need to have those to keep those workplaces safe, to keep the workers who are employed there safe and to make sure that their families do not get a telephone call from the work site telling them that their old man or husband has died. That is the one thing that has been lacking in all of this debate on a royal commission into the construction industry.In my view this has been little more than a political exercise put in place by the minister to try to gain some sort of political advantage from embarrassing some people involved in the construction industry over the nature of their relationships. I would say to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who is at the table, that there are probably better things that he could be involved in. There are probably more important pieces of legislation which he could be bringing into this House to try to make sure that the lives of the workers of this country are improved and that we see some gain, some benefit, from the legislative activities of this parliament, rather than just seeing this parliament used as some sort of political instrument for one side of politics to gain an advantage over the other.A royal commission of this type into the construction industry is no new thing, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins. I know that you have been around for many years and would be very familiar with the history of royal commissions into certain industries which often have a completely unintended impact on the people who start these inquiries. The minister at the table would be well advised to consider the recent experience of governments which initiate royal commissions with a view to getting some sort of political advantage out of them and then end up suffering political damage themself as a result of the findings of the royal commissions. I instance in particular the royal commission into the painters and dockers union, which exposed the shameful bottom of the harbour tax rorts which were put into place or arranged by the big end of town and had nothing to do with the painters and dockers union or their operation. That was the outcome, and the minister at the table would be well advised to get out the history books, have a bit of a look into it and make sure he understands exactly what he is getting himself into. The Labor Party have said that we will be having an inquiry into what went on at G & K O'Connor meatworks. We will be having an inquiry into what has taken place there because we are concerned about the families, the 300-odd people at G & K O'Connor meatworks who were locked out of their workplace and had to endure no wages, no salaries, no support, for nine months. We are concerned about what has happened to them. All sorts of tragic circumstances have come out of that shocking industrial dispute. We have seen people lose their houses; we have seen people lose their cars; we have seen people's marriages disintegrate. We have seen enormous strife in people's families, created directly as a result of the actions taken by G & K O'Connor meatworks. And that action taken by the meatworks was taken with the support and encouragement of the then minister for workplace relations and employment, the member for Flinders, which I think is really shameful conduct on his part as well.I noted the other day that the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, the member for O'Connor, had said that he would be looking at ways in which the terms of reference of the royal commission into the construction industry could be extended to include the forestry industry. It struck me as a bizarre thing and then I realised that what was going to happen here was that we were going to see a steady progression in terms of the industries to be investigated by the royal commission established by this government, based on whether they are constituent units of the CFMEU. The government started off with a royal commission into the construction industry—that is the `C' in the CFMEU—and now Wilson Tuckey, the member for O'Connor, is talking about extending the royal commission into forestry—so that is the `F' in the CFMEU. Probably next week they will announce that they are going to have a royal commission into the mining industry as well—so that is the `M'. Then they will finally get around to the energy industry and that will complete what has been, I think, a fairly shameful exercise entered into by this government. There is no doubt that the royal commission into the construction industry is just a political exercise put into place by this minister. He sees himself as Brother Torquemada of the industry. He sees himself as a royal commissioner and, whilst I would accept that there are quite a few similarities between the minister and Brother Torquemada—(Time expired)11:02:0030629McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition supports the purpose of the Royal Commissions and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. We say that the steps are appropriate. We note, for instance, that section 6P of the Royal Commissions Act already enables royal commissions to exchange information with a number of law enforcement agencies, including state and federal agencies and including, for instance, the director of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. That is already in the existing legislation and we agree with the government. Indeed, I should say that, when the HIH royal commission was established, we looked at some of these issues ourselves and believed that it was necessary in particular to ensure that there was the facility for the transfer of information between the royal commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The government has also suggested that that exchange is necessary in respect of AUSTRAC, the agency that tracks the movement of suspicious transactions to and from Australia under the Financial Transaction Reports Act. We agree that that exchange of information is appropriate. Indeed, as we have seen, one of the reasons why the government resisted opposition calls for the establishment of the HIH royal commission was that the government argued that the matters could be properly investigated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. We expressed our concerns regarding the adequacy of that approach and it was not, we recall, until a controversy arose in respect of the fact that the chairman of ASIC, Mr David Knott, was also on the board of APRA, the body whose task it was to regulate and oversee the insurance industry, that action was taken. The Prime Minister has indicated, for instance as quoted in the Australian on 22 May 2001, as acknowledging that perceived conflict of interest as being at least one of the reasons for the government's decision to establish the HIH royal commission. We say that the establishment of the commission came too late but, nonetheless, we welcome the fact that it has been established. Some points that I will make shortly will be in respect of the adequacy of the existing terms of reference. There is no doubt that HIH has been, and will be as it pans out, the biggest corporate collapse in Australia's history. Just to give an indication of the currency of the issue, I will read some headlines. The Australian of Tuesday of this week said: `HIH losses could top $5 billion'. The Financial Review reported the same thing, the Sydney Morning Herald said: `HIH black hole now $1 billion bigger'—not million dollars but billion dollars—and in the Financial Review there was an article expressing concern that HIH creditors faced a two-year wait for interim payments. That is something of great concern to the Australian economy. A dramatically wide class of persons will be affected. We see in the recent report of the liquidator the report of a $5 billion shortfall between the assets of the company and any liabilities that may be recovered, and thus a very small amount of money being allocated to assist people who will suffer the fallout. We have, for instance, the Commonwealth, which we acknowledged and supported at the time, assisting with $640 million of Commonwealth money to primary policy holders, I think it is fair to say. Also, there was assistance from New South Wales of $600 million and from Queensland of $230 million. Roughly $1.5 billion, a shortfall of $5 billion, was taken out of the community. We are looking, on any measure, at about $3.5 billion being lost to the Australian economy. That is a substantial amount of money that has been sucked out of it, in circumstances— as I indicated in one of the earlier headlines—where there is likely to in any event be a two-year wait to recover even that money which is recoverable. This is a significant hit to the Australian economy. There will be considerable fallout. While I indicated that the rescue package will be of assistance to some policyholders, there will be many, including those in the business community, who will miss out and who do not yet know the circumstances where they could be hit by the HIH collapse.For instance, if a local shopkeeper had public risk insurance with HIH and a customer slipped over on the way out on the traditional grape, injuring their back, and they have not as yet presented a claim, that shopkeeper could find themself meeting a very substantial debt without coverage from HIH. The shopkeeper could be forced to meet legal fees, court costs and ultimately a damages verdict by the person who suffered injury. As we know, depending on the severity of the injury, that can be very substantial indeed. It is not uncommon, in cases of back injuries in Australia these days, to get well and truly over $100,000. That example indicates we have not yet received the full fallout of the HIH collapse. In those circumstances, a local corner store would not be able to sustain that sort of obligation. They would most probably go out of business and there would be unemployment consequences for their staff.I have given one example, but obviously there is any range of circumstances that could apply where public risk insurance was relevant. Equally—although the public perhaps does not have as much sympathy for the professional class—lawyers and accountants tended to have insurance through HIH. They also could well face professional liability claims in periods where they were not insured. The full consequences are yet to pan out and confront us. There is no doubt it is going to have—and reports of the media are that it is already having—a significant consequence in terms of the fallout in the Australian community. The point that I want to make, however, in terms of that drastic consequence—and it will be a drastic consequence for many in the Australian community; small businesses in particular will suffer greatly because of the collapse—is that there have been calls for greater regulation of the insurance industry. I noticed today, for instance, in the Sydney Morning Herald on page 2 an article by Toni O'Loughlin reporting on a Reserve Bank of Australia report that there needs to be tighter regulation. Minister Hockey said his General Insurance Reform Bill 2001 that was passed through the parliament yesterday will address the problems of the industry. He is quoted as saying:This bill will help restore public confidence in an industry whose image has been tarnished by the collapse of HIH.The minister has had a legislative response, but he still has a number of questions outstanding regarding the whole HIH episode and the regulation of the insurance industry. Regrettably, the minister just has not addressed those concerns—for instance, issues regarding the staffing of APRA, the ratios of liabilities to assets of insurance companies, generally what the minister was advised regarding the capacity of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and what APRA may have advised him was their capacity with the staffing arrangements that they had to supervise the intricacies of the insurance industry. I refer to a number of questions that I have on the Notice Paper— questions Nos 2756 through to 2764—which the minister is yet to answer. I look forward to receiving the minister's reply.In terms of that issue of restoring confidence in an industry whose reputation has been `tarnished', according to the quote of the minister, there is no doubt that public confidence in the industry and in the proper, objective, fair administration of this sector has been tarnished by the perception that substantial political donations from HIH may have influenced the consideration that they obtained from the executive arm of government—whether it be APRA, the department or the minister's office. I understand that those allegations will be vigorously denied, but the point I am making is that there is a public perception that that may have been the case.The public perception that that may have been the case is as concerning as the actuality. I refer, for instance, to a series of headlines that have appeared in newspapers: the Sun-Herald of 20 May 2001 stated, `Party cash in link to gong,' which referred to the HIH founder, Ray Williams, receiving an Australia Day honour in circumstances where HIH had contributed to the Free Enterprise Foundation. There was reference in that article to the contribution by HIH of some $696,000 over the years to the Liberal Party. I acknowledge that the minister says that that did not influence their treatment, according to law. But, nonetheless, there is a substantial question that needs to be answered. The Sunday Mail on 20 May 2001 reported that:Australian Electoral Commission records show HIH Insurance also handed over almost $800,000 directly to the Liberal Party from 1996 to 1999.So there is a substantial issue: did the treatment of HIH, which will result in a massive fallout in the economy, occur? Or did the lack of scrutiny—which I think people generally accept was the case—at least in part, result from preferential treatment because of political donations? I state that as a question rather than as an assertion to make the point that the perception that that may be the case is an issue that needs to be addressed. The minister says that restoring public confidence is necessary, as quoted in the paper today. One of the terms of reference of the HIH royal commission needs to be a consideration of whether the scrutiny of the affairs of the HIH group of companies, and/or the accountability of the HIH group of companies, was affected by the substantial political contributions they made. No company gives $800,000 without an expectation of some benefit, and that is something the public needs to have considered so that they can possibly be reassured. Possibly some recommendations from a royal commission as to particular circumstances in respect of industry players in the insurance and financial sector are something that the government really needs to address. I turn now to the other topical issue: that is, the royal commission into the building industry. The shadow minister for industrial relations in his contribution last night went through our concerns. We are looking at this issue in the context of the government's recently introduced legislation on industrial organisations, specifically in respect of the fiduciary obligations, the duty of good faith, of officials of unions and their internal accounting procedures and the like. It is my recollection that we supported much of this legislation. So that is one issue that goes to the systems question—that is, the regulation of the accounting arrangements and the accountability of officers being addressed by legislation. So one wonders what further contribution a royal commission could make in that context.The government's justification for the establishment of a royal commission, which is going to involve considerable expense, relied on a report from the Employment Advocate. I am not going to comment on any previous involvement in political controversies by the Employment Advocate but one wonders automatically, when such a report to government occurs, why the Employment Advocate simply did not refer the material he had obtained—which presumably he did obtain in order to formulate his report to the government—to law enforcement agencies. There are instances where royal commissions can be necessary if it is believed that the resources of the police force and other law enforcement agencies are not adequate to get to the bottom of the factual circumstances that constitute widespread criminal activity. There is no doubt that has been the primary reason that royal commissions have been established in the past.In respect of the building industry, it is the Labor Party's view that, if there is criminal activity in building unions and companies or among contractors—whether that be collusive tendering, standover tactics as to who does or who does not use a particular contractor, tax avoidance strategies, avoiding workers' compensation responsibilities or individual criminal conduct by trade union officials—whoever is involved in that should be accountable. If they have committed a crime they should suffer the penalty, even if that means imprisonment. The position of the Labor Party is absolutely uncompromising on that. But I think it is fair to say that the further away a prosecution is from the events that are the subject of the criminal conduct the less likelihood there is of a prosecution.So one says to oneself, `What additional information will a royal commission extract about the criminal activity alleged by the Employment Advocate?' The circumstances in which this information came to light was in the context of an internal ballot within the CFMEU, the relevant union. My observations from media reports were that both sides of the primary contenders in that election were more than happy to make allegations against the other. It was not a situation where there was an inability to obtain information; information was free flowing. It was not a situation where there was a reluctance by witnesses to come forward. Witnesses were coming forward all over the place and were freely available for law enforcement authorities to interview. So one has to ask oneself what benefits are going to be obtained from engaging the resources of the public in an enterprise—namely, a royal commission— which is expensive and time consuming.We note that the terms of reference of the royal commission are very much slanted towards internal employer-employee matters and matters with respect to the relationship between the trade union and its members. They are issues that the government says need to be addressed. But what about, for instance, the other issues that were considered and reported on by the Gyles royal commission into productivity in the building industry in New South Wales—matters such as collusive tendering and standover tactics applied in terms of forcing building companies to use particular contractors for demolition work, excavation work and the like simply to purchase equipment? It appears to me that nothing in the terms of reference will enable a royal commissioner to investigate those broader matters; nor will he be able to investigate, for instance, a significant trend in the building industry to avoid taxation obligations by the establishment of contracting arrangements. In that context, you have to ask yourself how fair dinkum the government is in establishing this royal commission into the building industry. If you look at the proximity of this issue to the election, you see that here is another wedge. The government believes that trade unionists are some sort of subclass which exist in society and that you should give them a whack when you are able to, and it perceives that a bit of division in the community is a good thing from the point of view of their electoral prospects. So the royal commission into the building industry must be looked at as another example in that series of things that we have had in terms of hitting these wedges wherever the government see ones to fracture and fragment the Australian community, instead of showing leadership, solutions and outcomes—namely, the prosecution of criminals who may be involved in the activity that has been publicly alleged.Royal commissions are interesting creatures. They are literally an exercise in executive power to establish inquiries to advise the executive branch of government on particular policies that should be implemented to address issues that they have identified or, indeed, to refer—as this bill will do—matters to relevant law enforcement agencies for prosecutions to occur. In the course of exercising their powers, the royal commissions have the ability to compel people to produce documents and to compel witnesses. But High Court authorities have said that those powers of compulsion exist only with respect to areas where there is a federal head of power under our Constitution. I have had a look through the terms of reference for the royal commission into the building industry, and I am not entirely sure that all the terms of reference do so relate to a federal head of power, and I flag that as a issue which I do not think the government has fully considered. Although I have not recently checked, it is my recollection that in question time the Prime Minister said with respect to the HIH royal commission that he would welcome reference to either terms of reference or power—I just cannot recall precisely now— from state parliaments with respect to matters relating to the conduct of the HIH group of companies within the state systems. That call by the Prime Minister was sensible and appropriate. If there are issues that require further examination, and there is a limitation on power to establish broad terms of reference for the HIH royal commission to look into these state related matters, such references are appropriate. Indeed, I note that section 7AA of the Royal Commissions Act enables that to occur. It enables the governor of a state or a minister of a state to refer functions or powers to the federal royal commission. I recognise that that is an appropriate section; however, I again flag for the government that this is an area of state and federal cooperation that is still vexed and with many complexities. In particular, following the judgment of the High Court of Australia in the Hughes case, there is a question as to whether that section is valid. I think it is at least arguable that, even if the section is valid—which is questionable—a state legislature may be unable to refer state functions or powers to the royal commission unless those state powers or functions, so referred, themselves constitute a federal head of power. That is of great concern and it needs to be addressed.Earlier in the year the government introduced, with our full support, measures to overcome this sort of issue in respect of the Corporations Law. We said at the time, and I repeat, that these issues of the fragmentation of the ability of states to refer powers to the federal government where there is an absence of a federal head of power go much broader than simply the Corporations Law area. It applies to administrative review decisions; to the trade practices area, for instance to the enforcement of the Price Exploitation Code; to gas pipelines; and to the regulation of a number of agricultural products, in particular to developing genetically modified products. It even applies to state and federal sport drug law enforcement. There is a wide range of matters where it applies. Indeed, in the Hughes case, Justice Kirby set out a number of specific sections in a wide range of statutes where this sort of problem arose. Once again, I stress to the government that the solution to this federal-state division under our Constitution has not been resolved. It has been partially resolved in the Corporations Law for a short period, but much more work needs to be done. This is a further example of a significant issue meaning a loss of about $5 billion in our economy where it may not be able to be properly addressed because of this state-federal dichotomy. Again, I take this opportunity to say to the government: whoever is in power after the next election, this is an area that requires a lot of work.11:31:0030634Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I am summing up Royal Commissions and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 in the absence of my distinguished colleague the Minister for Defence, who introduced it. He has other matters on his plate this morning. I thank members who have contributed to the debate in the course of the second reading. I observe that most of the contributions from members opposite have not been, strictly speaking, on the substance of this bill. They have taken the opportunity provided by this debate to make various comments about the HIH issue, about various matters in the construction industry, about what they see as the government's bad attitude towards certain trade unions, and so on. I am not going to go into that. Obviously I take issue with much of it, but I accept that in the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate it is fair enough to take whatever opportunity you can to make a political point. I will simply reiterate what this bill does. First, it makes sure that royal commissions can report possible breaches of the law to the relevant responsible authorities. Royal commissions can already report information about possible criminal offences, and this bill will let them report information about other breaches of the law, such as taxation and Corporations Law, which attract civil and administrative penalties. Second, this bill gives royal commissions easier access to information from ASIC. Other agencies already have such information, including state and territory royal commissions, and this will give Commonwealth royal commissions the same benefits. Third, the bill gives royal commissions examining unlawful conduct access to financial transactions reports and information reported to AUSTRAC. Again, other agencies can use this information; Commonwealth royal commissions should be able to too. Finally, the bill will take account of self-government in the ACT by allowing royal commissions to provide information to the Attorney-General of the ACT along with other attorneys-general around Australia. It is important to make it easier for royal commissions to fulfil the tasks assigned to them. This government does not lightly set up royal commissions. We have set up only two in the last 5½ years. They are very important exercises. These two royal commissions are dealing with very important subjects, and they should have these additional powers to enable them to do their work properly.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 30634Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott) read a third time.Bills30634R140530634Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.3063411:36:0030634Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill implements a number of important announced government measures.As announced in the recent budget, the government will provide capital gains tax relief for shareholders in listed investment companies. In particular, this bill will amend the income tax law to provide shareholders in listed investment companies with the benefit of the capital gains tax (CGT) discount on certain capital gains made by these companies. The government is introducing this measure to remove a tax distortion in indirect investment choices for investors, and to allow these shareholders the benefits of the CGT discount. The amendments apply to eligible gains made by listed investment companies on or after 1 July 2001.Following the recommendations of the Ralph Review of Business Taxation, in 2000 the government legislated provisions to deal with the alienation of personal services income. The legislation is directed at people who earn income as individuals but who claim to be businesses so as to avoid paying income tax at individual rates. It does not affect people who are genuinely in business. Obviously it is not fair to wage and salary earners if people who earn their income as individuals do not have to pay tax at individual rates just because they have entered some artificial device.The bill contains important improvements to the measure which will reduce compliance costs for taxpayers. In particular, the bill will modify the way the law applies to certain agents and will provide that all taxpayers earning personal services income will be able to self-assess whether they are independent contractors against the results test. If the results test is passed, then they are not affected by the alienation measure. The results test is based on the traditional tests for independent contractors and is passed where someone is paid to produce a specific result, provides their own tools of trade if required and is liable for the repair of defective work.Taxpayers will also be able to apply to the commissioner for a personal services business determination, regardless of how much of their personal services income comes from one source. This will help taxpayers who want greater certainty about their status.The bill also includes provisions associated with the financial collapse of the HIH group of companies. As a consequence of the financial collapse of the HIH group of companies, the Commonwealth has established a scheme to assist certain qualifying individuals and small businesses who experience financial hardship as a direct result of the collapse. This bill contains measures to ensure that there are no unintended income tax or GST consequences arising from transactions occurring as a result of the HIH rescue package.Other amendments to this bill include amendments to the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987 to remove the uncertainty surrounding the determination of a price for gas produced in integrated gas to liquid projects.A new methodology will be used to determine the price of gas. This methodology will only be used when there is no comparable price for the gas and when there is not a sale of gas at the petrol resources rent tax taxing point. This measure is the result of extensive consultation with industry.The bill will also amend the five-year rule which applies to classify expenditures for the purpose of calculating PRRT liability.Schedule 2 to this bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to extend income tax exemption to businesses that are owned or controlled at the local government level. The amendment ensures that, where an income tax exempt municipal corporation or local governing body owns or controls a business, that business is also exempt from income tax.The exemption supports the national competition policy, which is designed to improve the efficiency and service delivery of businesses at the local government level, and will apply to income derived after 30 June last year.Finally, schedule 3 of the bill amends the residency rules for superannuation funds to allow funds, in particular self-managed superannuation funds, to retain their residency status while their trustees are temporarily overseas for up to two years. This adds necessary clarity to the law in this area and is a sensible reform which will benefit self-managed funds in particular.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned. Bills30636R137530636Debate resumed from 9 August, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.11:41:0030636Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The Trade Practices Amendment (Telecommunications) Bill 2001 seeks to make amendments to the telecommunications access regime contained in the Trade Practices Act 1974. In particular, the bill seeks to streamline the telecommunications access regime by: (a) providing greater access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms; (b) allowing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to determine pricing principles to help guide further arbitrations; (c) allowing the ACCC to backdate access determinations to the date negotiations commenced; (d) allowing the ACCC to require the joinder of parties to form multilateral arbitrations; (e) providing for enhanced sharing of information between arbitrations; (f) allowing for publication of the results of arbitrations; (g) allowing a single ACCC commissioner to conduct arbitrations; (h) restricting the circumstances in which parties can unilaterally withdraw from an arbitration to help prevent regulatory game playing; (i) allowing the ACCC to make interim determinations over the objections of an access seeker; (j) limiting the evidence available on appeals to the Australian Competition Tribunal, the ACT, generally to that available to the ACCC; and (k) removing the right to stay a decision of the Australian Competition Tribunal.Various industry participants have already proposed some minor technical amendments to the bill. The Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee will examine the proposed amendments as part of an inquiry into the bill requested by the Australian Democrats. I look forward to the outcome of that inquiry.Labor supports the need for a more competitive telecommunications market. Labor has a proud history of supporting greater competition in the Australian telecommunications market. Labor introduced competition in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Labor also supported the introduction of greater competition in 1997. The legislation was in fact largely the product of the previous Labor communications minister, the Hon. Michael Lee MP, the member for Dobell.Further, on my recommendation, Labor in August last year amended its national platform to reflect its support for a more competitive telecommunications industry. I repeated that theme in a speech I gave to the Australian Telecommunications Users Group's NOW2001 conference in May this year. In that speech I committed Labor to using the Productivity Commission's report on the telecommunications specific competition regime as a vehicle for reform to achieve more effective competition. Accordingly, Labor welcomes these amendments as a limited and belated response to problems evident with the telecommunications access regime since at least January 1999, the last occasion a parliamentary committee considered the regime.I also welcome the government's apparent willingness to consider further reforms once the Productivity Commission has completed its inquiry into the telecommunications competition regime. The report is, I am advised, due to be handed to the government on or before 22 September this year. However, this recent activity by the government cannot hide years of mismanagement in this area. Senator Alston in particular has been asleep at the wheel.I first drew attention to the problem of delay in the competitive regime back in January 1999, when I joined many in the industry expressing concern about the 14 months taken by the ACCC to investigate Telstra's interconnection fee. Delays in the performance of the regulatory regime were apparent from the evidence given to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee in its consideration of the government's 1998 Telstra privatisation legislative proposals. While government senators accepted the ACCC's evidence that these delays were merely a product of the system being new, Labor senators, foreseeing more pervasive concerns, called on the government to: ... urgently pursue a comprehensive public review of the competitive regime and make further amendments to the regime where appropriate.Regrettably, the government ignored Labor's call.The government also failed to have an inquiry, despite the findings of the annual telecommunications prices benchmark studies of the Productivity Commission in March and December 1999 and of the NUS, the National University of Singapore, in April 1999 and 2000. These studies demonstrated both that Australians were paying higher prices by international standards and that not enough was being done to pass on the benefits of competition to consumers. These findings were confirmed by a recent major study that showed that carriers had tripled their operating profit margins, from 7.1 per cent before the government's regime started in 1997 to 21.5 per cent in the 1998-99 financial year.The government even ignored its own Australian Information Economic Advisory Council, AIEAC, whose April 2000 National bandwidth inquiry report included, among other things, that:Evidence suggests that there are problems with making data services available in a timely and affordable manner in practice, particularly outside the central business districts of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane;Backbone bandwidth capacity ownership is highly concentrated. This market concentration may limit the amount of capacity that is actually supplied to the market through active or passive `rationing' of that capacity by its owners;Australian prices for leased lines and switched data services appear to be generally higher than prices for comparable services in comparable markets in the United States and Europe ...Ominously, the report found that:... there is a risk that Australia's ultimate performance in the global information economy will be adversely affected—if these issues are not addressed quickly.Finally, in June last year, almost 18 months after Labor had first called for an urgent review of the competition regime, the government acted by instigating the current Productivity Commission inquiry. Senator Alston is now desperately rushing around pretending that he has been active on this issue; regrettably, he has not been. Rather, his recent attempts to cover up years of neglect have shown that only now is he beginning to understand the problems that that neglect has caused.While having initially proposed only very limited reforms in his speech to ATUG in May this year, Senator Alston was forced to change tack following a meeting with senior industry representatives later that month. The amendments we are now debating are in keeping with the outcome of that meeting. In a similar vein, I have previously welcomed the government's decision to provide the additional funding to the ACCC in this year's budget, though that funding came almost four years too late. These funds were needed when the competitive regime was introduced in 1997.Regrettably, the government's policy failure continues to adversely affect both the industry and Australian consumers. In recent weeks, both AAPT and the Optus chief executive officer, Chris Anderson, have warned that, unless these competitive issues are addressed, Australia could face more One.Tels and, as Mr Anderson put it, a `remonopolisation' of the Australian market.ACCC chairman Allan Fels stated last week that Telstra's decision to further increase its line rentals by a staggering 71 per cent over the last 18 months, costing the average consumer an extra $99 per year, is a direct product of the failure in the competitive market. And for five years we have made no progress on the digitalisation of Australia's cable networks, in part because, up until now, the government has not realised there was a problem. Frankly, that is just not good enough. For too long, the government has dropped the ball on this issue, focusing instead on its ideological obsession with the full privatisation of Telstra at the expense of ensuring effective competition to the benefit of Australian consumers. If this government will not act in a timely manner, then for the sake of Australian consumers and the industry it is about time we had a Beazley Labor government that will. In May this year, I flagged to the industry additional reforms that were needed to help ensure more effective competition in the Australian telecommunications market. Regrettably, the government has adopted only some of these reforms in the legislation we are debating today. The government has supported my call for: the removal of opportunities for regulatory game play by allowing the ACCC to make an interim declaration over the objection of an access seeker and by allowing notifications to be withdrawn only with the consent of both the access seeker and the access provider; simplification of processes by allowing class action access disputes and through greater sharing of information and methodology relevant to access disputes; and constraining the regulatory burden by not extending merits reviews to declarations or interim declarations, with the exception of a case where the ACCC rejects a declaration and a party wishes to contest that rejection.However, there are other amendments that Labor believes the government should have considered and included in this legislation. These include: greater recognition of the need to promote innovation in Australian telecommunications by broadening the objects clause of part XIC to recognise the need to promote overall economic efficiency by encouraging the efficient use of, and investment in, essential infrastructure services; more regulatory certainty by clarifying which services may be declared and by providing reasonable sunset periods for declaration of bottleneck services—ensuring the timely review of decisions to require access to key telecommunications services; and the removal of ineffectual processes that have only served to frustrate and delay the resolution of access disputes by abolishing the Telecommunications Access Forum, or TAF as it is known in the trade.Labor also believes that the ACCC may need to be given enhanced powers to drive the negotiate-arbitrate process through more timely and better structured time frames. Labor is also concerned that the government has yet to take sufficiently into account the differing nature of competition across Australia, particularly in rural and regional markets. The relationship between effective competition in these markets and other regulatory and policy initiatives available to the government does require much more careful consideration than is reflected in the Productivity Commission's draft report. This point is made strongly in even the government's own Besley inquiry report. This is symptomatic of the government's approach to regional telecommunications, which has shown a lack of coordination and concerted effort. This has been an inevitable product of the government's ideological obsession with the full privatisation of Telstra. The government has a plan to try and save its political skin by fully privatising Telstra on the quiet in the next parliament, but not a plan for regional communications.Greater consideration also needs to be given to enhancing the ACCC's powers to determine basic terms and conditions on which competition should occur. That said, Labor has also specifically rejected a number of the Productivity Commission's draft recommendations. Unlike the Productivity Commission, Labor does not believe that in most areas competition in the telecommunications industry has developed to the point that justifies the removal of the telecommunications specific competition regime. Generally, the industry is not mature enough to rely simply on traditional restraints on abuse of market power. This is particularly important given the complexity and dynamic nature of the modern Australian communications industry. Frankly, Telstra still has a near monopoly over the local loop or last mile and has great potential to use its considerable market dominance.Labor also opposes the Productivity Commission's recommendations to remove the discretion for ministerial pricing determination and to remove retail price controls. Implementation of these recommendations would see the end of untimed local calls and inequitable pricing of telecommunications services across outer metropolitan and regional Australia. These measures would seriously disadvantage those Australians with the greatest dependence on communications services: pensioners, the elderly, families, people with a disability and those living in rural, regional and remote Australia. Further consideration also needs to be given to the Productivity Commission's suggestion of access holidays and whether they may be a useful mechanism to overcome regulatory barriers to investment. In particular, Labor is interested in discussing with the industry whether an access holiday could be appropriately used as a tactical device to ensure that Telstra and Optus digitise their cables as open access networks. In this regard, I welcome the minister's recent preparedness to consider this issue. However, some confusion has arisen among a number of industry participants because the minister did not initially rule out the use of such a device to restrict access to these important networks rather than to achieve the strategic objectives of open access on these digital platforms.I hope that the minister will take advantage of the present debate to join Labor in ruling out such an anticompetitive arrangement. This would enable debate to focus where it should: on the terms and conditions that could apply to such an arrangement to the potential benefit of the infrastructure providers, Foxtel and Optus, potential access seekers and content providers, like C7, Australian consumers and the nation as a whole. Only once that discussion has occurred will it be possible to determine whether an access holiday is a suitable device to ensure that Foxtel and Optus cable networks are digital and open networks. Of course, that discussion may suggest other mechanisms by which that objective can be more effectively achieved. More generally, Labor looks forward to working with the communications industry and consumers to further consider the Productivity Commission's final report, as a vehicle for further reform, when it is released.Another issue of contemporary debate is Telstra's appeal to the Australian Competition Tribunal, the ACT, against the ACCC's interconnect pricing decision. Let us make no mistake, this issue has only become of critical importance because the government failed to act on the delays in the competition regime from January 1999. If it had not taken the ACCC almost four years to resolve this dispute, or if the government had responded to industry concerns about that delay, we would not be facing the prospect of a period of uncertainty, perhaps as long as two years, about this issue and this appeal.Commenting on Telstra's appeal on 30 July this year, Senator Alston told ABC radio:Our job is to make sure the system works as efficiently as possible and I want to see a greater urgency about the way in which these matters are dealt with.I'm not happy with how long this particular case has taken, it's already been some years in the pipeline and I'm disturbed to hear that it could be until the end of next year before we get a decision.I could not agree more. The problem for Senator Alston is that it is simply too late for him and the government to seek to claim any urgency of approach to such matters. As I have already shown, palpable delays in the regulatory regime were evident to most in the industry, and changes were called for by Labor as early as January 1999. Senator Alston rejected these concerns out of hand at the time. The government's obsession with the full privatisation of Telstra has prevented a timely resolution of this issue, to the detriment of more effective competition in the Australian market. The government has only itself to blame that the current interconnect dispute has not been long resolved by now.In the last few weeks, some commentary has centred on whether Telstra—and Telstra alone—should be prevented from continuing its appeal to the ACT against the ACCC's interconnect pricing decisions. Two mechanisms have been suggested by those who wish to see an end to Telstra's appeal: ministerial direction of Telstra pursuant to section 9 of the Telstra Corporation Act 1991, or a ministerial pricing determination effectively leaving the appeal as an abstract process. Labor has already indicated that, if elected to office, we do not propose to use the ministerial power of direction under section 9 of the Telstra Corporation Act. Section 9 is a reserve power to be used only in exceptional circumstances, most notably a wilful and persistent breach by Telstra of either the universal service obligation or the customer service guarantee, which is not expected or anticipated by a future Labor government. Whether you like it or not—and many in the industry do not—Telstra is exercising its lawful right to seek merits review of the ACCC's decision. In these circumstances, ministerial direction of Telstra to quit an appeal is clearly not appropriate and is not supported by Labor. Further, the issuing of either a ministerial pricing determination, effectively displacing the ACT's merits review process, has the potential to set an invidious precedent which could effectively see the minister, and more generally the political process, continually called upon to settle access pricing disputes. These matters are properly the province of the regulator and the competitive process. I do not regard such a proposal as being in the long-term interests of the industry. Such an approach is much more likely than not to foster greater uncertainty as to future outcomes, reducing future levels of investment in Australian telecommunications networks, contrary to the national interest. It could see future access and pricing decisions clouded by political rather than regulatory, competitive and economic judgments.Good public policy dictates that if appeal rights are to apply, they should apply equally to all parties. A merits review is either appropriate for all or it is not, bearing in mind the interests of all parties potentially affected by ACCC decisions. However, merely legislating to shut down appeal rights alone would not resolve the uncertainty that industry claims is caused by Telstra's current appeal, whether that appeal has merit or otherwise. The appeal, having been activated, would remain on foot, and shutting down the appeal directly runs the risk of abridging Telstra's property rights. Accordingly, a proposal which is at least arguably consistent with a good public policy framework is one which would both remove future rights of appeal to the ACT for all parties at the same time as issuing a ministerial pricing determination, effectively determining Telstra's appeal, the only appeal currently on foot.Such a step cannot be taken lightly. The Productivity Commission's draft report recommended retention of the current right of appeal. It concluded that the telecommunications access regime, dealing as it does with valuable property rights, should only seek to restrict the free exercise of those rights for the purpose of preventing anticompetitive behaviour following due process, including allowing for appropriate merits review. On the other hand, it is now argued by some in the industry and by the ACCC in its submission to the Productivity Commission that the ACT is no more expert in matters under the telecommunications competition regime than the ACCC, particularly where the ACCC has carefully considered its original decision.The ACT consists of a judicial member and two senior members. While the members are clearly appointed on the basis of their expertise in competition issues generally, there is no formal requirement for these members to have expertise in the telecommunications industry per se. Such a proposal would not prevent, as some have suggested, the regulator from being accountable. The expert regulator would still be subject to judicial review of its decisions. However, such an approach would reduce the degree of accountability, favouring instead greater certainty and speed of regulatory outcomes. Removing rights of merits review has the obvious advantage of removing up to two years of regulatory uncertainty from future decisions under the telecommunications competition regime.These are, of course, fine matters of judgment and balance. Regrettably, the government's amendments are as silent on this important issue as the minister has been. While supported by Labor, the modest government amendments contained in the legislation to allow the ACT to consider only evidence available at the time of the ACCC's original decision and to prevent the stay of an ACT decision which is challenged by way of judicial review will not resolve the dilemma currently facing the industry. Both the upcoming Senate committee's consideration of this bill in the coming two weeks and the finalisation of the Productivity Commission's report next month provide appropriate opportunities for the views of the industry to be taken into account on this matter. Labor will consider the views of all in industry very carefully. The issues raised by Telstra's appeal to the ACT are too important to be left undecided for too long. In conclusion, I trust that this bill means that we are now beginning to put the government's neglect of this issue of national importance behind us. I also look forward to the government's consideration of further reforms following the presentation of the Productivity Commission's final report next month. The belated and limited nature of this bill does not absolve the government of its mishandling of competition policy in the telecommunications industry over the last few years. For too long the government has dropped the ball on this issue, focusing instead on its ideological obsession with the full privatisation of Telstra, at the expense of ensuring effective competition to the benefit of Australian consumers. Australian consumers deserve a better approach, and under a Beazley Labor government they will get one. I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes the lack of effective competition in significant parts of the Australian telecommunications industry;(2) notes the Government's failure to respond in a timely manner to widespread industry concerns held since at least January 1999 about delays in the telecommunications competition regime, which continue to the detriment of both consumers and the industry; (3) notes that the cause of the Government's failure to act has been its ideological obsession with the full privatisation of Telstra; and(4) calls on the Government to urgently consider further reform as part of its response to the final report of the Productivity Commission's inquiry into the telecommunications competition regime due next month.”10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)— Is the amendment seconded?N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr Martyn Evans—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.12:04:0030641Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The contribution from the member for Perth to the debate on the Trade Practices Amendment (Telecommunications) Bill 2001 showed the same line, length and consistency on matters that we expect from him: that is, more about dissemination rather than administration, and more about indoctrination and trying to appease those who contribute to the writing of his speeches, those in the telecommunications union, than those whom he is here to represent.The government has been working in a very deliberate way in the area of competition in telecommunications, and it is achieving great results. It is focusing on what the consumers of Australia want: an expanding range of services and the continued lowering of prices brought about by effective levels of competition in the telecommunications sector. It is important that those who are ambitious to try to keep those competitive pressures in place, to continue to try and put that 800-pound gorilla, Telstra, under pressure, to respond to what is occurring the marketplace and to keep lowering prices are well supported by the government. That is what the legislation is all about. What have we seen in the last couple of years? Under Labor, local telephone calls were 25c; they are now 15c. Everybody keeps telling me that the direction of prices will be lower provided the government maintains its commitment—and it will—and provided that those opposite do not form government. Otherwise, we will see a return to the kind of featherbedding that occurred for the 800-pound gorilla that is Telstra and we will see anticompetitive arrogance creep back into that organisation, and we will see prices start to creep back up again instead of deliberately going down. Local phone call prices of 25c under Labor and 15c under the coalition cannot be overstated. They are an important result of the government's deliberate approach.It is interesting to note that a whiplash analogy prevailed through the member for Perth's contribution. On the one hand, he talked about competition, but then almost automatically, in the same paragraph, he madly went on to talk about how Telstra should be able to use its weight in the marketplace to do whatever it darn well likes. That is code, of course, for: freeze out those who want to get access, use all the delaying tactics it possibly can, appeal any decision that is made about its competitive approach, retry each and every case for two or three years, slow down and delay competition. With that approach, Telstra rewards consumers by doing such things as increasing line rental costs. The member for Perth talked about a 71 per cent increase; others say it is anything up to 90 per cent on certain services. These are the sorts of things that Telstra is already attempting to do as it delays the process of competition evolving in the sector, which the government has demanded and supported. The member for Perth is critical that the government has, he says, been sitting on its hands on these issues. I find that incredible. It certainly overlooks the fact that a brand new telecommunications regime commenced in 1997, when more competition was encouraged and delivered. This involved complex pricing issues. There were greenfield or threshold issues that required considerable work by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the industry itself. It was appropriate to allow the consequence of that complexity to bed down and settle and to see where the absolutely aggressive competition being offered by new entrants in the marketplace took us. Yes, we have had One.Tel driving a very arrogant agenda of their own. That was their management style from the very top right through. In my electorate they were demanding towers go up because they urgently wanted roll-out and, at the same time, were not doing the right thing by the shareholders. Those sorts of things have happened; they are things that happen when an industry is evolving, when there is competition and an aggressive approach. The benefits for consumers have been lower prices.The member for Perth's claims also overlook the fact that major amendments were again made to the telecommunications regime in 1999. He spent a bit of time talking about the fact that certain things we are dealing with today were first identified in January 1999. It is an easy and comfortable position to be in opposition and not have to actually deal with reality. You can see that in the way they are voting on contemporary issues in relation to the Tampa off the coast of Australia. It is easy for them to make their position different from the government's without any care or responsibility about the outcome and no need to make policy that is enacted. He talked a lot about what the advent of a Beazley government would bring about. We all know it will bring about whatever you might happen to want it to bring about. It is all in the minds of those opposite. They will have a policy that suits your size; but, of course, if they roll down the road and talk to somebody else who has a different viewpoint, they will also promise whatever that person happens to want. I know there are members of the opposition telling constituents today that they are going to vote for the government's measures in relation to the Tampa that were rejected in the parliament. I know because I have had people ringing and telling me that that is what Labor members are telling people over the phone. So they are actually going to end up voting for it, but we know that is not what the opposition leader is saying.My point is that on telecommunications matters the Labor Party take comfortable positions for the audiences they have to deal with. The member for Perth takes the most comfortable of all positions of anybody on the Australian Labor Party front bench, and that is to give the union directly involved in that industry something that gives them some sort of comfort and support. On this side, though, we are not beholden to a vested interest like a telecommunications union. We are focusing on the advantage for all Australians. The advantage that has come out of measures in telecommunications generally, and that will come out of these trade practices amendments in relation to telecommunications today, is an expanding regime of competition that will ensure that people who have ambition to provide telecommunications services at a lower price can continue to do so for Australians, whether they are in inner city or outer metropolitan areas or in rural and regional Australia, where prices have been lowered and services have been increased. That is what this bill is all about— encouraging a sector and giving it a signal to act and keep acting. It recognises the fact that the Telstra 800-pound gorilla continues to try and block the progress of this competition and to try and deny access to more services and cheaper prices for Australian consumers. The Australian Labor Party are supporting that kind of resistance to real competition, shown by the comments of the member for Perth. We are unfortunately used to that sort of approach from this very sad opposition. The amendments involve: using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms; requiring the publishing of pricing principles at the time a service is declared; allowing the ACCC to backdate decisions to the time commercial negotiations commenced; allowing multilateral arbitrations; enabling the ACCC to share information obtained in one arbitration with parties involved in another— in other words, making sure that template demands are dealt with quickly; allowing the ACCC to publish the results and reasons for an arbitration; enabling a single ACCC commissioner to conduct an arbitration; only allowing a notification of a dispute to be withdrawn with the consent of both parties or the ACCC; permitting the ACCC to make an interim determination over the objections of an access seeker; limiting the evidence which the Australian Competition Tribunal can take into account during an appeal to that which was available to the ACCC in making its decision; and removing the right to stay an Australian Competition Tribunal decision. All these measures are designed to stop the deliberate, high cost approach that Telstra is taking to slow down the progress of competition.As much as I love Telstra, make use of it every day and acknowledge its marvellous contribution to Australia and its importance as the major telecommunications carrier, I also acknowledge that it is not the only one. Over half the mobile phone market in Australia no longer belongs to Telstra—it has under 50 per cent. In other words, competition in mobile phones alone has delivered a great raft of alternative services to Telstra's.I also acknowledge that Telstra's share of other services is declining as more and more players come in. The pie of telecommunications, if you like, keeps growing. As prices drop, as services expand and as better deals for consumers keep coming on line, it is important that we do not have the biggest player using its market size—indeed, its corporate size—to finance legal appeals to slow down or basically retard any attempt by other competitors to get on with the job. That is what Telstra is doing. It is using its corporate size to slow down the process of change. It is wanting to retry decisions that have already been made—it wants to retry decisions that are pro-consumer, pro-competition and pro lower prices to slow down the change.The member for Perth, and I can understand his point, said that Telstra's actions are understandable because it has the assets and it is able to use its corporate size to effect and to deliver a result, but the pressure is only on this corporate 800-pound gorilla that is Telstra because of the competition that now exists. Telstra, yes, has everything to lose and nothing to gain in a competitive environment. There is no doubt about that. Telstra, yes, is conscious that its share of the market is going to continue to decline. But yesterday Telstra posted the biggest profit in Australian corporate history. So, despite competition and despite the fact that pressures are on to lower the price to the consumer—that is, the unit cost income stream for Telstra is put under pressure—because of competition, Telstra has risen to the occasion and has still managed to post this massive profit. That made news all around the world. I was watching BBC World and CNN, and they both reported Telstra's massive profit.There can be absolutely no validity to any claim from those opposite that anything the government is doing in making this industry sector more competitive harms Telstra. There cannot be any validity to that claim whatsoever. In fact, in so many ways it proves the strength of Telstra as a major player and a continuing major player in telecommunications. In so many ways, competition has awakened this perhaps sleeping 800-pound gorilla of the past to rise up to the challenges that competition has brought about.It is very important for us all to understand that, in the current media environment—the member for Perth touched on this, so I will too—television, radio, newspapers and the Internet carried through Telstra and other organisations are converging. The blurring of the edges and the distinctions is continuing to mean that they are essentially rolling into one type of media. In this converging media environment, the two key issues are, firstly, content—that is, what you are transmitting, what you are causing to have sent—and, secondly, the means of distribution of content in the telecommunications sector. Those particular issues are factored into any discussion we have about telecommunications policy. There are broadcast media and print media outlets all around this country which are busting to be part of a regime and are looking for new ways to offer new products, and Telstra—and organisations like it that are involved in the competitive regime that Telstra is now involved in— is vital to the maturing of those areas. The area of media convergence is not well understood by those opposite, because how quick were they to walk away from making a decision yesterday about the suggestion the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, made in regards to media ownership—that restrictions on cross-media ownership and foreign investment restrictions on media ownership need to be reviewed. I have advocated that they are redundant in this sort of environment in which Telstra and other players are so much now a key part of. But the member for Perth, in representing the Australian Labor Party, again showed that the Labor Party cannot make a decision. Why can't they make a decision about these matters? Because policy free zones do not throw up any decisions; policy free zones do not make good environments for you to make a decision in. Those who are beholden to one part of the community—that is, the trade union applicable to the particular sector that they choose to speak on—ahead of the broader Australian community cannot make a policy until the union gives it a tick. This approach is not good enough.This bill promises good outcomes for consumers, good outcomes for telecommunications providers and good outcomes for the future of this nation and for media proprietors who are sweating on the opportunity to provide new services and to create new businesses and new jobs. But they are all sitting around thinking that the alternative government in this country are not getting on with the hard yards. The Labor Party cannot make a decision—they cannot make a decision on telecommunications matters until they tick it off with the union, they cannot make a decision about media ownership until they do the same, and it seems that they cannot make a decision about whether or not the national sovereignty of this country is important when it comes to those who choose to try to arrive here illegally. What an amazing development so close to a federal election: to have an Australian Labor Party opposition incapable of making decisions, incapable of pronouncing policy, incapable of showing any sort of leadership until they get a tick or a flick from the union involved.These measures are very sensible. They are pro more services, pro lower prices, pro-consumers. I know the member for Hinkler has profound experience and tremendous understanding on this issue, particularly as it affects rural and regional Australia, and I am looking forward to his contribution. I commend the bill to the House.12:21:0030644Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10— The purpose of the Trade Practices Amendment (Telecommunications) Bill 2001 is to hasten the decision making process in disputes involving telecommunications access. The Trade Practices Act provides a right of access to prevent those owning networks from taking advantage of their position in the market to refuse access or to only provide access on unreasonable terms and conditions. There have been concerns at the time taken to resolve disputes which go to the last resort—that is, the ACCC. These delays can water down the quality, they can raise the price of telecommunications services offered to the public and they block competition. The purpose of the bill before us today, therefore, is to remedy that situation by streamlining the current access regime. These proposed amendments are broadly consistent with the draft report of the Productivity Commission into the telecommunications access regime. These measures have the support of most industry participants and, while Telstra have expressed reservations, we should not be surprised by their attitude given that they are the incumbent operator in control of the copper. One of the great mistakes the ALP made in government was that it did not split the physical infrastructure and technology of the then Telecom from business operations to create separate corporations. There was always going to be a conflict of interest whenever third party access was involved if the incumbent had to supply that access. As I said, ideally there should have been two corporations, one which controlled the technology, the copper, the fibre optics, the satellites and the exchanges—all the hardware—and another which ran the day-to-day telephone system in its various forms: STD, ISDN, Internet, mobile phones and other features. In that way—and this is my personal view, not a government view—the first corporation would have remained in government ownership, guaranteeing the quality and integrity of the network and acting as an honest broker in providing equal access to all groups of third parties, including Telecom—or Telstra, whatever you call it.The second company, whether you had called it Telstra or some other name, could have remained as a public entity or a part public entity or a private entity, and it would have had to compete on the quality of its service with the other providers—for example, Optus, Vodafone and AAPT. Such a structure would have eliminated the perceived conflict of interest and would have facilitated the separation of management. It is not all that radical an idea. There are already precedents in the community, and many of them are working well.The Australian Rail Track Corporation provides third party access to Australia's standard gauge rail system on the main trunk route. While this invention of the state and federal governments is to be an arms-length government entity allowing third parties use of our rail system, in its purest form—I might add that I do not concede that this has been totally reached at this point—it should be possible for a rail operator to buy time and slots on the track in any state on the same competitive terms. That is the whole idea of the ARTC: you can go to one body and say, `I want to take a load from Brisbane to Melbourne. I am a private train operator. I want to buy slots and times. I have so many wagons and my axle load is this'—and away you go. The beauty of this system is that, the better and more attractive we make the track, the more third party users will be attracted, the greater the efficiency in transport and delivery of commodities, and the greater the competition amongst various private rail companies that would use the government infrastructure.The concept of dividing Telstra into two units was not all that radical from another point of view. Following the Kennedy inquiry in the Whitlam era, the old PMG, the Postmaster-General's Department, was divided into Australia Post and Telecom. Each body stuck to its knitting, so to speak, one handling telecommunications and the other the mail. With the way it is now, the temptation is for Telstra to protect itself and to obscure the issues because there is an overlap in its desire to protect the network monopoly on the one hand and, on the other, to offer competition for business on that network against third parties.It has been suggested that the ALP, if and when it comes into government, might try something like this as a means of selling more of Telstra. There is a suggestion that some work has already been done on this proposal. I can see the temptation, because if you break the organisation into two components, one of which is called Telstra, it might be quite easy to have technically abided by the Beazley pledge but in reality to have broken it massively. I think that is exactly the sort of thing we can expect, going on the past form of the ALP and on its weasel words approach to this and other issues.Just to divert, I should not be overly suspicious, but the ALP attitude to the private health insurance rebate gives rise to some parallel concerns. Allow me to illustrate the point. While the shadow minister has said they will keep the 30 per cent rebate if elected, what she has not said is whether it will be grandfathered, whether it will take into account ancillary forms of treatments and whether it will apply only to the base level of premium. The point I am making is that it may be theoretically possible to keep the promise that Labor made last November, that Labor will retain the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate with no means test or cap, but so structure it that it will not apply to either the full coverage of the scheme or the depth of benefits it currently offers. The shadow minister has been enormously cagey about giving us any indication of the policy detail which might exist around the whole concept of the private health insurance rebate. Any party that can be that cute about something as fundamental as health can be equally cute about how it can keep an organisation called Telstra in public ownership, but so alter the structure that part of the organisation can be hived off and cashed in. We have all seen the so-called Beazley pledge he has lauded around Australia. The corflute pledge—that, if Labor is elected, Telstra will remain in majority public ownership—will be an easy one for the Leader of the Opposition to weasel out of. It is interesting to speculate on whether or not any future ALP government would reduce debt, create new infrastructure and launch an environmental program with the proceeds of such a sale, or would simply use the sale to prop up dodgy budgets, as was Labor's wont in its previous term of government.I did an exercise in respect of 14 government corporations which were sold in the last five years when Labor was in government. It was extraordinary to see how $5.2 billion was wasted—$5.2 billion. There was no debt reduction, no environmental program like the heritage program, no new health fund, no education fund, nothing like a Knowledge Nation. Thirty per cent of primary school children were below the acceptable literacy rate at that time. What happened to this $5.2 billion? It was just used to prop up dodgy budgets. We have no reason to believe that the ALP would be any different in government now than they were in the past. I personally feel it would be almost impossible at this stage to unscramble the Telstra egg. In that circumstance, the ALP has been trapped by its own earlier policy laziness. Given the botch jobs on issues like analog phones, I think we can expect them to demonstrate that again if given the opportunity. As far as Telstra is concerned, and its ownership having an effect, which the shadow minister was talking about, let me remind the House that I was one of the first—if not the first—to speak up for the 49.9 per cent public ownership position, well ahead of it becoming a cause celebre of the ALP and years before it became a political stunt.Let me also remind the House that in March 1998, at the National Party Central Council meeting held in Bundaberg, I authored and moved a motion benchmarking seven areas of telecommunications and broadcast communications service for regional and rural Australians that had to be met before any further sale was considered. The motion dealt with the removal of pastoral calls and untimed local calls for designated service towns; a program to extend digital mobile phone services to the boundaries of the then existing analog service; to facilitate the roll-out of digital phone services to the remaining 6 per cent of people who could not get coverage at that time; a program to make available ISDN or some alternative data-friendly technology, speeding up the rate of internet access available to all Australians, especially those in inaccessible locations; an unequivocal contractual obligation ensuring that as a minimum requirement, free-to-air public and commercial television providing high definition to the same boundaries of the current analog signal and an inquiry into the ability of provincial free-to-air television networks to provide high definition television and transmission, and in the event of them not being able to do so, especially in country areas, a subsidy, or a tax or licence support mechanism; a definitive timetable to fill black spots in current free-to-air television in rural Australia and the extension of at least two commercial services to areas served by the remote satellite service.It is very interesting that most of those have been delivered. I did not need some corflute sign saying `Kim Beazley' to be dragged around Australia to make me do that. JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—You would sell your grandmother.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I would not sell my grandmother.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—We know all about National Party promises.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—In fact, I provided her with television and a mobile phone and lots of other things that she was not getting in regional Australia. So there we have it; Kim Beazley is running around with the corflute sign pledging things while other people have been getting on with the job. What happened was that my colleague Senator Ron Boswell took this program that came out of that conference to the Prime Minister, and Senator Alston, and that resulted in a $760 million program, with more having been spent since, to deliver those seven programs and a variety of other programs. Most of these seven points have either been delivered, as I said, or are currently being delivered.It is very interesting that my Labor opponent in the election pulled a stunt outside my office the other day. She arrived with the cheer squad. They were quiet and meek as lambs while she made her point. I gave her a courteous and silent hearing. The second I started to speak, didn't the heckling start! They tried to drown me out with a typical old commo stunt that used to be pulled in the old days; suck someone in to what is supposed to be a genuine debate, then make sure that no-one hears them. What she was not ready for was the fact that I had a couple of corflute signs, on one of which we had the representation of the Commonwealth Bank and the fact that it had been sold by the then Finance Minister, Mr Beazley, then another one with Qantas on it. In addition to that, I had a third one that had these 14 corporations that were sold for $5.2 billion in the last five years Labor was in power. Let me tell you that a certain silence moved amongst the crowd until a few started heckling again. I said, `No, you don't like this, do you?' Let me tell you why I did not sign that corflute sign. I did not sign it because I think the author of that sign is a serial pledge breaker. Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories; you can go through the lot of them. As I said, 14 of them worth $5.2 billion. If you are going to run around Australia with a corflute sign, on the eve of an election, you are devoid of policy. You have run out of ideas, and you are treating the public of Queensland—and I imagine the other states—as dills. You are treating them as dills. The other reason I would not sign it was, as I explained before, that I was the first one, when the government signalled that it might sell the rest of Telstra, to ask them to hold it to 49.9 until things were absolutely up to standard in regional rural Australia. That also led to the Besley inquiry, which found that things were not up to scratch in many areas. We went to the last election with a 49.9 per cent policy, and we will go to this election with a 49.9 per cent policy. I have no need to sign a pledge; I nailed my colours to the mast much earlier. Inside that was this seven-point resolution which I spoke about, which I authored and had passed, and which is spoken about in telecommunications circles as `the Bundaberg resolution'. I did not do that because I had to sign a corflute pledge to make me do it. I did that in March 1998, 3½ years ago, long before Kim Beazley even took a remote interest in the activities.Returning to where we are at, had the ALP addressed the policy issues back in the early nineties or the late eighties, and had they had the wit to divide Telecom, as it was then, into two corporations, all this may never have happened. What we have to do now with this bill is find a whole range of measures to keep the third party access regime honest, transparent, accountable, but above all functional. The bill addresses each stage in the dispute resolution process that comes about under the access regime. In particular, the amendments that revolve around the ACCC arbitration process are consistent with the Productivity Commission's draft report on telecommunications policy.The amendments in this bill will encourage parties to resolve disputes in the period before regulatory arbitration by the ACCC, without recourse to the ACCC. In particular, the ACCC will be required to publish pricing principles at the same time as or as soon as practicable after the declaration of services and to publish the results of arbitrations. The public will be able to see what really holds these things up. This will increase the amount of relevant information to the market and to the public. Enabling the ACCC to backdate determinations to the date commercial negotiations commenced will also encourage parties to attempt to resolve disputes commercially, rather than immediately notifying the ACCC of a dispute. In exercising its powers under the telecommunications access regime, the ACCC will be required to have regard to the objective of resolving disputes quickly, including through alternate dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and conciliation— something that is not happening at present. To streamline the arbitration process itself, the ACCC will be able to conduct multilateral arbitrations to overcome the delays caused by separate hearings for common disputes and to hear disputes with a single commissioner. Enabling the ACCC to disclose information between common arbitrations will reduce the time taken in conducting individual arbitrations, while encouraging commercial resolution of disputes that have already been notified to the ACCC. The ACCC will also be able to make interim determinations over the objections of access seekers.There is a whole range of measures, and I could go on, but time will prevent me. This is a very good bill. It gives some power to the ACCC to bring some of these endless disputes about third party access to our telecommunications system to a head to make sure that in the future this marvellous network we have in Australia operates to the benefit of not only Telstra but all the carriers in the telecommunications industry.12:41:0030648Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence10—Firstly, on behalf of the government I would like to thank those members who contributed to the debate on the Trade Practices Amendment (Telecommunications) Bill 2001, in particular the members for Hinkler and Moreton and the shadow minister, the member for Perth. The member for Hinkler's reference to the silence of the Labor Party lambs outside his office was a particularly helpful contribution to the debate when you consider the issues of privatisation and the amendment moved by the opposition in relation to the Telstra privatisation. Some of the things that were said by the shadow minister need to be put into the context of reminding ourselves of why in fact we are seeking to introduce further competition into the telecommunications sector and to see that it is properly facilitated and occurs in an orderly manner.Most of us our age, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, would remember a time when long-distance phone calls were considered by most Australians to be a luxury. Overseas phone calls were very much a rarity, well beyond the affordability and access of everyday Australians. Whilst there are still some Australians who, quite rightly, consider that to be the case, many more Australians today think nothing of making interstate phone calls and indeed overseas calls. The more the government is able to introduce competition into the sector, the more accessible and affordable such communication will be.In 1997 the government introduced full and open competition to the telecommunications sector, so much so that there are now 80 carriers and over 900 carriage service providers in the market. That contrasts to an earlier time—perhaps only six or seven years ago—when we had Telstra and Optus, prior to that only Telstra, prior to that only Telecom and of course in the earlier part of the 20th century only the postmaster general. Competition undoubtedly has been a good thing for consumers. It reduces prices and the reductions in prices indicate that clearly something correct is occurring. The competition regime has also encouraged investment in telecommunications, with the gross domestic product of the sector climbing from $12.6 billion in 1996 to almost $20 billion today.Some of the comments that were made by the shadow minister, the member for Perth, were to some extent disingenuous. In the first question that was put, the government was challenged as to why it did not act sooner to introduce amendments that would expedite the ACCC arbitration process. The government has always been proactive in the development of telecommunications competition policy. The government in fact was responsible for introducing the existing telecommunications competition regime in 1997. In June last year the Treasurer wrote to the Productivity Commission asking it to review telecommunications specific competition legislation. The terms of reference extended the review beyond the legislative requirement to review part XIB and requested the Productivity Commission to examine and report on, amongst other things, part XIC of the telecommunications access regime.While the commission's draft report on telecommunications competition regulation was published in March 2001, it is due to make its final report on 22 September 2001. It would be illogical for any government to legislate in anticipation of the final report being available. The government has, of course, given consideration to the views and draft recommendations of the Productivity Commission in formulating amendments that are proposed in the bill. In fact, in May this year, when speaking at the 2001 Australian Telecommunications Users Group forum, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, proposed a range of possible measures to streamline the arbitration process and encourage commercial negotiation. In June the government also announced its intention to amend the arbitration framework, and legislation was introduced on 9 August. The government has acted quickly and responsibly, taking into account the initial analysis of the Productivity Commission, and the government has also clearly listened to industry.The other theme in the opposition's concerns about this amendment was why wouldn't the government go further to strengthen competition in relation to telecommunications services. The package of measures that are before the parliament are designed to streamline these processes. More fundamental changes to the access regime should be considered in the context of the Productivity Commission's final report on telecommunications competition regulation which, as I said, we expect to see in about a month's time. The current proposed changes to the access regime in the bill do not preclude the government from making further amendments to the telecommunications access regime after the release of the Productivity Commission's report. I note also that the opposition, in its press release of 9 August, committed itself to using the Productivity Commission's final report as a vehicle for reform to achieve more effective competition. So the opposition itself has quite sensibly, as has the government, said, `We'll wait until we see the final report.' As I said, the government will consider that final report before making commitments on its implementation.This bill represents a further instalment in the government's program of making Australia a competitive country and bringing to everyday Australians affordable and accessible telecommunications services. Frankly, I think the government would like to see a further proliferation of carriers in the community so that people do have a choice and so that they can make a choice based not only on price but also on the quality of service provided. I thank all those who have made a contribution to this debate.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.30649Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Dr Nelson) read a third time.Bills30649R1261BillsR126230649Debate resumed from 7 June, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.12:49:0030650McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition proposes an amendment to the second reading motion for the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) condemns the government for introducing a tax system that has caused a significant increase in the number of bankruptcies;(2) condemns the government for failing to prevent the excesses of some sections of corporate Australia but scapegoating those ordinary citizens and unincorporated small businesses who are unable to pay their debts by virtue of the GST;(3) condemns the government for failing to act to stop tax avoidance by virtue of the improper use of the bankruptcy laws; and(4) calls on the government to act to stamp out illegal tax avoidance in all its forms.”The stated aim of the government in proposing the present package of measures is to counter community perceptions that it is too easy to become bankrupt, and it is encouraging people contemplating bankruptcy to consider the seriousness of the step they are about to take and to try alternatives to avoid bankruptcy. The opposition will be supporting this legislation in great part because obviously it is desirable to try to encourage people to take alternatives to bankruptcy. The final reason given by the Attorney-General was the need to restore community confidence in the bankruptcy system by clamping down on `those who use bankruptcy in a mischievous or improper way'. That is typical of what we have seen from this government in so many areas: scapegoating those who in many instances—albeit not in all instances—and in particular in the last financial year have become bankrupt because of government policies, and in particular, and most significantly, in respect of the implementation of the GST. In assessing the impact of this legislation it is necessary to ask who constitute bankruptcies. Clearly there will be individuals who have cranked up too much credit card debt and like. People desiring to acquire more and more without rationally considering the means to pay is an unfortunate feature of our society. That must sensibly be acknowledged. But, equally, there are so many others who have gone bankrupt through no fault of their own, because of extraneous circumstances. That would include, for instance, the GST, the collapse of HIH and the collapse of One.Tel. There are many victims of extraneous circumstances. If you are in a business relationship with a company or an individual who goes bankrupt and you are owed a lot of money by them, bankruptcies so very often have a flow-on consequence.In the context where the Attorney-General is on the record as saying that the GST has not contributed to bankruptcies, I want to put on the record very firmly that there is a lot of evidence that the GST has indeed placed so much pressure on businesses by drawing cash flow away from them that it has resulted in bankruptcies. For instance, the Financial Review on 5 June reported Dun & Bradstreet saying that there was a 32 per cent rise in bankruptcies for the first quarter of 2000 and that, by and large, they were businesses with a turnover of $1 million or less. The Financial Review on 30 May, under the heading `GST: dealing with the stress', says:The senior tax adviser at the National Tax & Accountants Association, Andrew Gardiner, reports higher than expected compliance costs and record keeping as important factors in small business bankrupts.Andrew Gardiner is also quoted in the article as saying:People are devoting too much time to getting their records correct and there was so much change so quickly that we have seen more bankruptcies. We need to make our tax system simpler.This I note, by way of an aside, is something that the Labor Party very much proposes. In the Financial Review article there is also a reference to the general manager of business customers at the Commonwealth Bank, James Price, saying:... small business customers are beginning to dip into their overdrafts as other costs in the economy put added pressure on the `mismatch' in cash flow already imposed by the GST. So here again is someone at the coalface. I am putting these articles on the record in some number just to emphasise the expert opinion that there is that the GST has and is contributing to bankruptcies in the community. The Financial Review of 22 May reports that the Dun & Bradstreet survey shows a 22 per cent rise in bankruptcies for the first quarter of the year compared with the previous three months. But, compared with the same period last year, the figures are much worse, rising by 32.9 per cent.Indeed, in the article there is a reference to the number of debt collection claims by Dun & Bradstreet also increasing by 111 per cent in the March quarter and that, in dollar terms, the amount of the average debt claim rose steeply from $1,255 in 1999 to $4,699 in 2000. There is a reference to a quote from the Dun & Bradstreet Australia's managing director, Ms Christine Christian, who said that she believed that much of the increase was made up of small, unincorporated businesses—that is, those businesses that will be the subject of this bankruptcy legislation, as opposed to the Corporations Law. The Age of 22 May also addresses the issue. It also refers to the Dun & Bradstreet records showing that their books:... skyrocketed 227 per cent in the 12 months to November 30, 2000, over a year earlier. The figures also coincide with the latest statistics from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which show that business failures are continuing to grow at an alarming rate.It must be conceded that ASIC's figures relate to corporations as opposed to sole traders or unincorporated bodies; nonetheless, the flow-on consequences of corporations going insolvent, as I have indicated, so often flows through to the small business community. The article from the Age says:The number of receiver-managers appointed jumped nearly 121 per cent, while companies placed under voluntary administration soared more than 47 per cent in March, compared with the same period last year.That is a dramatic increase in insolvency. There is again reference to Dun & Bradstreet figures showing that the number of days taken to pay creditors—again a significant indicator of cash flow problems—has blown out to a four-month high of 66 days. Ms Christian, whom I referred to earlier, is quoted as saying:It would seem that many business owners have simply run out of cash in the bid to meet their quarterly tax obligations and pay their creditors on time.There is also reference to her saying:These figures, when stacked up against a 32.9 per cent increase in bankruptcies over the same period would seem to confirm the post-GST pain in the community.Again, these are experts at the coalface showing what a drastic and dramatic effect the GST has had on cash flow problems and the consequent rise in corporate insolvencies and bankruptcies. The Australian of 16 July reports on a national task force to examine GST-sparked bankruptcies in small businesses, pushed by the National Tax and Accountants Association. According to Ray Regan from that association, their figures show a year-on-year increase of 78 per cent in bankruptcies in the June quarter. Mr Regan is reported as saying that there was evidence that the GST had destroyed many small businesses and put thousands of employees out of work—again, someone intimately connected with the day-to-day operation of small businesses. The Sydney Morning Herald of 10 July reported the same story—a 78.5 per cent increase in bankruptcies in the three months to June, compared with the same period in 2000. The article goes on to say:All up, business bankruptcies rose 18.6 per cent to 4,440 in the first year of the GST, suggesting the pace of insolvencies has picked up as the year progressed.There is a reference in the article to Mr Michael Dwyer, the President of the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia. He is quoted as saying:The GST has had an impact in that it has certainly added to the administrative burden as well as having a cashflow impact. If we as members of parliament are honest with ourselves, we will say that we have all received those sorts of reports from our own constituents. The government cannot bury its head to the fact that the increasing class of persons who are becoming bankrupt and subject to this legislation is small business proprietors—mums and dads, if you like; not corporations—who have gone under because of the additional administrative burden and the additional cash flow problems caused by the GST. On 9 July the Australian Financial Review indicated that more small companies and sole traders are going to the wall as the full force of the GST hits the business community. It referred to figures showing that business bankruptcies blew out by 177 per cent in the last quarter compared with the same period last year, according to data from the Insolvency and Trustee Service of Australia. There is a reference to a quote from Mr Paul Leroy, a personal insolvency expert from Hall Chadwick chartered accountants. He says:These figures are a reflection of the suffering of small business owners and sole traders—and, to use his words, which I used previously—the mums and dads and families.So there is no doubt that the GST has hit most hard the mums and dads and families who are struggling to survive with a small business. The facts of the matter are that, as a result of the government's policies, there is a class of persons that is benefiting, and that is insolvency practitioners. On 3 July this year the Australian Financial Review reported that Australia's 150 or so insolvency practitioners are reporting a very busy year as small businesses crumple under the weight of the GST and the erratic cash flows caused by higher than expected prices, squeezed margins, bad debts, higher insurance premiums and compliance costs. Again, the GST is featuring prominently in the fact that their business is rising so dramatically, that is, the business of insolvency practitioners. On 28 June the Sydney Morning Herald referred to one business, Walker Insolvency Lawyers, having doubled in size since the beginning of this year. Another company, Knights Insolvency Administration, has increased staff levels by 20 per cent in anticipation of a boom in their work, that is, insolvency work. There is a reference to the fact that since the GST Dun & Bradstreet's debt collection business in outstanding claims has increased—and I gave his figure earlier—by some 227 per cent. Again, there is reference to Ms Christian, to whom I have already referred, who was saying that these are small businesses that are going under. Her reasons are that, `Because they are at the end of the food chain, there are many small business firms that will not survive,' that is, not survive under the GST system. Finally on this issue, there was a further reference in the Australian Financial Review on 12 March showing that a partner in Walker Insolvency Lawyers, David Purcell, said the GST system had caused a cash flow crunch. He is reported as follows:`Insolvency accountants are gearing up for the flood,' said Mr Purcell, whose firm has doubled in size ...We are still yet to see the flood of bankruptcies, and there is no doubt that there is a flood because of the government's GST policies. In addition to that, we of course have many businesses suffering because of the HIH collapse and the One.Tel collapse. While perhaps legislation introduced by the government has not caused those collapses to occur, questions of oversight of APRA in the insurance industry have certainly been raised. However, the point is that businesses in a financial relationship with those major companies and, indeed, major suppliers of those companies that are owed money by those companies that have gone under are clearly in trouble. The ripple effect has been started. Those ripples have not by any means reached their extremity. Indeed, they are probably not even one-tenth of the way to their final circumference in terms of who is going to be swamped by these insolvencies.I note a more recent article, which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday, 28 August. It is in a similar vein to the theme that I have gone through in some detail and is headed `Debt collectors are excited but tough GST regime is pushing up bankruptcies'. The article refers also to the debt collection agency Dun & Bradstreet having increased their business by 227 per cent since the GST. The article also refers to Collection House, one of Australia's biggest debt collectors, reporting a 271 per cent jump in its annual profits. So we concede that some companies are doing very, very well under the government's GST. But they are debt collection agencies, and the victims of the system are small businesses. So it is in that context that I am attacking the government. RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPJK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—I am attacking the government for introducing legislation that victimises or scapegoats, if you like—RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPJK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—Thank you.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPJK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—Fair enough. In terms of some double standards, I think that I am entitled to raise this issue. One questions whether it would have been necessary for those bankruptcies to occur if the businesses had not complied with the GST. I believe that we are entitled to ask: are there double standards in the circumstances of the Groom FEC? It put on a fundraising function raising $18,350 with one-eleventh of the proceeds of that function—$1,668—being the GST. But, after being caught out, the Groom FEC eventually paid back some $751 to the taxation office. We are entitled to say that, if other small businesses had been able to achieve such an income, they would not have had such a cash flow crisis.What appears to have occurred is that the Liberal Party—and indeed the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Small Business in numerous instances—are saying that our attack on the government, our accusations of a scam, indicates our ignorance of the taxation laws. The code for that is that what was done was lawful. What was done was that the Groom branch of the FEC, being a subentity of the larger organisation, the Liberal Party, earned less than $100,000 a year, according to the taxation records.The explanatory memorandum of the GST legislation states that, if a non-profit subentity with an annual turnover below the turnover threshold decides not to register, it will not be liable for the GST and will not be liable to claim input tax credits. So, by using the example of the Groom FEC, if an entity earns less than $100,000, that entity is not obliged to remit the GST—in this case, on the takings of the dinner, $18,350. But, quite explicitly, the explanatory memorandum states that it cannot claim a GST input. The explanatory memorandum goes on to state on page 37 that, equally, the `core entity'— that is, the Queensland Liberal Party—will not be liable for the GST and `will not be entitled to claim the input tax credits of the unregistered non-profit subentity'. So the Queensland Liberal Party said, `We as a substantial entity, registered under the business activity statement system, are an organisation that receives in excess of $100,000 a year. We are entitled to claim input tax credits on expenditures that we incur in achieving our income.' In this case, the input tax credit was claimed on the GST charged by the caterer to the function—I think a bill of slightly over $9,000, with $800-odd being charged by that company for the GST.So what happened was that the Queensland Liberal Party charged the input tax credit to get the benefit of it. They were using the ruse, if you like, of then changing steps and saying, `All right, we are standing here as the Queensland Liberal Party, but standing over here we are standing in the shoes of the Groom FEC and we did not have to remit the GST input. But hold on, I am going back here as the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party and yes, please give me the GST input tax credit.' Clearly, on the explanatory memorandum—as would have been pointed out to them by the Treasurer after he was notified in February—they have said, `You cannot do that. Clearly the explanatory memorandum shows the purpose and intent. If the Groom FEC cannot claim an input tax credit, you cannot either.' So they said, `We had better fix this up. We had better pay back what we received by way of the input tax credit.' But even then they got it wrong. They paid back $751 when they should have been paying, I think, about $826. So they effectively stuffed up the cover-up. But at no time did the Treasurer, the Prime Minister or the Minister for Small Business say that what was in place there was a scheme to hasten or obtain an input tax credit and then avoid remitting the actual GST at the end. I say all that as a long-winded way of saying that there are two standards. How many small businesses would have survived if they had been able to get away with such a scheme, setting themselves up as a whole lot of subentities fractured around the place to avoid paying the GST and, indeed, to get their primary entity to suck in GST input tax credits? Even if we assume that the benefit existed for only a three-month period, that is, they had the benefit of this input tax credit from about December to March, that still—if it had been implemented across industry— would have relieved a significant burden from small businesses by giving them more cash up front before they had to meet other liabilities. So whichever way we look at it— illegal, immoral, or simply a scheme under part 165 of the GST legislation—it is double standards, and small businesses do not like that. If they are suffering under a burden causing so many bankruptcies, as I have indicated, they do not like seeing a government applying a different standard to itself.I have made these points by saying, `Look, what are the classes of persons you are looking at when you are looking at this legislation?' As I indicated in my opening remarks, the Attorney-General, in answer to a question without notice and in his second reading speech, said, `Look, people are, if you like, misusing bankruptcy provisions, going bankrupt to avoid their debts.' There is no doubt that that is a phenomenon which we recognise—and realistically recognise. Indeed, there have been some outrageous incidents where members of my own profession, the legal profession—particularly at the bar, I have to say—have avoided paying their income tax obligations by taking advantage of bankruptcy laws, despite having made over a period literally millions of dollars. Those situations need to be addressed.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPJK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—That is probably right. But in terms of the impact of this legislation that we are concerned about, it is an impact on those who have not gone bankrupt as a result of their deliberate action or, if you like, mismanagement. There are many victims of our system—whether it be the GST system, the taxation system, or whether it be the HIH collapse or the One.Tel collapse— who become bankrupt through no fault of their own.We note the concerns expressed by a number of credit counselling organisations, which do a tremendous job in the community. Even though there is now quite an extensive network of community legal services, this is an area which requires addressing, that is, the inadequacy of very useful credit counselling organisations. The Wesley Community Legal Service, which provides such a counselling service, has expressed its concerns about the lack of consultation that the government had with that financial counselling sector—that is, counselling of the poor—before introducing this legislation. We do note that and express our concerns.Before I address the two primary areas where we will be moving amendments, I note that we also have concerns with expanding the cooling-off period before someone becomes bankrupt from seven days to 30 days. We are not sure that that will have any realistic effect in causing people to go into alternatives. As the Law Council pointed out:What will happen is that people will simply file their debtor's petition, go away and forget about it, and 30 days later they will be bankrupt and they will be none the wiser and the creditors will be none the better off.We think that that is substantially going to be the case, but nonetheless we are not standing in the way of that legislation.The two areas where we will be proposing amendments are in respect of the government's proposal to remove the early discharge provisions which were introduced in 1995 by then Senator Bob McMullan. He spoke of the inequity in that those with sufficient resources to commence proceedings in the Federal Court were able to obtain an abbreviation of the period that they became bankrupt but those who were more vulnerable and without those resources were a victim to remain bankrupt for the entire three-year period. That was the purpose of those provisions. There were clear limitations. It applied only to low income earners who did not have the capacity to pay back any amount of money to their creditors. It also applied only in respect of the first bankruptcy. It was not available in respect of second and subsequent bankruptcies, if you like, to have serial rorting of bankruptcy laws. We do have concerns about that. We are not convinced that the government has put forward sufficient evidence. As was indicated, we believe in the evidence of Donald Costello, the Acting Adviser of the Insolvency and Trustee Service of Australia, who said that there are no statistics available to help make a decision, but that was basically based on anecdotal evidence. We do not think that is good enough when you are taking away rights. Nonetheless, we accept that given concerns in the community it may be too easy to go bankrupt. We are proposing what I understood had been considered, that is, a two-year period. I will address that in our amendments.The other amendment which I will also be speaking to shortly in the consideration in detail stage is our concern about removing section 265(8), which imposes a penalty for someone incurring a debt of in excess of $500 in circumstances where they realise they have little likelihood of repaying that debt. We believe that fails to acknowledge the reality of the essentials of life—rent, water, medical bills and dentistry bills—that individuals face. You cannot put individuals in the same category as corporations. So we propose an amendment to exclude those necessities of life. I will speak to those amendments in greater detail during the consideration in detail stage.10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Is the amendment seconded?RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—I second the amendment.13:19:0030655Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—I listened with great interest to what the member for Barton had to say. I understand that he and the opposition broadly support the direction of the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. I listened with particular interest to his comments about small business and small business bankruptcies. However, my contribution to the debate today clearly indicates that the biggest rise in bankruptcies has been at a personal level. I take the House back to when I first entered this House in 1993 and when I was shadow minister for small business.The fact is that under a Labor government business bankruptcies reached epidemic proportions. I am pleased that the member for Barton highlighted that some of the problems that have emanated from the downfall of HIH Insurance and other problems were not generated by the government. Many of the bankruptcies which occurred while his party was in government were generated by that government through its mismanagement of the broad economic settings of this country. I was in business in the time preceding my election to parliament, and what sent a lot of my colleagues bankrupt and what facilitated that high level of bankruptcy was poor management by the Labor government, which presided over very high business interest rates, very high inflation rates and poor market opportunities. It sent businesses, particularly small businesses which have less capacity to ride out the highs and lows of the marketplace, on a roller-coaster ride along the peaks and troughs of a market they could never feel any certainty in and in a financial climate in which they never had any certainty. I think the House needs to be reminded of the Labor Party's record in government in making life extremely difficult for small business.On a personal note, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 because I have always had great concern about business bankruptcies, particularly those of larger businesses, which often seem to fall into a chronic pattern of indebtedness. Those who suffer the most because of this and because of the fashion towards easy access to the option of bankruptcy are small businesses. I am sure that the member for Barton, my colleague on the other side of the House, joins me in welcoming any bill that seeks to make it more difficult for other companies to enter into bankruptcy, get out of it within a few years— sometimes within six months—and then repeat the cycle at the expense of many people, people who perhaps can less afford to pick themselves up and get going again. I do not know how many in this place have actually been involved with people in the business sector who have gone bankrupt, but it was one of the issues that drove me into parliament in 1993. I saw how government policy could actually send small businesses bankrupt through no fault of their own. There was no way small businesses in that era could sustain the kind of policy settings we saw. They just did not have the long-term capital to withstand the peaks and troughs of the kind of economic settings that we saw Labor put into place. They have suffered greatly. I have watched as men and women have been locked out of the businesses they have been in for 20 or 30 years. I have watched the impact on the family—the breakdown of the marriages and the stress on the children. It is not a happy picture and it is not one that I would like to see repeated any more often than has to be. We all know that going into business is risky, and people do have to realise that when they undertake any business venture. But I have certainly expressed before in this place the ease with which people can declare bankruptcy and the impact on the community at large. I think this was highlighted—and the member for Barton also mentioned it in his address to the House—when it was revealed that highly qualified lawyers and in some cases QCs were declaring themselves bankrupt to avoid paying tax. I think that was of grave concern to all Australians who pay their fair share of tax and who meet their obligations. There was certainly a resounding public response to this as thousands of ordinary taxpayers realised that the actions of high income earners avoiding tax add to their burden of tax, particularly to the burden of tax paid by low and middle income earners.It has concerned me for some time that after three years or, as I said, sometimes less a bankrupt can automatically be discharged from bankruptcy and start the process all over again. It was not so long ago that I got up in this House and spoke about people in my electorate who worked for companies that had gone bankrupt or, in one case, gone into receivership and subsequently into bankruptcy. Those workers came to me alleging that certain individuals responsible for the company had been shifting assets when they had walked away with none of their entitlements as workers who had given loyal service over many, many years. In one case which was referred to me the person rebought the business when it was in receivership. I referred those matters to the minister and, indeed, to ASIC. I think these are the kinds of things that we have to continue to work towards stamping out. This bill does not address a couple of those issues such as the shifting of assets, but it does move some way down the track towards improving the situation and trying to get people to look at options other than bankruptcy. There is some evidence that there are chronic bankrupts. Although the official receiver can object and postpone the discharge of the bankrupt for up to five years, repeat bankruptcies are common. In some circumstances, as I said, a bankrupt can apply for early discharge at any time after six months. None of us would like to see Australia or anyone else go back to the old system of throwing debtors into prison, but I think that there is a balance to be struck here and it is certainly not a practice we should be in any way encouraging.In the case of those people who continue on this roller-coaster, there is no future obligation for them to pay remaining debts except debts related to child support and bail bonds. It is concerning that bankruptcies become somewhat fashionable and that people think that it is an easy option to have their debts wiped out in possibly six months. What is not always appreciated is that the money they owe is not always to a large corporation, as I said earlier, or to a bank which can withstand the loss of cash flow and build it in. In many cases that money is owed to small businesses or individuals who, through no fault of their own, are also rendered bankrupt due to the outstanding debts. We have heard a lot about employees left without entitlements because the company has gone bankrupt. As I said, I have spoken on that issue in this place before.As I said, I have had employees in my office who have given loyal service to a company for over 20 years and found themselves without a job and owed money that was put away for superannuation and for other entitlements and years after they had still not received any of the money, leaving them in a precarious financial situation. More particularly, I have had constituents who were still owed money aware of their former employers obtaining an early discharge and then setting up business again only to do this to more unsuspecting victims. While the bill goes some way to discouraging easy options for would-be bankrupts, there is still a long way to go to stop some of the shonky practices that leave unsuspecting people with no recourse to justice. Sadly, the vast number of bankrupts are people on low incomes. In fact, in 1999-2000 there were 5,208 unemployed bankrupts, followed by 2,112 pensioners. Housewives and househusbands totalled 2,088 people. In the business sector, tradespeople and labourers were more likely to be bankrupts. Again, this has some relevance to the fact that often the company they are contracted to does not pay them. There seem to be a number of industries in which this practice is chronically bad, and I think the building industry is one of those industries. Business bankruptcies totalled 3,899 in the year 1999-2000, or less than 17 per cent of all bankruptcies. In fact, compared with the period 1989-90, the number of bankruptcies has halved, from almost 35 per cent. Under our government, people have seen considerable improvement in that area. The risk of bankruptcy among business managers and professionals is less likely. The growth has been in the personal bankruptcies area, which in the financial year 1999-2000 were 19,399 or 83.3 per cent. Given that so many low income people become bankrupt, it is obvious that more needs to be done to assist these people to manage their finances and to address the problems that they may have with gambling, for example, which this government has acknowledged and done something about. This bill aims to get people to consider the seriousness of becoming bankrupt and to encourage people to take alternative steps. As Terry Gallagher, the Inspector-General of Bankruptcies, said: While it is easier to go bankrupt now than it has been for many years, it is likely that excessive borrowing prompted by ready credit availability, perceptions of attainable living standards and a lessening of the stigma of bankruptcy have contributed to this increase. As I said, we have come a long way from throwing debtors into prison and nobody would advocate that we return to that. However, it is clear that with the increase in bankruptcies for individuals, in particular, measures need to be put in place to ensure that there are no easy options for people who seek to escape their financial responsibilities. The measures that we are talking about in this bill include a mandatory 30-day cooling-off period to encourage debtors to enter into a settlement with creditors. This means that the debtor will not become bankrupt until 30 days after presenting their petition and the measure allows creditors to negotiate alternative arrangements with debtors. I noted the comments by the member for Barton, but in my experience in business it is often a heated time and a time when a lot of pressure is being applied and I think that cooling-off period is an important move forward.Some debtors will be ineligible for the cooling-off period if it is likely to prejudice creditors due to a trustee not being appointed immediately a petition is presented. The circumstances in which a debtor is ineligible for the cooling-off period include where they have been carrying on a business at any time in the 30 days beforehand, where they are subject to a creditor's petition or a specified legal proceeding against him or her which is scheduled for substantive hearing on a day that is less than 60 days after the day on which the debtor's petition is presented. These measures offer protection to creditors against the possible abuse by the debtor of a cooling-off period. It is important that a trustee has the ability to take immediate control of business assets to facilitate the sale of a business as a going concern and to prevent the possible loss of valuable stock, plant and equipment through deterioration or dissipation.The other measures include the discretion for the official receiver to reject a debtor's petition if it appears to be an abuse of the bankruptcy process. There has never been an insolvency test for petitioning debtors and this basic principle will remain largely undisturbed by this bill. However, some debtors petition for bankruptcy for the wrong reasons and their petitions are an abuse of laws intended to protect debtors who cannot pay their debts and to give them a fresh start. The third major part of this bill is the abolition of early discharge, which I do support very strongly. The bill proposes the abolition of the early discharge provisions because they are cited most often as the cause of concern—that bankruptcy is too easy. The reduced period of bankruptcy is seen to discourage debtors from trying to enter formal or informal arrangements with their creditors to settle debts and to provide little opportunity for debtors to become better financial managers.The fourth part is the strengthening of the objection to discharge provisions. This allows bankruptcy trustees to lodge an objection to the bankrupt's automatic discharge at the end of the three-year standard period of bankruptcy. Depending on the grounds of objection, the standard bankruptcy period can be extended by two years or in a more serious case by five years.The fifth point is the annulment of bankruptcy by a court whether or not the petitioning debtor is insolvent. One of the final points that I wanted to make in relation to this bill concerns the doubling of the current income threshold for debt agreements. The memorandum to the bill makes the point that it has been noted the debtors who were too poor to be required under one part of the act to make contributions from their income for the benefit of the creditors were nonetheless invited under another part of the act to make a debt agreement proposal to creditors. Debt agreements were introduced in 1996 as a low cost alternative to bankruptcy available to low income debtors with assets and debts below specified thresholds. Debtors cannot access the provisions if they have an after tax income of more than $30,530, or if there are no dependants and either their assets or debts exceed $61,061. Those are the March 2001 figures subject to six-monthly indexation. The comparative low income threshold has been criticised as denying a large group of debtors any realistic alternative to bankruptcy. One of the important final points that I would like to make about this bill is that it has been the subject of considerable scrutiny. The amendments proposed in the bill reflect the outcome of more than two years of consultation with various stakeholders in the personal insolvency field. In particular, there has been consultation with members of the Bankruptcy Reform Consultative Forum, which is a peak consultative body. The bill has had a lot of airing in the public arena and some good contributions have been made, which I think has brought forward amendments to this bill that are very helpful in perhaps addressing some of the problems that have been evident for some time. The one exception is that it does not deal with the transferring or acquiring of assets in other people's names or the interaction of bankruptcy law with family law issues. So there are some deficiencies, but I commend the minister and the government for addressing some of the major concerns. I hope that in future we will be able to go forward and address the remaining concerns. 13:37:0030658Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00— While I was listening to the member for Pearce addressing the bankruptcy legislation, my heart went out to her as she sounded like she had the flu that I had earlier this week. She has done remarkably well to get through her 20-minute speech with a voice like that. Listening to the speech by the member for Pearce, I was interested to hear her say that issues relating to small businesses, in particular the way that government policy might have an impact on a small business's sustainability or in fact on whether a business was in a situation of bankruptcy, were one of the elements that first got her interested in running for parliament. I have had a similar but in some ways quite different experience. It was not focused so much on small business but on the impacts of small, medium or large businesses being able to restructure and use phoenix company arrangements where they can claim protection either under bankruptcy legislation or other types of legislation, refuse to meet any of the debts that are owed to creditors—particularly to their employees—and are then able to start up the next day under a new guise. It seems we still have not done anything effective to be able to prevent that. So it is interesting that the member for Pearce and I have been motivated in some ways by some similar issues. We have seen the damage that can be caused if the laws allow individuals or businesses to be able to flout their intention, rather than the laws being used for the very unfortunate situations in which people or businesses might find themselves unable to continue and in need of declaring themselves bankrupt. I think anything will be very good indeed that moves us towards a position where we can separate the unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances that some people find themselves in and some businesses find themselves in from those where people are wilfully abusing the systems that we have set up. But it is a great challenge for our draftspeople to be able to find exactly the way to do that. The member for Barton, who spoke immediately prior to the member for Pearce, asked me to recognise students from Francis Xavier School, who arrived in the gallery while he was speaking and whom he failed to mention. There is a visiting group from that school in his electorate, and he was anxious that I mention that he noticed that they were here and was sorry that he could not speak to them directly. The member for Barton also outlined Labor's position in relation to this bill, which is broadly to accept it with a number of suggestions which have been moved as a second reading amendment. I would like to focus mostly on one of those, being the early discharge provisions.Before I do that, I think that it is important that I also deal with something that the government has been very quiet about, which is the fact that bankruptcies are growing. In preparing for this speech I had a look at some of the business headlines over the past couple of months, from May to July. We see time and time again commentators and businesspeople sheeting home the blame for the large increase in the number of bankruptcies to the GST and the damage that it has caused many people. These are just a couple of those headlines from May and onwards: `GST—Dealing with the Stress'; `Small Business Takes GST Hard'; `Survey Blames GST for Rising Bankruptcy'; `Bankruptcy and Soft Job Market Temper Optimism'; `Bankruptcies Rocket as GST Bites'; `Surge in Bankruptcy Refuels GST Row'; `GST One Year on—Insolvencies up as Problems Compound'; this one is rather depressing— `Boom Time for the Bankruptcy Sector'; and `Small Businesses Hit One After Another'.In debating a bankruptcy bill in the current environment, it is impossible for us not to ask a question about the causes of bankruptcy. We can regulate as much as we like how we treat people or businesses once they get into the situation of needing to be declared bankrupt, but a responsible government would be dealing with how we might be able to prevent people getting in this situation to start with, rather than introducing policies which seem, at least if you look at the commentary—and I think there is plenty of other evidence to go with it, and I am sure that the member for Hunter will be dealing with this, as well—to actively increase the number of businesses and people that are forced to use these bankruptcy provisions. So I do not think that government members can come in here and say that it is fantastic that we are dealing with these bankruptcy issues and treat it as if it is just a technical issue when they, in fact, are responsible—as a government—for introducing the GST, which has actually caused the most problems with small business in recent times of all other government policy changes. I think that needs to be on the record.The other issue I have already alluded to briefly in responding to the member for Pearce is my concern that we can change the provisions relating to bankruptcy as much as we like, but I am very concerned that we still do not seem to have an effective mechanism for dealing with businesses that actively set out to thwart the intention of bankruptcy legislation and the intention of other credit and workplace relations legislation so that they are avoiding their legal responsibilities. This is an issue that we have seen happen time and time again. Unfortunately, when we see it happen in dramatic circumstances like the Patrick dispute and the G & K O'Connor dispute, we see this government standing up and being a cheerleader for the businesses that do that. If government members were serious about the aims of this bankruptcy legislation, they would actually be standing up and saying, `We do not approve of businesses that are going to set out to avoid their responsibilities under the law and seek to maximise their benefit with a particular corporate structure and then restructure it in a way that means that they can avoid all of their liabilities.' I want to emphasise this, because politically it is a point that should not be lost on the community. This bill includes provisions relating to early discharge and seeks to abolish some of the situations in which people might apply for early discharge from bankruptcy. The member for Barton has indicated that we intend to move an amendment in relation to this—as well we might—because the abolition of these provisions is going to hit, more than anybody else, individual people who are declared bankrupt—usually the lowest income earners and usually those in the most difficult of circumstances and probably, but not always, with the least culpability and planned intent in terms of getting themselves into a situation where they might need to be declared bankrupt.It seems to me that when we have a government that does nothing to protect the community against businesses that deliberately set out to avoid the law, which operate in one guise and close or declare themselves bankrupt or insolvent and do so in order to avoid their legal responsibilities and then set up the next day as another company and operate happily, although everyone else is left without their entitlements, and when we have a government that will then save its harshest treatment for individuals who have personal debt which may have arisen in a whole range of circumstances, then it is very mean and petty and reflective of the sorts of views that this government takes on a whole lot of other issues, and it should be opposed. As I said, this is the area that I would like to talk about in the most detail, that is, that the bill proposes to abolish the provisions which allow early discharge for low income bankrupts.As I have said, the first point to make on this is that those who will be affected by this measure will be amongst the most vulnerable in our society. You would think that the government should present compelling evidence as to why it would be necessary for the good operation of bankruptcy law in this country that those provisions be abolished. The government has not made a convincing case at all for the abolition of those early discharge provisions. There are a number of qualifications and disqualifications which make it clear to us that the abolition of these provisions will affect only low income earners and only in respect of their first bankruptcy. The early discharge provisions would not be available in respect of second or subsequent bankruptcies. There appears to be no evidence that these provisions are currently being abused and therefore the necessity to abolish them in these circumstances seems a little unfair. I believe that the abolition of these provisions is actually an expression of this government's attempt to divide Australians by scapegoating the most disadvantaged. As I say, we see this in clear contrast to the attitude the government takes to large businesses with a lot of money that actively set out to avoid the Corporations Law, workplace relations provisions and a number of other acts. However, no action is being taken against them.When the Attorney-General introduced this bill, he said something that was quite outrageous. He said:The provisions were targeted at a new category of bankrupt—consumer debtors with low asset backing who overextend and then cannot repay their debts. However, many believe that bankruptcy in this group is due more to the lack of financial responsibility than misfortune.That is a pretty cold and heartless statement coming from the Attorney-General, who has already inflicted so much hardship on families and individuals—and struggling families at that—and then seeks to blame them for that hardship and not give them the opportunity to have the bankruptcy discharged early when they have complied with the provisions, which would mean that they would be able to seek to have such relief.Instead, Labor will seek to amend the bill to retain the early discharge provisions but allow early discharge only after two years. So there is still a serious disincentive. It is not something that anybody would do lightly. In the circumstances of a low-income individual, it is not an option they would seek if they could find any other way. I wanted to place those issues on the record. I hope that the government will accept the amendments that will be moved by the member for Barton and take account of our concerns that we also need to treat seriously those businesses seeking to avoid their obligations under Corporations Law, and that the government takes a firmer hand with them rather than hapless individuals who will be caught up by the changes to this act. 13:48:0030661Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00— I thank the member for Gellibrand for her thoughtful contribution to what is an important bill. The Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 seeks to give effect to a number of amendments to Australian bankruptcy law. Amongst other things, the bill will introduce a mandatory 30-day cooling-off period and repeal the existing seven-day period. It will abolish early discharge for bankruptcy and it gives official receivers a discretion to reject a debtor's petition where it appears that, within a reasonable time, the debtor has the capacity to meet his or her commitments. Of course, it doubles the current income tax threshold for debt arrangements to allow and encourage more debtors to choose alternatives to bankruptcy.The opposition will be supporting the main thrust of the bill, but of course the shadow Attorney-General has foreshadowed that he will move amendments in the consideration in detail stage. My colleague has also moved a second reading amendment which seeks to highlight the impact of the GST on small business and the relationship between the GST—the new tax system—and all those burdens that go with it and the increase in bankruptcy in this country.This bill is very timely. We now know, thanks to Dun & Bradstreet, that bankruptcies in Australia are up 30 per cent in the first quarter of this year compared with the same period last year. The latest figures from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission show that the rate of bankruptcy has gathered considerable pace. It is up 13 per cent compared with the survey relating to the same period last year. Indeed, there is no shortage of surveys available which conclusively show that bankruptcies, including small business bankruptcies, are up considerably.Of course, it is right that we should be looking for a cause of this phenomenon. We need to look no further than the GST. If people are looking for further evidence of that point, they need to look no further than Tuesday's Sydney Morning Herald, which carried an article with a very interesting headline. It read `Debt collectors are excited but tough GST regime is pushing up bankruptcies'. It goes on to say, amongst other things: Dun & Bradstreet's managing director, Ms Christine Christian, said the pressure on firms to make regular GST payments had contributed to the rise because they required quick payment so that they could satisfy the taxman. Since the GST, the debt collector Dun & Bradstreet has had a 220 per cent increase in the outstanding claims it has been asked to collect and the average size of each claim rose from $1,255 in 1999 to $4,699 last year.Let me share with the House some other quotes which go to the relationship between the GST and the increased rate of small business bankruptcy. Dun & Bradstreet again say: Things will get worse for small business because many are struggling to pay their bills on time. Ernst and Young say: It's like the calm before the storm. The NTAA say: People are devoting so much time to get their records correct, and there was so much change so quickly we have seen more bankruptcies.TMP Worldwide say: These changes to the tax system have brought small business in Australia to its knees. Walker Insolvency Lawyers say: For many firms it's like a hidden cancer that has not been diagnosed yet. The patient has not yet died, but it's inevitable. There has been a rise in insolvencies already, but we have not seen anywhere near the full impact. When the eruption occurs then we will have an economic calamity on our hands. There seems to be a general consensus in the insolvency bankruptcy industry. There is a causal effect. There is a relationship between the GST and the increased rate of bankruptcies in this country. Why? It is because nothing the Howard government promised with respect to the GST and small business has been delivered. The government said it would be good for cash flow, but there is no shortage of surveys that show that that is simply not the case. I noticed in this week's Yellow Pages small business survey that cash flow remains in the top three concerns for the small business sector. The GST has had an impact on cash flow for a number of reasons. It has had an impact largely because small firms, unlike their larger competitors, have been forced to absorb the impact of the GST. We recall the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation in this place on a regular basis waving the big stick at small firms, threatening them with fines of up to $10 million if they were found to be seeking to profit from the new tax system. Of course, he did not wave any big stick at the Minister for Small Business when he decided that the FEC in his own electorate would seek to take advantage of the input tax credit scheme but at the same time not seek to operate in the GST system. There seems to be one standard for the small business sector and another standard for the small business minister himself.Of course, we have had the phenomenon of slow payments to small business—slow payments from the larger companies with whom they do business. The larger companies themselves are seeking to pass on the impact of the GST by slowing down their payments to their small business suppliers. It is no surprise that there has been a cash flow impact. Of course, I remember very well the Minister for Small Business during question time in this place one day trying to tell us that small business had so greatly benefited from the GST in terms of cash flow that one small business person had paid the final instalment on his T2 shares out of the GST he had collected within his business. What a funny form of advice to be giving the small business community: spend the GST collected, use it to pay off your T2 shares, but do not worry about the tax obligation you have to the government at the end of the month! What a wonderful piece of advice from the Minister for Small Business!What has been the government's response to this calamity? Minister Macfarlane told the Small Business Show on Channel 9 last Sunday morning that small business is over the hump, that all of their worries with respect to the GST are behind them. Of course, we had the Treasurer come in here this week gloating about the latest small business Yellow Pages results, saying that small business sentiment is sky high now; they are all feeling very optimistic about their future. I have to say that they were coming off a very, very low base. Of course, as usual the Treasurer was selectively quoting. What he did not say was that each one of the seven prime concerns of small business at the moment are GST-BAS related. Yet a little while ago when the Minister for Small Business went to his cabinet with a plea for assistance, what did we get? We got no substantial initiatives or recommendations, nor did we get any assistance. Of course we heard a lot about industrial relations issues. We know that, whenever the government is in trouble, it rolls back out the IR issues for small business.If honourable members have a look at that Yellow Pages index survey released this week, they will see that industrial relations is not even on the radar. Surprise, surprise, again we saw the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business come into this place this morning to introduce an industrial relations bill which seeks to make some changes to unfair dismissal laws for small business. It is quite clear that that is not a bill that the government expects to pass during this parliament in any regard. Again, we have lumped in that bill the extension of the ACCC's power to take representative action under the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Only a matter of weeks ago, Mr Speaker, you know and the parliament knows that the Democrats and the Labor Party combined in the Senate to reject that proposition and there has been no indication from either party that they are likely to change their view on that issue. So why would the government lump that provision into that legislation introduced this morning? Simply because they know it is not going to be passed! But, again, whenever they are in trouble on the small business front, they roll out the unfair dismissals proposition. I have shared with the chamber a fair few quotes this afternoon on this issue, but I saved the best for last. I have used this quote about BAS in the chamber in the past, but it is so good that I think it is appropriate that I share it again, particularly with respect to this piece of legislation. It states:I'm not sure how many businesses went ... out of business because of it but I certainly know that marriages were strained, small business were taken away from running ... their small business ...... ... ...The government was sorry for putting such an `undue burden' on small business. `It was an unwelcome imposition ...Small business people are ringing my office and they are asking two questions. The first question they ask is: with respect to the GST why does the Howard government apply one standard to the small business sector and another standard to Liberal Party branches? The second question they ask is: why is it that a small business minister spends so much time devising ways of avoiding the GST rather than devising ways of making the GST simpler for small business?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Hunter will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice306633066314:00:0030663Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given that it was Australian authorities who advised the captain of the MV Tampa to rescue more than 430 people from their sinking ship, what advice is Australia now giving to the captain? In particular, beyond asking him to leave Australian waters, what are you advising him to do with his ship and the people on board if he complies with this direction?30663Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I think that it is worth while just recapitulating the sequence of events which occurred, because with an issue like this some of the facts in the sequence in which events unfolded can be lost sight of. On Sunday, 26 August a Norwegian registered vessel, Tampa, which was travelling from Fremantle to Singapore, responded to a broadcast issued by Australian Search and Rescue alerting of a vessel in distress. The Tampa diverted its course and rescued 434 prospective unauthorised arrivals in international waters from a fishing boat that had set off from Indonesia and was crewed by Indonesians. After picking them up—I stress, at the direction of the Indonesian search and rescue authorities—the MV Tampa then proceeded towards the Indonesian port of Merak where the ship had been granted approval—I repeat: the ship had been granted approval—to dock and for the group to disembark. However, under a form of duress, with some people threatening to jump overboard, the master turned the ship around and headed for Christmas Island. The Tampa stood off Christmas Island outside Australian territorial waters.The current situation is that the Tampa is still lying within Australian territorial waters. It is our view that it should return to international waters. We are in the process of providing all the necessary medical help that is needed. I take the opportunity of again reminding the House that, contrary to the advice received from the ship's master and also from the Norwegian company owning the vessel, the finding of the Australian Defence Force doctor was that there were four people suffering dehydration, some eight to 10 people with sprained ankles, and one person described as having a mild or soft fracture. The doctor said that none of them were in need of medical evacuation. He also indicated that there were adequate medical supplies on board to deal with those situations.Clearly, the requests that we give to the master of the vessel, the behaviour that we will expect of him and the action that the Australian authorities may take to bring about a certain course of action will be consistent with our legal obligations, our legal rights and, also of course, our humanitarian obligations. Beyond that, I do not propose to say anything further in answer to the question. 3066414:04:0030664Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Would the minister advise the House of current activities on Christmas Island in terms of providing assistance to the MV Tampa? Minister, is the situation stable?30664Ruddock, 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 McEwen for her question and, for the benefit of the House, I provide some information about the present situation in terms of the survivors and the vessel. The situation on Christmas Island and on the MV Tampa is stable. The Australian Defence Force personnel remain on board but the captain is still in command of his ship and keeping it on station about four nautical miles off Flying Fish Cove. A resupply of the vessel occurred late yesterday. It was undertaken by Defence personnel and consisted of humanitarian supplies in the form of food, blankets, nappies and other personal products, and shade cover was also supplied. A further resupply was completed a short time ago consisting of further humanitarian supplies including items known as `comfort packs' which included toothbrushes, soap and the like. We do intend to deliver portaloos to the vessel. There is sufficient water on board with some 207 tonnes. The ship has a desalination facility and the doctor remains on board. There are no reports of significant medical problems, as the Prime Minister outlined in answer to the question he received from the Leader of the Opposition. The only medical treatment that the doctor has reported today was for a broken fingernail and a cut thumb. Another two C130 Hercules shuttles with general stores are scheduled to fly into Christmas Island today and Australia does remain committed to providing humanitarian assistance to all the people on the vessel.3066414:06:0030664Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given your present commitment to return the MV Tampa to international waters, what is your comprehensive solution to the situation beyond this? In particular, what are you proposing to do if the ship returns to Australian waters?30664Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—There are a number of aspects of that question which are hypothetical and I will ignore those. I do not do that in reliance on some point of procedure but rather, given the nature of the issue, I do not think that it is appropriate that I engage in hypothetical responses. Perhaps it might even be appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition not to engage in hypothetical questions. The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question, and I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that, in response to your first question, I have already outlined the general intention of the government, and that position remains firm. As to what may occur after that, I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that quite a number of discussions have taken place today, and further discussions will be occurring later in the day. At this stage it is not appropriate for me to canvass the substance of those, but when it is I will hope to be in a position to talk further, initially on a confidential basis, with the Leader of the Opposition and later, if it is appropriate and I have sufficient information, I will inform the House. Obviously, this remains a very complex and difficult situation, but one unalterable fact emerges—that is, we are resolute in defending the sovereignty of this country. We are determined to have a consistent position. We did not seek this difficulty—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—One of the things that is emerging from this is the way in which once again the Leader of the Opposition is trying to walk both sides of the street on this issue. One minute the Leader of the Opposition is saying that he supports what the government is doing and the next minute, as he did last night, he is accusing the government of trying to engage in wedge politics. Yesterday at 2 o'clock the government is receiving the full support of the opposition; by half past six in the evening we are engaging in wedge politics. I wonder what happened to the Australian Labor Party between now and then. Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I expect the Prime Minister and all members of the House to be heard in silence.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I think it is appropriate in the context of that to just place on record with the parliament some of the matters surrounding the legislation that was rejected by the Senate last night. During the course of that debate I put to the Leader of the Opposition, given the reservations that he had expressed about the legislation during the debate, what I thought was the eminently reasonable proposition that the legislation should have a sunset clause of six months; in other words, it would expire on a date in February 2002. That would have allowed adequate time for the public and both sides of politics to determine whether the legislation had the draconian impact claimed by the Leader of the Opposition—a draconian impact alleged by the Leader of the Opposition and predicated on an assumption that an Australian minister would behave with reckless indifference to human life. That was the whole basis of the attack. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—That was the allegation that you made. It was one of the worst allegations that I have heard made by the Leader of the Opposition. It is one thing to criticise a person's politics, but to actually say and infer that a minister of either your party or my party or the National Party would behave in a way that would endanger human life is about as reprehensible a statement as a political leader can make. It is absolutely reprehensible.We made that suggestion and the Leader of the Opposition, after consultation with his colleagues, came back and said to me, `No, that six-month sunset clause is unacceptable.' He did then say to me, recalling his words as best I can, `We would be willing to give you a Tampa specific clause. I could get a group headed up by Michael Costello to sit down and negotiate with the government about the form of that Tampa specific legislation.' I said that we believed that it was appropriate for there to be more abundant legal caution and to reinforce our legal position. I thought it was appropriate that we had the legislation in the form presented by the government. We were prepared to compromise in relation to the sunset clause, but, as he was not willing to accept that, that would appear to be the end of the matter.Recalling that conversation, I am now fascinated to pick up a resolution of the federal parliamentary Labor caucus which deals with the legislation. It says a few critical things about the legislation, essentially repeating what was said in the parliament last night. I will not weary the House with a repetition of that, but the penultimate dot point reads as follows:Noting Australia asserts the legal right to secure the vessel once it entered Australian waters without permission, Labor remains prepared to negotiate with the government on a comprehensive solution which must be based upon a safe destination being found for the vessel and the people on board to sail to, provisioning of the vessel and attending to genuine medical needs—we have no argument, of course, with the provisioning of the vessel and attending to genuine medical needs—and security for the master and the crew if that is requested.We have no particular argument with that last one. But the first one is the additional condition that emerged in our discussions last night about the safe destination being found for the vessel. What in effect that does—and anybody who thinks for a moment will know what that simply means—is to give every country an out except Australia. What fundamentally that is doing is telegraphing to the rest of the world that all you have to do is to say no.If a bill in that form were the only law on which we could rely, there would be no way that the Tampa would ever leave Australian territorial waters. Fortunately, there is other law available and, as I said last night and I say again today, it remains our legal advice that we are in a sound legal position in relation to what is being done. But it is instructive that, if we were left to the Tampa specific bill contemplated by the federal parliamentary Labor caucus, there would be an almost absolute guarantee that the Tampa would never leave Australian territorial waters. That represents a very long journey in the space of less than 24 hours from the principled position that I thought the Leader of the Opposition was taking yesterday afternoon when he supported the government's position. Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—There are few things I would find more regrettable on a day as significant as this than having to require a member to leave the chamber for 24 hours or even one hour. But if any members are questioning whether I am prepared to do so they need only continue to behave as they have been behaving recently.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—Where is your parrot?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I imagine the electors of Bruce would not be amused to discover that their member lacked the discipline to enable him to stay in the House.3066614:17:0030666Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Would the minister outline the government's policy in relation to the protection of Australia's borders, which is a major concern in my electorate of Dawson? Does the minister know of any alternative proposals?30666Ruddock, 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 Dawson for her question. It is a fact that the issues relating to the protection of Australia's borders are very much related to maintaining the integrity of the immigration program and also maintaining the integrity of our capacity to assist in relation to refugees, deal with asylum issues and also cope with what is in fact a very significant international problem.No country can be expected to resolve the problems of the world's refugee crises when you have as many as 23.5 million refugees and people of concern—those who have been identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—and, beyond that, the very much larger number of people whose claims have been rejected, and the numbers of people who are in fact looking for immigration outcomes. The international protection system ultimately depends upon effective burden sharing and orderly resolution of refugee problems where they emerge. In fact, if you want to see where refugee crises have been effectively addressed and where the numbers have come down—as they have, from something in the order of 29 million four or five years ago, as I recall—it is where people are able to return home in safety and dignity, as they did in Kosovo, East Timor, with our assistance, and Rwanda. And they were the places where you saw the major reductions in the number of refugees.At an international level, Australia continues to be an active member of a number of multilateral organisations that seek solutions to problems created through the unlawful movement of people which undermines the protection regime. We have been encouraging the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to expand the number of countries that are signatories to the refugee convention. We have been working as a signatory country with those who have not yet established effective refugee status determination systems, and to do so with the assistance of the United Nations High Commissioner. I spent some time briefing officials from Mongolia fairly recently to talk about those very questions.The government has of course refocused efforts to ensure that countries of first asylum are provided with the capacity to support refugees within their borders and to prevent onward travel to other countries. We have provided something of the order of $20.8 million over four years to support a large number of displaced Afghanis and Iraqis in Iran and Pakistan to help reduce refugee outflows and to promote repatriation. I announced yesterday that we were intending, on certain conditions, to contribute a doubling of our support to that organisation, and a large part of that funding would be to supplement efforts to repatriate Afghanis out of Pakistan. As I outlined in detail to the House yesterday, we also have a regional cooperation agreement with Indonesia which aims to prevent the onward movement of illegal entrants to Australia. We have expanded the overseas compliance network to a total of 24 offices in high risk immigration locations, as well as initiating and expanding information sharing arrangements with other agencies. We have introduced legislation, which honourable members would be aware of, to substantially strengthen character provisions for the Migration Act to get quick and decisive action to deny entry and remove non-citizens of character concern.We have announced a 10-year strategy to detain those who come to Australia and to ensure that the mandatory detention regime can operate effectively. The government improved Coastwatch, Customs and Navy capabilities to detect, pursue, intercept and search boats carrying unauthorised arrivals, and $124 million was committed to this initiative over four years. Legislation was also introduced to allow the government to prosecute smugglers, to seize or destroy their boats, and crew members are now detained and prosecuted under the Migration Act for bringing people here unlawfully, with penalties of up to 20 years imprisonment and fines of $220,000. Already a number of people have been sentenced to up to seven years under that legislation.We have negotiated bilateral agreements with source and transit countries for cooperation on people smuggling issues and to provide return of unauthorised arrivals. With cooperation through a number of international agencies, Australia's internal bodies such as Quarantine, Federal Police, Coastwatch and the Attorney-General's Department, as well as my own department, are investigating people-smuggling activities both here and abroad with a view to obtaining prosecutions. It was gratifying recently that, in relation to an intended clandestine arrival to Australia, Cambodia still holds, and is prosecuting, two of the major smugglers from Indonesia who were seeking to diversify their activities into that country.I have personally engaged in a significant number of bilateral visits with source and transit countries to ensure cooperation at an international level. Let me say this very clearly: I have worked to try and get Europe to focus on the urgency of the situation in Pakistan and Iran, but not with the same degree of success. When I sought from the European Community details of action plans to deal with the problems in those countries so that we could work with them, those plans were lamentably weak in terms of their capacity and few people seemed to be focused on doing anything about it. And yet Pakistan and Iran are now seeing a reduction in the support from the international community for them to deal with the large numbers of people that they see inside their borders. I have to say that the people who are inside their borders are the people who have no prospect of joining the people smuggler route. They have no money to pay at all. They are not free enough to travel. They are the ones without identification. They have no money to pay somebody to produce fraudulent documentation to help them on their way.The fact is that the crisis that ought to be addressed is one that lamentably the international community, which is quick to offer gratuitous advice about what we should be doing, largely ignores. I find it a great personal tragedy when I see those situations. I find it lamentable when I know that the people who are coming here on boats are those who were free enough to travel. Let me say to the House what I said to the Australian people on radio today, and what I have said before: when the UNHCR was processing people in Indonesia who were claiming to be Afghani, few refugees were found. There are reasons for that. When people are travelling to Indonesia, they do not sail from Pakistan across the Indian Ocean; they fly. And nobody gets off an aircraft without a travel document. It may be fraudulent, but at least it tells you where they have come from and who they claim to be. The people who were found in Cambodia, intent on travelling to Australia as Afghanis, had documents with them, as do those in Indonesia and Malaysia. They had documents with them, and those documents disclosed that more than half of them were either Pakistani or Afghani with residency entitlements in Pakistan. When it came to a question of staying and getting safety and security which was offered to them in Cambodia, they said that they would rather go back to Pakistan and join up with the people smugglers again to see if they could get them to Australia. That is the sort of situation we are dealing with and it brings me, in part, to the legislation that I hope we will get cooperation on from the opposition. I regret very much that there seems to be an intention in another place to thwart that legislation by delaying its passage so that it cannot be dealt with within this parliament.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Negotiate.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—If that is a serious offer, I will talk to you. Let me go on. This is a problem that is far bigger than Australia. I have looked for alternative responses. I do not mean to be provocative about this, but the views I see are very narrow indeed. The opposition's answer today is a coastguard.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—So you can escort them in!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation! The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has the call.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The coastguard would use the border protection legislation passed by this government—Opposition members interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—And supported by you, and we welcome that—some of the material you had not cherry picked.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call, and he will address his remarks through the chair.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The border protection act gave the government powers to intercept in international waters and it gave officers power to board, search and detain vessels where they suspect that people-smuggling is involved, and we have been doing this—we have been using the powers. But they have not been as effective as we would have liked, because the people-smugglers say, `Thank you very much, but we're still coming anyway.' At other times, passengers have thrown fuel and water overboard and, as others have experienced, threatened self-harm. So it is not as simple as the opposition would want us to believe. The member for Denison, at a doorstop on 23 August, said:I certainly believe that if we intercept vessels that are on their way to Australia before they arrive and land on Australian soil, then many of those vessels will turn. They will turn because the crew will be made aware that if they continue onwards they will be arrested. They will face court, they will face penalties of up to seven years imprisonment and their vessels will be destroyed.As indicated, it is yet to be proven that that legislation will work, notwithstanding the warnings that have been given, but the member for Denison went on to say:Well, I certainly believe that if there is a situation where a master and a crew of a vessel require our assistance to return to Indonesia where they come from, there is no reason why we couldn't provide it. I mean there is no necessity in those instances to say there is no alternative but to proceed to Australia.It seems to me that that is precisely the situation that we are dealing with now. We need the support and the capacities to deal with that issue, and not just that issue but the issue of the large number of people who are watching now how this issue is resolved. I have to tell the House that, notwithstanding the view that I have been prone to exaggeration on these matters, I mentioned 10,000 people on their way to Australia, and we have now had 10,000 people here. I was ridiculed for that. I have said over the last few days that there were 900 people intending to come this week, on the information that we received, and 2,000 in Indonesia. The ABC this morning tells us that, independently with their inquiries, they believe that as many as 5,000 people are in Indonesia. We know that there are people further upstream. The handling of this issue very much determines the way in which Australia will be perceived. The fact is that the information available to us is that the vessels with 900 people on them have delayed their departure to see how this issue is resolved. If these people were to enter Australia now, it would be seen as the sign for all of them to continue coming in the way in which they are. For the people involved, there is a risk, because the information we are receiving suggests that there are two vessels that, if they have not returned to Indonesia, might be overdue. The implications of that are that other lives could already have been lost. Distinguished Visitors3066910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon His Excellency Mr Zhang Fusen, Minister of Justice of the People's Republic of China. On behalf of the House, I extend not only to His Excellency but also to members of his delegation a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice306693066914:33:0030669Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, when you considered that Norwegian interests were at stake in the MV Tampa situation, you saw fit quite properly to contact the Norwegian Prime Minister and discuss the matter with him. Given that from the outset you have consistently stated that Indonesia should take the people rescued by the MV Tampa, why didn't you contact President Megawati and discuss the matter with her? Prime Minister, if a key element of your solution to this situation and the more broad situation referred to by your minister in his previous answer involves Indonesia, why haven't you contacted President Megawati to personally press for her cooperation in implementing that solution?30669Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to that question, I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the point at which I saw fit to contact the Prime Minister of Norway was after I had been notified that, contrary to an earlier advice, the master of the vessel proposed to defy the Australian instruction and enter our territorial seas. Until then—the foreign minister will remember the discussions we had—we thought that the appropriate point of contact, and it had taken place, was between the foreign minister of Australia and the foreign minister of Norway.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—They hadn't spoken either.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingsford-Smith! The question has been asked.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The suggestion that it is a comparable situation is not correct. The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition gives me an opportunity to rehearse to the House the contact that has occurred between—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Rehearse?ZD4Mr HOWARD—tell the House, if he is offended by that expression—inform the House of the contacts that have occurred on this specific issue and also the more general issue between Australia and Indonesia. I preface that by saying that it is my expectation to speak to the President of Indonesia later today. I remind the House that, when I visited Indonesia earlier this month, I raised with President Megawati the general issue of illegal migration and cooperation between Australia and Indonesia. This issue was taken up in even more detail in subsequent meetings with the Indonesian coordinating minister for political and security affairs, Mr Yudhoyono, and also the Indonesian foreign minister. Mr Downer, our foreign minister, spoke at length to his Indonesian counterpart last night, when they discussed the issue of bilateral cooperation on illegal migration. Obviously, the Tampa issue was canvassed and agreement was reached for a visit to Indonesia by Australian ministers next week.I might also point out to the House that it had been our hope that a group of officials, led by the secretary of the department of foreign affairs, Dr Ashton Calvert, would have gone to Indonesia yesterday. But the Indonesians made it very clear that that visit at that particular time was not convenient for them. That visit by officials had been intended as a precursor to a visit, possibly this weekend, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the minister for immigration.I should inform the House that, from the very beginning of the Tampa issue, the Indonesians had expressed their unwillingness to take the people back, notwithstanding the views that were put to them. That was a view that had been put in the conversation between our foreign minister and the foreign minister of Indonesia. We believe that the people should go back to Indonesia because that was the country of embarkation and because it was Indonesia to which the vessel was bound at the time the duress was applied. The Indonesians are obviously taking a strongly contrary point of view. We will continue to press another view, but in the meantime the government will continue to explore other options as well. 3067014:38:0030670Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What are the details of the historic Bougainville agreement that was signed this morning?30670Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question and recognise his great interest not only in foreign policy issues in general but in Bougainville. Today is a truly historic day in the history of the South Pacific and is a historic day in many respects for our country as well, because today in Arawa, in Bougainville, a comprehensive settlement agreement is to be signed. This is an historic achievement which marks a very important step forward in the Bougainville peace process and in essence brings to an end a bloody civil war which, in its impact on people's lives, was considerably more damaging than the Northern Ireland conflict has been since 1969. Although this does not have the profile of the Northern Ireland conflict, it is a conflict that has taken place right off the coast of Australia. I am very proud of the role our government has played, along with our friends and colleagues in New Zealand, in helping the government of Papua New Guinea and the people of Bougainville to bring about this settlement.I want to pay a special tribute to the government of Papua New Guinea—not just, by the way, the present government of Mekere Morauta, but its predecessor as well—and, of course, to the Bougainville leaders and, very importantly, the people of Bougainville, especially the women, who have made such untiring efforts to bring lasting peace to that province of Papua New Guinea.Australia was invited to the signing ceremony, along with New Zealand, Fiji and Vanuatu. I particularly want to acknowledge the role played by the 2,000 Australian Defence Force personnel and 260 Australian civilian monitors who so far have served in Bougainville as part of the Peace Monitoring Group. We continue to remain committed to that. We have also provided, by the way, close to $100 million in aid to Bougainville over the past few years. What this aid has done has been to help underwrite and encourage the peace process, because, without that aid, there would not have been a peace dividend; and without that peace dividend I think it would have been very hard to keep the peace process together.Today, because of the need for me to be here to help deal with the issue of the MV Tampa, I will be represented in Bougainville by Senator Alan Ferguson. He will do an excellent job representing Australia. All I can say is that it is a matter of personal regret that I am not able to be there with my colleague from New Zealand, Phil Goff, and celebrate this truly great achievement, in which Australia has played such an important part.Having said all this, I am not underestimating the difficulties that still lie ahead with the peace process. It is going to be necessary to get legislation through the Papua New Guinea parliament with an appropriate majority. It is going to be necessary to implement a weapons disposal plan. None of those things is going to be easy. But today is a day that in this country we can truly celebrate as a day when a civil war in our part of the world has come to an end.3067014:42:0030670Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given that there is unlikely to be a solution to the Tampa situation without international cooperation, what initiatives are you taking to seek such an international solution? What steps have you taken within the UNHCR, the International Maritime Organisation or other international organisations to find a comprehensive international solution?30671Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I agree with the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith that the involvement of other countries and also the involvement of international organisations is clearly part of the solution. I can inform the honourable gentleman that quite a number of things have already been initiated by the government. I hope he will accept that it is just not appropriate at the moment for me to detail them; and when it is I will. 3067114:43:0030671Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the results of the building approvals survey released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics? What does this survey and other recent economic data indicate about the ongoing strength of the Australian economy?30671Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Fairfax for his question—Government members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, he is a good member. I can inform him that building approvals for the month of July were released today, and they showed that total dwelling approvals increased in that month by 6.3 per cent, coming after a rise of 3.4 per cent in June and 29.1 per cent in May. Private house approvals rose by 11 per cent in July. Since the extension of the First Home Owners Scheme, private house approvals have increased by over 63 per cent. House building is being supported not only by the government's First Home Owners Scheme but also by the historically low interest rates, which currently are at 6.8 per cent, enabling many young Australians to buy and build a house for the first time.I have also been asked about other economic data, and I can inform the House that the trade figures for goods and services for the month of July were released today. They showed that in the month of July Australia recorded a surplus of over $1,089 million. It was the sixth consecutive surplus in a row and the largest surplus on goods and services, excluding the RBA gold sales in 1997, on record in Australia. That backs up the figures yesterday showing Australia's current account deficit fell to its lowest level in 21 years.Although in the July figures exports moved down somewhat, imports moved down more. But compared with July last year, non-rural exports were up 11.5 per cent and rural exports were up 10.6 per cent. Again, I pay tribute to the farmers of Australia for their wonderful export effort in the last year, supported by a competitive exchange rate and also by the fact that, for the first time in Australian history, exports sailed tax free out of Australia on equal terms to all the other countries of the world because this government had the courage to reform the Australian taxation system. I note in passing that the Minister for Trade, Mr Vaile, is in Mexico at present at a meeting of the World Trade Organisation, pressing for more market access and better conditions for Australian exporters, and we wish him well.Overnight the second revision of US GDP growth for the June quarter was released, and it was revised down somewhat from the first estimate for the June quarter. It implies that the US economy in the June quarter grew by 0.04 per cent, which is marginal at best and probably a false precision. It indicates that, whilst the US economy did not go negative in the June quarter, it was close to zero, showing no growth at all. The Japanese economy grew by 0.1 per cent in the March quarter. In our region Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and the Philippines had negative quarters in March, and Singapore and Taiwan had negative quarters in June, confirming that both those economies are in recession—and quite a pronounced recession. So the world economy is undoubtedly weakening. The US economy at the moment is weaker than it has been for at least a decade. A good part of our region is now in recession, and that undoubtedly will affect Australia's growth prospects.I can report to the House that, of the industrialised countries that have reported for the March quarter, Australia was the strongest, showing growth at 1.1 per cent. As the world economy weakens, Australia will rely on its exporters and the competitive impetus that they are giving. The kick back in of the housing cycle will be positive for our economy, but nobody should underestimate the difficulties that the world will be facing over future quarters, nor the commitment that Australian exporters have shown and this government will show to keep the Australian economy growing as it is—one of the fastest growing economies in the industrialised world. 3067214:49:0030672McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you advise the House when the Border Protection Bill was drafted and, in particular, when instructions were given by you, your office or any department to draft the bill? If this occurred before you made your statement to this House yesterday at 2 p.m. will you explain why you did not advise the House then of your proposed legislation?30672Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I normally make public the intention of the government to legislate in a matter when the legislation has received cabinet and party room approval. That procedure was followed on this occasion.3067214:50:0030672Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware of the congratulatory remarks directed at the Stronger Regions statement he announced on behalf of the government yesterday? Would the minister advise the House how the package has been welcomed in regional Australia?30672Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for the question. As it happens, I am aware of some very positive reaction on the part of the people who have done the work of the opposition—they have actually looked at what it was before they spoke, they have actually taken the time to go out and appreciate that what we effectively announced yesterday were some significant extra steps on a very significant journey with rural and regional Australia in partnership between the Liberal and National party government and rural and regional communities across the nation. The package represents a very substantial financial commitment, and it has been indeed widely welcomed. I was particularly pleased, I have to say, to note that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry went to the trouble—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Their reaction says it all. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry took the time and the trouble to actually have a look at it, and they said in a press release yesterday that the:... policy framework released today is important to give communities and business certainty in planning for their futures and tools to develop growth opportunities.They noted:It also commits the Government to an action plan to remove impediments to business and foster greater industry development in regional communities. That is a positive contribution. We have had no such thing from the ALP, not a positive word yet on what they would do for the regions—nothing, hardly even a question. But according to the media—and I have not actually paid much attention—the member for Batman yesterday actually came up with his first question to me since March.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—What?4K4Mr ANDERSON—It was his first question since March. There is still nothing on policy, but it was his first question since March. Then, of course, the National Farmers Federation has put out a statement entitled `Chopped charges excite exporters'.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—That sounds good.4K4Mr ANDERSON—It does sound good; that is right.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Chopped charges.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Chopped charges, yes. They actually made a very interesting comment. They said:NFF and its member organisations have been pushing for a decade—and who was in power a decade ago?for a reduction in these charges in a bid to enable our farmers to better compete in an increasingly distorted and competitive global marketplace. The reduction will directly benefit exporters of meat, grain, horticulture, dairy, fish, organics and live animals. Of course, it would also assist everyone who works in those industries, including a lot of very decent Australian workers across the nation, who would like to see their job prospects enhanced by good policy, in direct contradiction of the sorts of policies that we saw in the regions when the ALP were in government.I do not think it would have been too much to expect the ALP to actually analyse what was said, but they did not do that. I suppose you could not have expected them to have actually welcomed it; that would have been too much to expect. It is probably fair enough, I suppose, given the nature of their approach, that they said it was the wrong way to go—although the press release significantly does not actually disagree with anything we have done; in fact, it barely mentions them. I would have to say that it does not offer any alternative approach either. The press release claimed that they had a policy but did not say what it was.Yesterday I said in this place that I thought we had just the whiff of a policy. I said it was not an appropriate policy; it was a very citycentric policy. They were going to close Essendon airport, and the member for Hawker had expressed certain interest in that. The member for Corangamite, indeed—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Gippsland.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Well, members everywhere from Victoria realised, because they had worked very hard on keeping Essendon airport open, how important that was for rural and regional Victorians. So you can imagine my surprise—at least it was, as I said yesterday, the whiff of a policy; it might have been a wrong policy but it was a whiff of a policy—to get back to the office yesterday and find that I had a letter from the shadow spokesman. Do you know what the letter—CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—You mean he can write too?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Yes, he can write; well, there was a letter there. Do you know what the letter asked for? It asked me to urgently agree to a request from a company that wants to fly 727 jet aircraft into Essendon airport. There we go. So the shadow spokesman wrote that letter supporting 727 flights into Essendon on 24 August, but on 26 August he goes to a rally in Melbourne where he promises that he wants to close the airport. We are getting closer to the Labor Party actually taking some policy positions, or what they might call policy positions. As far as I can tell, the shadow spokesman's position is this: Labor wants to expand the number of large jet aircraft flying into an airport that it will close because of airport noise concerns. So I have to say in the end: that is not a policy; that is an oxymoron.3067314:56:0030673Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the government is about to bombard the Australian public with yet another multimillion-dollar political advertising campaign, this time on education? Prime Minister, does not this leaked document show that you are going to spend on media placements alone $4.4 million of taxpayers' money, including $2.2 million on television ads and another $1 million to buy 3.8 million newspaper inserts over the four weeks starting this Sunday? Prime Minister, how can you possibly claim that an education propaganda campaign aimed at `grocery buyers with children' starting one month before an election campaign is anything but Liberal Party advertising, funded by Australian taxpayers?30673Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will take a note of the honourable member's question, and I will get some information about any information programs of the government. If it is appropriate, I will advise the House further.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—I seek leave of the House to table the advertising schedule.Leave not granted.3067314:58:0030673Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister advise the House what the government is doing to help farmers and farming communities in Barker and other electorates like mine? Are there any other alternative policies in this area? 30674Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—As the Treasurer rightly noted in his answers both today and yesterday, Australian farmers are doing a wonderful job in boosting Australian exports and improving our national economic performance. Farmers in the honourable member for Barker's electorate are certainly contributing in that regard. They have had a lot of help in that from the change of policy direction that has occurred as a result of having a coalition government in office. Under Labor, farmers had no sympathy, no help and no support. Now they are being assisted to achieve their potential, and that is really reaping rich results for our nation as a whole. As the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, if you have strong regions, you have got a strong nation—and strong regions are very much driven by strong and healthy rural and regional performance and a healthy farm sector. That has been particularly apparent over recent times.This government's efforts—in response to the question—include a tax reform package which has delivered enormous benefits to regional areas, including low interest rates. Farmers are paying half the interest bill they did when Labor was in office. Low inflation keeps their costs down and, for the first time in ages, farmers' terms of trade have actually improved. There has been a tremendous boost to exports. The reductions in taxes on transport alone have delivered enormous benefits to regional Australia. Over the last five years, this government has invested more than $28.5 billion in more than 300 regional programs to help rural and regional Australia. There has been real progress made in basic services like health, education and telecommunications. The Stronger Regions statement yesterday announced that there would be another $155 million to assist rural and regional Australia.When Labor talk about regions, that means regions that are two miles from the GPO. When we talk about regions, we are talking about the rural and regional parts of Australia that so richly contribute towards the growth and prosperity of our nation. The Sustainable Regions Program alone—$100 million over four years—will help to underpin and provide particular support for those regions that have not yet had the opportunity to fully share in our nation's growth and prosperity.The question also asked about alternative policies. There are not too many of them around, although I noticed the somewhat vain attempt by the shadow minister for agriculture to announce a dairy policy last Friday. The media described it as `low key'— and with due cause, because I understand the launch was in somebody's kitchen and there were actually more cows around than people. Nonetheless, there was a whiff of a policy, I am told. After eight months of wandering around the countryside at taxpayers' expense to look at the dairy industry, finally we had the release of the opposition's response— four months after the promised date, but, nonetheless, finally the plan has been released.I studied it with great interest although, to be honest, it did not take all that long to go through it. What I noticed about the 10-point plan, this great plan for the future of the dairy industry, was that it had as its centrepiece nine new studies—not one but nine extra studies. After eight months travelling around the countryside looking at the dairy industry, what Labor recommended was nine extra studies—10 if you count the one that they want done by two separate bodies. That is Labor's answer to the dairy industry—10 more studies. There were other recommendations, three that we implemented months ago—Labor have only just caught up with those and have tried to pretend they were their own policies—leaving only one more, and that was their plan to strip the money away from the Dairy Regional Adjustment Program and give it to environmental programs and training.84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan!GT4Mr TRUSS—An amount of 0.3 per cent of our $2 billion worth of assistance to the dairy industry is directed towards dairy communities—84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned!GT4Mr TRUSS—to help them adjust to the problems of deregulation brought on when the states decided to deregulate the industry—0.3 per cent. Labor wants to strip that away and spend it on environment programs and training schemes which we already provide under other programs through this government. When Labor finally gets around to launching the policy in a backyard, kitchen or whatever, the policy is utterly empty. It contains more studies and no new answers. That is what Labor will deliver right through this election campaign. If ever it gets into office, there will be no answers, just studies.3067515:04:0030675Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister, given his inability to confirm whether or not the advertising campaign is starting next Sunday.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will come to his question.MG4Mr LEE—Prime Minister, can you confirm that, when your pre-election education propaganda campaign is added to the list, your government is now spending close to $40 million on advertising in August and September this year alone? Prime Minister, isn't it correct that this means that in two months the federal government will spend more on advertising than it will spend in the entire year on capital funding for schools in South Australia, Western Australia or Tasmania?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will come to his question.MG4Mr LEE—Prime Minister, why do you believe it is more important to spend this money on Liberal Party advertising than on improving Australia's needy schools?30675Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I effectively took the previous question from the member for Dobell on—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Don't you know?ZD4Mr HOWARD—To be perfectly honest, I do not know without checking. If you think that you have scored some devastating political hit on me as a result of that, you are even more foolish than I thought you were. What I will do, as I said I would do in answer to the earlier question, is take it on notice and find out. Can I say that I do not accept, without checking, that what you have said is accurate. I will find out and let you know.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Mr Speaker, once again I seek leave to table the schedule of advertising if the Prime Minister wants to check it out.ZD4Howard, John, MP3067515:06:0030675Pearce, Christopher, MPMr PEARCEA8WAstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne!A8WMr PEARCE—Would the minister advise the House of the entitlement of schools to funding? Is he aware of any moves to deprive certain schools of their funding, and what is his response?MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Dobell!30675Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Aston for his question. I am aware of action being taken by the Labor Party at the moment to refuse funding to needy schools in Australia—and nothing shows more clearly the utter hypocrisy of the last question from the member for Dobell. The Labor Party has announced that it will again refuse to pass legislation which will allow the government to meet its legal obligations to new schools from around Australia. The Labor Party's actions are going to deny some $9,000 to the Nyikina Mangala community school in the Kimberley. The Labor Party has already denied $26,000 in legally entitled payments to the Jubilee Catholic Primary School in the electorate of Forde. The Labor Party has left the Living Faith Lutheran Primary School in the seat of Dickson $8,500 short.The Leader of the Opposition says he is only interested in cutting funding to schools that he calls rich schools, but he is now cutting funding, and has cut funding, to these needy schools serving low income communities. The Leader of the Opposition has once again capitulated to pressure behind him from the Australian education lobby, which wants to stop all funding to non-government schools. It is now stopping funding to Catholic parish schools, Christian schools and other low fee community schools. The pressure is mounting on the Leader of the Opposition. Last night on Sky News channel we heard Mr Rodney Molesworth, President of the Australian Council of State School Organisations, say: There is no such thing as a needy Catholic school anymore in comparison with government schools. All the needy schools are government schools, and they need a massive influx of resources right now.I suppose that is why the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition are now denying funding to Aboriginal community schools, which are the neediest schools in Australia and which are schools in the non-government sector. The Labor Party has rolled over once again to pressure. The Leader of the Opposition has rolled back to the lobbies putting pressure on him, which want him to deny all funding to non-government schools. What is now clear from his actions on this legislation on establishment grants is that every one of the 1.3 million parents of students at Catholic parish schools knows that he has them in his sights. The dogs are barking once again and Kim Beazley is listening. All these parents know that a Labor Party government would mean further cuts to needy schools in Australia.3067615:11:0030676Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will your pre-election education ads tell people that your enrolment benchmark adjustment policy cut funding to government schools by $60 million, your unfair new funding system gave massive million-dollar funding increases to wealthy category 1 schools that do not need them and that your government has cut Commonwealth funding to Australian universities by $3 billion and actually reduced the number of Australian students at university last year?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question. He is advancing argument.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Prime Minister, will these facts be in your ad campaign, or are these exactly the facts your ads are designed to hide?30676Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. It is predicated—I think that is the best way to describe it—on allegations of an ad campaign, and I had said in relation to questions asked by the member for Dobell that I do not automatically accept that. I said that I would get some advice and that I would provide further information if that was appropriate. I will tell the Leader of the Opposition what my earned media campaign on education will tell the Australian public.Government members—Earned?ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, that is one of those expressions to describe the media you get when you do not buy advertising. In other words, if you make a sensible statement about something, the media see fit to cover it.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Very rarely.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Treasurer says, `Very rarely.' I have to say that the Treasurer is right in the case of some media outlets; but I will not get into that because I am hoping they will all cover this answer, so I do not want to offend any of them. I will tell you one or two things that my media campaign will say. It will say that in the current financial year, 2000-01, Commonwealth increases in funding for government schools will rise significantly more than state government increases for state government schools. This is despite the fact that historically—and this was true under the Hawke government, as it is under the Howard government—the great bulk of the funding burden for government schools was carried by state governments— they are state government schools; they are owned and operated by the state governments—to the tune of 88 per cent; 12 per cent is carried by the federal government.That was the case when Bob Hawke was Prime Minister, it was the case when Paul Keating was Prime Minister and it remains the case now. For example, in this current financial year federal government funding for government schools in New South Wales has gone up by 5.3 per cent. The increase by the Carr government for its own schools is only 2.5 per cent. In the state of Victoria, where the Commonwealth increase is a very healthy 5.4 per cent, the increase by the Bracks government is a lousy 1.8 per cent. In Queensland it is a little better, I have to say: our increase is five per cent, but the increase by the Queensland government lags behind at 4.1 per cent. My note says this: Western Australia—Commonwealth increase, five per cent; state government increase awaiting WA budget. We do await the WA budget, and I wonder if the predictions made about cutting funding in Western Australia to state government hospitals is in fact prescient in relation to government schools. Let us lay to rest this completely false claim being made by the Labor Party that we have in our funding disadvantaged government schools. The reality is that we have increased faster than most of the states our funding provision for government schools in the various states of Australia, despite the fact that they are not primarily our responsibility. They are primarily the responsibility of state governments. The word `state' implies and carries with it the reality that they are owned, operated and staffed by people employed and paid by the state governments. That has been the history of education. So, in response to all this talk coming from the Labor Party and the education unions that in some way we have disproportionate funding allocations, I simply point out that 78 per cent of all government funding in Australia goes to those pupils educated in government schools, which comprise 70 per cent of the total education population. In other words, 78 per cent of the money goes to 70 per cent of the children, and the remaining 22 per cent goes to the 30 per cent of children who are educated in non-government schools.I am very proud of the funding policies that my government has put in place in relation to schools in Australia. We have enhanced the choice available to low and middle income parents in Australia to exercise their freedom of choice. What Labor is doing is voting against establishment grants; it is voting against funding for schools that need help. The funding bill that Labor is going to knock back is not a bill that is going to give money to the King's School, to Wesley College or to Scotch College. Labor is knocking back a bill that is going to give money to parish Catholic schools that need the assistance.The Leader of the Opposition is reminded of what that teacher union bloke Molesworth says. Mr Molesworth says there is no longer such a thing as a needy Catholic school. The Leader of the Opposition, right on cue, gets his mates in the Senate yesterday to indicate that they are going to knock back the commencement grant legislation. Then he gets up and mumbles as a preamble to a question, `Don't worry, they'll get every penny from us.' The way that `they'll get every penny from us' is for the opposition to vote against a bill that would give all the pennies to them! It is a very interesting piece of tortured logic. After 20 years of comparative quiet on this issue, the Labor Party has reintroduced the politics of envy into school funding in the Australian community. That campaign will fail. There are hundreds of thousands of Australian parents who assert the right to choose what school their children should go to. As somebody who benefited very greatly from a state education system, I am very proud of the fact that we have established in this country the best funding system in the Western world for both government and private schools. In this nation we have established a funding system for independent schools that provides help, incentive, support and encouragement for low and middle income parents to send their children to independent schools. It is a great system, and the Labor Party is trying to undermine it.3067715:20:0030677Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister inform the House what the government is doing to help small business to expand and employ more Australians? Minister, are there any alternative policies? 30678Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Blair for his question and for his strong support for small business. I am very pleased to tell the House that this is actually a blue-ribbon day for the small businesses of Australia, thanks to the great policies of the Howard government. Today a new unfair dismissal law takes effect that exposes people who bring dodgy unfair dismissal claims to potential costs orders, exposes ambulance chasing lawyers in this jurisdiction to potential fines and, best of all, establishes for all new employees a standard three-month probationary period during which the unfair dismissal laws will not apply. That has happened today thanks to the good work of this government. But this government is not resting on its laurels. Today it has introduced new legislation into the House to further enhance the ability of small business to employ more Australians and to create more jobs. While this government is helping small business, opposition policy is to allow union officials automatic right of entry into the one million small businesses in Australia, to open up their filing cabinets, to rifle through their documents—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—What percentage is unionised?EZ5Mr ABBOTT—even though fewer than 10 per cent of small businesses employ any union members. Thanks to the opposition's so-called good faith bargaining policy, reiterated yesterday by the shadow minister, small business has to engage in compulsory meetings with unions, compulsory adherence to union agenda, compulsory responses to union demands and compulsory disclosure to unions of the most intimate financial documents. These union officials to whom the opposition wants to expose small business are not all fine men like Johnno Johnson, MLC, who graced us with his presence yesterday. Take for instance, AMWU organiser Tim Murray, who the other day, outside a car component manufacturer in Adelaide, said:Delegates will put a devious little plot together to stuff up production, causing maximum disruption to the company.These are the people with whom the small businesses of Australia are supposed to engage in compulsory bargaining.BV5Adams, Dick, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the member for Lyons has a point of order I will hear him. I remind him that, as an occupier of the chair, he should be familiar with the standing orders.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Then, of course, there is Craig Johnson, the head of the Victorian AMWU, whose idea of talking to small business is to smash down the door with a crowbar.This government's strong commitment to small business owes a very great deal to an absolutely outstanding Minister for Small Business. The Minister for Small Business had a remarkable tribute paid to him today in the pages of the Australian. Peter Switzer says of the minister:... this bushy from Queensland is fair dinkum in his consideration of the issues that small business cares about.Peter Switzer goes on to say that the minister is `fair dinkum', that he is `on the money', that his responses are `spot on' and that:... there are stats to prove he has been a plus for the Government since he was given the small biz gig.In the three months to August, thanks to a great minister, small business confidence has reached a two-year high. This is a government that supports small business and the ability of small business to create more jobs for Australians.3067815:24:0030678Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his proposal to seek a free trade agreement with the United States during his forthcoming visit. Is he aware that modelling work commissioned by his government indicates that such an agreement would lead to a reduction in both overall output and domestic market share for the Australian motor vehicle industry, which would put Japanese investment in the industry at risk; an expansion of nearly 50 per cent in Australian imports of US motor vehicles; and trade diversion from our main trading partner, Japan, to the United States of nearly $350 million? That is your report. In view of this, will the government be discussing these issues with the Australian car industry on the impact of an FTA before he makes his visit to the US? 30679Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I have indicated that it is the intention of the government to try to reach an understanding with the United States administration to negotiate a free trade agreement. It goes without saying that it is going to be a very difficult undertaking. It also goes without saying that it may not ultimately come to fruition. We might start the negotiation and we may find that the price asked by the United States for the agreement is unacceptable and not consonant with Australia's national interest. There is no way we can find out whether a free trade agreement to the mutual advantage of Australia and the United States is possible unless we begin the process of negotiation. It stands to reason that the worst way to approach something like this is to assume the worst outcome—and because that might happen, you do not even try. Of course, the Australian government is not going to negotiate away with the United States or, indeed, any other country the vital interests of any Australian industry—of course, we are not going to do that. If the Leader of the Opposition is saying to me, `It is all very difficult,' of course he is right on this occasion: it is difficult. But I take the view and the government takes the view that the longer term interests of Australia would be enhanced if we could achieve a free trade agreement with the United States—by far the most powerful economy in the world and a great strategic partner of Australia in other ways. We believe that it would be to the advantage of Australia if we could negotiate a free trade agreement with the Americans. Obviously, it has to be on terms and conditions that are acceptable to both. I do not have any delirious expectations, but if we do not try we have no chance of ever succeeding. Apparently, the policy of the Labor Party is to give up before even trying. This is quite a serious issue, which is of long-term interest to the Australian community.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—What about the car industry?PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition interjects about the car industry. I tell you what: I did more for the car industry in Adelaide a few weeks ago than your union mates did. Your union mates were out there undermining the jobs of decent Australians in South Australia. That is what they were doing—and you interject about the car industry. You showed absolutely no interest in the car industry.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will address his remarks through the chair.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I promise not to respond to any more interjections. I think that a free trade agreement between Australia and the United States, if it could be negotiated, would significantly underwrite the long-term economic strength of this country. There are complementarities between the Australian economy and the Unites States economy. There are also areas of very significant difficulty. Agriculture is an area of significant difficulty. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to another area that is of difficulty, and of course there are areas of resistance in relation to what many in Australia see as some kind of cultural imperialism by the United States. There is concern amongst the entertainment industry about changes that might possibly disadvantage them. I am aware of all of that. The government are aware of all of that. We do not dismiss those things. We do not pretend that they will be easily resolved or easily negotiated away. But we do contend that we ought to make an attempt to negotiate an understanding with the United States. That will be the proposition that I will put to President Bush when I see him on Monday week in Washington.I think the overwhelming interest of the Australian people will be served if we at least endeavour to see if there is a proper basis on which to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States. I would hope that in that endeavour we have the support and the goodwill of the opposition—not for any political advantage to the government but because it happens to be in Australia's national interest that we negotiate a free trade agreement. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Matters of Public Importance306803068010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Government to put in place a comprehensive solution to the situation of the people on board the MV Tampa.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:31:0030680Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, you will recollect that during question time I approached you with the proposition that I would want to make a personal explanation on something that the Prime Minister had said. I chose not to do that because I understood that an arrangement had been made between both sides that there would be no questions or matters of personal explanation on this side of the House, and knowing that I would have an opportunity in this particular debate to set the record straight.I start with an aside, effectively, to the main point here, and that is the Prime Minister's revelation or discussion about discussions we had last night over the phone on the question of our approach to his bill after he had sought from us our views on whether or not we would accept a sunset clause in relation to the bill. He suggested in those remarks that I had not included, in my proposition to him that we ought to talk about the legal circumstances specifically relating to the Tampa as a possible way through the problem to find a solution, a reference to ensuring that there was a safe haven or safe port of call for those involved. I have checked my recollection with my chief of staff, Michael Costello, who was witness to my side of that conversation, and he has a clear memory of my doing so. I do want to make that point. In any event, the offer is on the table for those discussions, because we are seeking a solution that ensures that there is a safe and secure outcome for the people who are on board that ship.When discussion on all this started three or four days ago, I offered the support of the opposition to the government to uphold what we interpreted as a correct interpretation of international law, and that was that there was an obligation upon the Indonesians to accept the passage of that ship to the port that it was intending to visit in any case, and that under international law that was the appropriate way to go. We offered that bipartisan support because we believe that in these affairs international agreements should be stuck to. We noted, as we went down that path, that indeed the fact that that had not occurred was to some extent a product of duress in relation to the captain of the MV Tampa. We offered bipartisan support to the government on this matter from the very outset.But yesterday that good faith on our part was savagely spurned by this government, when the Prime Minister first presented to me, and then came into this place presenting to this House, a bill of the most draconian internal content. His only defence of it in this place today was to say, `Well, you wouldn't expect an Australian minister of either side of the House to behave in the way the legislation would permit him to do.' There is no other legislation that is deliberated upon seriously and intelligently that puts massive powers in the hands of any minister of the Commonwealth without appropriate caveats so that those powers are exercised with a degree of judiciousness and also with a degree of protection for those who may be the subject of the operation of those laws—none.There is no assumption in legislation that that should occur. That is included, of course, in such legislation as the call-out legislation that we deliberated on in this chamber recently. That call-out legislation is for extreme circumstances arising with a possible threat to the security of the nation, the survival of the government or the possibility of riot and revolution on the streets, in circumstances in which it is necessary to call out the military to save social cohesion and to save the operation of government and, in some circumstances, to save people who are the subject of terrorist threat—an order of issue and problem miles higher than the problems that we happen to be dealing with here, important though they are. Yet that legislation, properly, is covered by caveat after caveat ensuring that there is an appropriate approval process for the actions of ministers. There is none in this legislation. A major breach of trust occurred last night that, in any subsequent negotiations and discussions between us, sits in our memory as we approach whatever it is that the Prime Minister has to say to us. We are here to play a constructive role, but we also say that whatever is done in this place should be fair and decent as well, because we rely upon our reputation for fairness and decency internationally for a solution not just to this problem but to all the problems that we are going to confront in future years as we, like all other countries— although we are in a better position than most countries—deal with the problems of illegal movements of people across our borders. We are in fact in a far better situation than most of those countries who have similar views and similar concerns about the problems that we confront. We do have a moat, and that is of course of enormous assistance to us.When I offered bipartisan support, I naturally had in my mind a structure of how on-the-job prime ministers and ministers operate when confronted with a crisis. I had in my mind an image of an active Prime Minister not simply on the airwaves of this nation but on the airwaves out of this nation to the people who have the capacity to assist him in this regard. Not on that side of the House nor on this side of the House has there ever been an assumption that this particular problem is going to be resolved by some domestic response. This problem, like most of these problems, must invariably be resolved by both a domestic and an international response.It was my anticipation that, when you have gone through a process in which you have been discussing with the Indonesians a response to a search and rescue operation that will ultimately see a ship end up in Indonesian waters, and where there would be a reasonable suspicion, given the nature of the purposes of those on board the foundering vessel, that while on the high seas they might point themselves in the direction of Australia, a bare minimum requirement would be the beginnings of a consultation with the Indonesians at the very highest level as to how we might respond. If we did not consult at that point when we became alert to the problem, there should have been action taken before we decided how to respond, as the government decided on Monday. So, even if there had not been that high-level discussion at that first point, there should have been at the point when there was a response put in place. Before the cabinet had any consideration of this, the Prime Minister would have said to his cabinet colleagues, `This is a result of my deliberations with the President of Indonesia and this is a result of the foreign minister's deliberations with his counterpart.' That would have been a bare minimum requirement of a Prime Minister who was doing his job.What we have discovered in the course of the last couple of days is that no such consultations have taken place. None have taken place. I could get this wrong, so I will be cautious with what I have to say about it, but I think I heard the Prime Minister in question time today say that there was in fact no ministerial senior contact with Indonesia until last night. I cannot believe this. I cannot believe that this circumstance, in which there is a major issue confronting the Australian people, which the Prime Minister has not been off the airwaves about since this trouble first broke out, has involved no conversation with the people who are one of the keys to its solution. This is simply not good enough.There is no doubt that a substantial part of the problem that we now confront is a direct product of the cooling of our relationship with Indonesia over the course of the last few years. It has always been the case, given the obvious direction of the waterways to Australia, that any solution to the Australian boat people cases has involved discussions in our immediate region, and the closest of those regional powers is Indonesia. There have been 13,000 landings over the last decade: 2,000 in the five years of the decade for which we were responsible and 11,000 in the five years of the decade for which our political opponents have been responsible. It is true that in the circumstances surrounding Timor we took a damaging hit to our relationship which was inevitably going to impact upon these things. Nevertheless, having said that, it is a long time since Timor. In the course of the last 18 months we have had offers of discussions from the then Indonesian President, President Wahid, when my foreign affairs spokesperson and I visited Indonesia well over a year ago and found them willing to be a dialogue partner, as offered by then President Wahid, in a tripartite discussion between us, the Timorese and them on common problems in our area. We have made a suggestion for an Arafura Sea council to discuss common problems in our area and with Papua New Guinea. Despite these sorts of forums, the sort of environment in which these sorts of discussions could take place, there has been an 18-month hiatus that only just began to be dealt with a couple of weeks ago when the Prime Minister visited President Megawati. He did say, when he came out of his visit with President Megawati, that they had had constructive discussions on these sorts of issues. Therefore, if there was ever a base for a continuing conversation between the Prime Minister and the President, ample provision was there to feed off that, to build on that level of agreement that was there between them. But that was not done. The opportunity to build that relationship has not been taken.The Prime Minister, having not done that, nevertheless brought into the parliament last night the bill to which I refer. He has himself gone out on the airwaves since then—and before then and in private conversation with me—and said the same thing both yesterday and today, and that is this: `The Commonwealth does not need the powers it sought.' Indeed, that is our legal advice: it does not need them to do whatever it seeks to do with this particular ship. So we are left to ask what this whole week has been about. It seems to me that this whole week has been about at very best a pretty ordinarily conducted effort to get the ship to the point where the ship should have been going, but an all-court press political opportunity, and that includes yesterday's deliberations in this chamber and in the other chamber. What was being engaged in then was not the seeking of a resolution of the problem but an effort to use the problem politically.We want a resolution. We want a resolution of this problem and we want a broader resolution. We have always been prepared on migration matters to discuss these things with the minister concerned. We remain prepared on the legislation that he has before us in this parliament, albeit very belatedly introduced in one case, and still remain prepared to discuss these matters with the minister. We remain prepared, too, for any legislative based solutions specifically related to Tampa that also include the certainty—the guarantee—of the safety of the people involved upon that ship and their capacity to arrive at a safe destination. That is our position; that was the position that was adopted by the parliamentary party at my initiative this morning; that was the position that we adopted last night; and that is the position we have sustained all week. (Time expired)15:46:0030682Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the offer of cooperation in relation to legislation that is presently before this parliament because I would make the point that the legislation contains very important provisions designed to deal with particular problems that we do face now. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that these are issues which require both domestic and international responses. I notice that the matter of public importance that we are discussing today is the allegation of:The failure of the Government to put in place a comprehensive solution to the situation of the people on board the MV Tampa.I listened very carefully to the speech from the Leader of the Opposition because I wanted to see outlined a comprehensive solution to the situation that we face; I wanted to hear if he could outline for me an approach that a thoughtful, constructive opposition would be taking on this issue were they in office. And I did not hear it. That is, quite frankly, a significant disappointment to me. I will, however, take the opportunity, in replying to the matter of public importance on behalf of the government, to outline the reasons for the legislation that was introduced last night. I made the point today on radio that it is a long time since I have been in the practice of law, I might say—almost 28 years—but I well remember the advice that was given to me by a very revered and highly regarded Sydney law practitioner who was experienced in appearing before the Privy Council in a number of matters, the litigation having been of such a substantial character in relation to forming the framework of the common law of this nation. His advice was that, in acting in matters where one had a very firm view about what the law might be, if there was a further step that you could take to be of more abundant precaution, you would always take it.There is no doubt that the advice that has been given to the government and that the opposition has accepted is correct. But, in areas which have been highly litigious, in which there has been an element, I might say, of behaviour on the part of some which in other circumstances—except that it involves, I suppose, nation states—I would question the bona fides, why would you not make sure? We were told that there were 10 people unconscious on the vessel MV Tampa and that a number of other serious conditions needed to be addressed and that that constituted two very important signals constituting an emergency. Later, there was a mayday signal sent. These constituted the reasons for the vessel disobeying the instruction to remain outside of our territorial waters. Such a short time after, with competent medical advice available, a very small number of medical conditions that certainly did not constitute any emergency were identified by those personnel. It was quite clear.I think I still have the statement available that the Prime Minister tabled yesterday, the telex message which showed that the vessel, when it was coming into our territorial waters, latterly changed its view. The telex said: The spokesperson of the survivors, Mohamed Wali, relayed to me the intention of the survivors to begin jumping overboard if no sure medical assistance was rendered by a particular hour. This in my opinion was a situation getting out of hand.It seems to me that that was a situation in which you knew that a particular course had been developed. I do not know whether the Norwegian government was complicit in it or not, but certainly the captain was determined to bring the vessel into our territorial waters. In that context, it certainly constituted, in the words of my master solicitor, a situation in which more abundant precaution was required.The unauthorised arrival of a vessel in our territorial sea must be dealt with in a certain and expeditious manner, and such action can be thwarted if there is any uncertainty concerning the basis for action or if a capacity exists for lengthy legal proceedings challenging those actions. It was therefore out of an abundance of caution that the government wanted to put beyond doubt the ability to exercise the powers in question and to avoid possible legal actions which would put the ability to exercise those powers in doubt. The opposition knows that the area in relation to the unlawful movement of people has been fraught with litigation. I am the most litigious minister of the Commonwealth, with over 2,000 cases currently before the courts. Why would you not want to put in doubt the possibility of legal actions that would prevent the exercise of these powers? It is not just a question of putting it beyond doubt in terms of its legality; it is a question of putting it beyond doubt in terms of the possibility to argue that there may be a case for doubt. You know in this area that the risk that you run is that somebody will rush off to the court, and there have already been reports in the media of threats of such legal action which could undermine our ability to deal with this current situation effectively. The government wanted to ensure that it could act decisively and without interference in the interests of protecting our territory. The Leader of the Opposition played these matters down, but we on this side happen to think that the ability to manage our borders—the territorial integrity of Australia— is fundamental. This bill was a reasonable response to the difficult position in which we had been placed. It is the act of a reasonable and responsible government going about getting the job done, and that task has been thwarted by the opposition's efforts last night.Was the bill consistent with our international obligations? It surely was. The government is confident that any actions taken pursuant to authority granted by the bill are consistent with those obligations; we have taken advice on that matter. Obviously, there will be circumstances in which vessels enter our territorial sea for unlawful purposes, and in such situations the law of the sea enables us to deal with such unauthorised entry. But the bill is designed to put these matters beyond doubt as a matter of domestic law. We are acutely aware of our need to meet our humanitarian obligations and, quite frankly, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest otherwise, knowing the procedures that are undertaken by government in dealing with these matters—and the procedures taken by government in dealing with this matter. Most of the decisions have been taken by cabinet or, if not the cabinet, the National Security Committee of cabinet. They are not matters on which people receive orders that are not thought through at the highest level. They are not matters on which ministers can be accused of a lack of goodwill in relation to these questions and the way in which they are addressed. They are far too important to be dealt with in that way. But in any event, if ministers were to deal with them in any way that was capricious or that could be brought into question, they are matters in respect of which they would ultimately be held accountable by the Australian community.As I have said, the government is acutely aware of the need to meet humanitarian obligations. Why would we put so much effort into ensuring that there are supplies, that the issue of people's safety is dealt with and, as I announced today, that portaloos are provided? There have been no offers from those who own the ship to bring humanitarian assistance to bear, and yet they use agents around the world, they ply their trade around the world and gain commercial advantage from that. One could be forgiven for thinking that the matter that is driving those who want to see a resolution of these issues by forcing these survivors on Australia in these circumstances has more to do with commercial profit and getting the vessel back on the line than it has to do with the circumstances of the individuals involved. I make the point that obviously vessels will not be sent back to the high seas in circumstances where that would endanger people's lives. Any suggestion that we would do so flies in the face of our record, not only in the case of the Tampa, but our record generally. Australia has been proud of its humanitarian record, and to bring it into question in this way says more about those who raise these questions in that form than it says about us.In relation to this bill, it was also important to deal with matters about claims of refugee status and to ensure that, if people were taken ashore for humanitarian reasons where claims of that sort may be made, they would be able to be returned and there would be a bar to claims. Bars are in the legislation that was introduced by you when you were in office, for a variety of reasons.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Now we're getting down to it.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—It would ensure that those people involved could be returned, but there would be a ministerial discretion to deal with any exceptional circumstances. I notice that the Chief Opposition Whip is challenging me on these matters. It appears to me that what he is saying on behalf of the opposition is that it is more important that these survivors are given an opportunity to make claims in Australia with the greater prospect of success—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—That's not true at all.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—That is what you are saying. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Order! The minister will address his remarks through the chair and will ignore the Chief Opposition Whip.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—The fact of the matter is that when this vessel took people on board—let me repeat what has been said before—at the request of the Indonesian search and rescue authorities, relayed by Australian authorities, with permission given by the Indonesian authorities, to take the vessel, the situation changed only because the survivors put duress on the captain, according to his reports of what has happened. I listened very carefully today to see whether an alternative solution was offered by the opposition in relation to the way in which this issue should be addressed, and I failed to hear it. What I heard from the opposition and the opposition leader was exactly what he said he did not want to introduce into the handling of this issue; quite frankly, that was a carping opposition. It diminishes those who have taken that approach. Let me assure the House that the government are giving every attention to this issue, as you would expect, and that our approach is comprehensive, as I outlined today, to deal not only with this issue but also with the wider range of issues. The government are ensuring that these questions involve other governments and other international agencies with a view to achieving a humane and appropriate outcome. But it will not be an outcome which leads to those people who have put others under duress achieving what they want. It will be an outcome which protects Australia's sovereignty and, in relation to dealing with boats generally, says that there will be an approach taken by this government to ensure that the insidious trade of smuggling in people is brought to an end. (Time expired)16:02:0030685Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—Let me reiterate at the outset that the opposition offered to work with the government for a lawful outcome which guaranteed the humanitarian circumstances of these people. What we have before the parliament today is the culmination of five years of absolute policy failure by the Howard government. In the process, our Prime Minister has proven himself to be utterly unable to manage this difficult issue and utterly unable to get on top of it. It is an issue which we all know has serious ramifications for this country's national security and for our reputation and international standing. What we have witnessed this week is the performance of a Prime Minister who is not fit to hold the office of Prime Minister of this country. And what a disgraceful impasse Australia now faces as a result of his utter manipulation of this issue. Lying offshore, four miles off Christmas Island, is the MV Tampa, with 450 souls on board, the survivors of a shipwreck. Had the boat not foundered, those people would almost certainly now be in Australia, having their potential refugee status checked and a determination made, but of course they are not. Instead, they sit offshore on the steel deck of the MV Tampa that rescued them, with a skipper who has been maligned and blackguarded by the government in this debate.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—He's a maritime worker; what do you expect?5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON—He is a maritime worker who has lived up to the finest humanitarian traditions of masters at sea. The government's response to the situation they face is for the Australian Defence Force to take the freighter MV Tampa and all aboard her out of Australia's waters. That is the simple solution that they have proposed: they are to be pushed beyond Australia's jurisdiction. Last night, we saw the disgraceful spectre of the government seeking to ram through the parliament an extraordinary, unprecedented bill with draconian powers to totally indemnify themselves from any liability whatsoever, whether it be criminal or civil, for anything that might happen as a result of their actions. If the MV Tampa is removed from our territorial waters, what then? Indonesia has said that it will not take those people. Our foreign minister admitted to me this morning that he thinks that there is very little chance that Indonesia will change its mind—he confirmed that. Norway will not take them, declaring outrage at the seizure of a vessel flying the Norwegian flag. To date, no-one else has said that they will take those people. It is very clear that the Australian government are prepared to see them remain at sea, but just outside our territorial waters, in a vessel that is licensed to carry only 40 people, and for them to stay there for however long it takes until someone else comes forward with a solution. It is that international solution that is desperately required. Of course, Australia should have been prepared to take the lead in seeking out such a solution, but to date our government have demonstrated no sign of achieving that, and they will be unable to take any credit if someone else provides a way through this impasse. On the contrary, their incompetent handling of this crisis has harmed our national interests and damaged Australia's international standing.For many months it has been clear that the government have had no answer to the arrival of unauthorised asylum seekers. Despite all the bravado and chest-beating, the Prime Minister and the immigration minister have utterly failed to stem the number of asylum seekers arriving on our coastline. In the last 10 years there have been approximately 12,700 unauthorised arrivals. The vast majority, over 10,000, have come since March 1996, on this government's watch. The government's response to date has focused mainly on domestic legislative changes which they have repeatedly claimed will discourage unauthorised arrivals. In 1999, the immigration minister secured the approval of parliament for a new regime, his temporary protection visa regime. He asserted then that the measures would provide a strong disincentive to and stem the flow of new arrivals. Yet since that very measure was introduced in November 1999, more than 6,000 asylum seekers have arrived by boat—some 50 per cent of boat arrivals in all the 12 years since 1989.Has the government ever acknowledged that its domestic solutions have proved ineffectual and that there is a need for a new and much more comprehensive strategy to tackle this? There has been no real sign of any acknowledgment. Instead, the government's actions in the Tampa crisis are prejudicing our ability to secure the regional cooperation that is going to be absolutely vital to combat the crime of people smuggling. At the outset of this crisis the Prime Minister unilaterally and bluntly declared that the Tampa was a problem for Indonesia and Norway to solve. He declared that the fate of the people on board the ship was not Australia's problem. In the process, he showed himself to be both extraordinarily cynical and very foolish indeed. If he wanted Indonesia to take the people from the Tampa, the government should have consulted Indonesia, and consulted them at a minister to minister level, well in advance of any public statement. Yet Foreign Minister Downer, as we now know, only belatedly spoke to his Indonesian counterpart last night—well after the whole show had bolted.The Prime Minister, by his own admission in this House today, has not yet spoken to President Megawati Sukarnoputri. He said he may do so later on. So much for the new relationship that he so proudly boasted of when he returned from Jakarta only earlier this month. Prudent diplomacy would have required Australia to comprehensively consult with the Indonesian government. It should have done so at the highest levels in advance of announcing a policy that, at the end of the day, depended upon Indonesian cooperation. Jakarta may have been measured in their responses, but they can hardly have been encouraged to cooperate by our Prime Minister's declarations and the appearance of Australia dictating to them. If we are really to address the question of people-smuggling, much greater regional cooperation is absolutely vital.The government claims that Australia and Indonesia are working together to disrupt people-smuggling networks, but the effectiveness of this interdiction needs great improvement. The government has conspicuously failed to secure Indonesia's agreement to a formal memorandum of understanding on people-smuggling. Australia needs to pursue these issues at the highest level. We need to do so with the Indonesian government. We need to encourage Jakarta to focus on the problem and recognise the mutual benefits of enhanced cooperation. We need to explore the potential for increased technical support for Indonesian law enforcement authorities and for additional assistance to Indonesia in the area of maritime surveillance. Our country deserves a government committed to fixing this problem, not to playing politics with it. We need to put the issue of people-smuggling firmly on the agenda in each of our regional security dialogues. We need to see it on the ASEAN regional security dialogue. And we need a special Australian envoy to engage regional governments in dialogue and cooperation on people-smuggling issues. We should be seeking to convene a conference of regional governments specifically focused on the question of combating people-smuggling in the Asia-Pacific region. The Howard government have not shown any inclination at all to pursue a comprehensive regional strategy that might involve these approaches. Indeed, they show little sign of wanting a solution. No; what the Prime Minister wants is a talkback-led election issue.The problem facing Australia of people-smuggling has been brewing for a long time, and the government have had plenty of time to fashion an effective and humane response. They have had 10,000 reasons to do so since their watch began, but they have utterly failed to do so. As always, they are looking through the prism of political opportunism. They have failed to properly engage with our neighbours and build the regional cooperation required to address this issue. In the management of these issues, we have seen a policy failure of the highest order. The consequences are all too evident in the utter shambles of the last few days. They are now intent on playing politics with an eye to grabbing One Nation preferences. In the process, they have damaged Australia's international reputation and conspicuously betrayed our national interest. The Prime Minister, I put it to the House, has confirmed himself utterly unworthy of his high office.16:12:0030687Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—When the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs spoke at the beginning of this debate on the matter of public importance, he mentioned that his old master at law had told him once that he should always try and cover every base, and if there was something more that he could do he should always do it. The Leader of the Opposition has informed us today that he has been taking his own advice with respect to how to deal with the problem of the MV Tampa. There is an old legal maxim that a lawyer who takes his own advice has a fool for a client. That is certainly the case with the Leader of the Opposition.It is worth examining why we have this problem today. When the ALP were in power from 1983 to 1996, their policies over that time combined to produce the problem we have today. There is no getting away from that. The Labor Party's policies for 13 years combined to create the problem we are now facing in Australia with illegal people-smuggling. They need to bear responsibility for that, and in this entire debate they have sought to obfuscate and push off responsibility to everyone else. The reality is that, before 1983, people smugglers were dealt with by the Fraser government in an entirely different way to the way that we inherited in 1996. What are some of the things that happened in that time that conspired to create this situation? The first was that the Labor Party disengaged Australia's interpretation of what persecution meant in defining a refugee from the way the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Convention on Refugees define persecution for the purposes of defining a refugee. Labor defined it differently; they created the circumstances that allowed the courts to define it in a much more generous and open-ended fashion. And that created Australia as a soft target for people smugglers bringing their cargo of misery.Some of the statistics show us this. For example, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is currently assessing asylum seekers intercepted in Indonesia en route to Australia and is achieving an acceptance rate of 14.6 per cent for Afghans and 59.6 per cent for Iraqis. That is the assessment of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of people they have intercepted on their way to Australia from Indonesia. In Australia, the same caseload achieves acceptance rates of 84 per cent for Afghans and 94 per cent for Iraqis. The acceptance rate for Iranians in Indonesia, assessed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is only around three per cent; however, in Australia the acceptance rate for the same caseload is almost 19 per cent. The facts speak for themselves. Our definition of persecution for the purposes of interpreting who is a refugee is dramatically different to the definition used by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. So the ALP changed that and they made us a soft target for people smugglers. We introduced a bill this week that could change that, and the question is: will the ALP oppose that legislation, or will they support it? So far they have decided to put it off to a committee. The point is that we need that legislation to be passed now, and Labor yet again are standing up for the people smugglers rather than for Australia's national interests.The second thing the Labor Party did was put in place opportunities for refugees to appeal administrative decisions to the Federal Court. Those appeals clogged up the Federal Court system and cost the Australian taxpayer millions of dollars, because they also provided legal aid to the people who represented those alleged refugees in the Federal Court. As a consequence, that changed the way we had perceived refugees in Australia under the Fraser government. The Fraser government were never accused of lacking compassion, yet it is their system that we are trying to get back to today and which the Labor Party have opposed root and branch for the last 5½ years. This again created the impression that, if you could get yourself to Australia and you could get representation and have it paid for by the Australian taxpayer, you could clog up the system and stay here for years and years while your appeals were being heard—and it was much better staying here for that with the chance of success than it was staying in a refugee camp or another camp in some other place around the world.The third thing that they did—and the most pernicious—was that they abused the immigration system by creating the impression amongst some ethnic communities that they would be favoured for family reunion places under the migration system in exchange for the tacit understanding that the Labor Party would get support at the ballot box. This led to the position in 1996 where seven out of every eight people under the migration program coming to Australia were under the family reunion program—because the Labor Party used it as a political tool to try to improve their votes amongst ethic communities. That changed that program from a sophisticated, fair-minded one to a disgraceful political rort.What is the ALP's solution today? The member for Kingsford-Smith's solution today is a talkfest: another committee, a conference, a debate and a discussion with all the groups in the South-East Asian region. It is the Labor Party's answer to every problem. But the Australian people want action today. This government has given them action, and the Labor Party is once again throwing up hurdles to stop us from being able to bring about action and bring about a resolution to this crisis.4T4Melham, Daryl, MP849Sidebottom, Sid, MPWU5O'Connor, Gavan, MP10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable members for Banks, Braddon and Corio will cease interjecting or the chair will deal with them.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your protection from those hyenas on the other side of the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Sturt will not encourage them. 9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—The ALP is undermining that confidence further. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said that he would like to adopt a bipartisan policy. He said:... because we believe more generally that policies in the area of immigration, which are quite fraught in debate in this country, are best settled on a bipartisan basis, that is the view that we intend to pursue. By the afternoon, a few hours later, he had shattered that bipartisanship at the first opportunity. He admitted that the government had a serious problem on its hands, he said that the ALP would assist the government, and then he denied us the crucial support we needed to protect our borders. He said: ... this country and this parliament do not need a carping opposition; what they actually need is an opposition that understands the difficult circumstance in which the government finds itself, and to the very best of my ability I will ensure that that situation prevails.4T4Melham, Daryl, MP849Sidebottom, Sid, MPWU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPSE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Denison does not have the call and he is not assisting the chair in any way.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Deputy Speaker, the other speakers were heard in relative silence, particularly the opposition speakers. I think it is only reasonable that the same courtesy is extended to the member who is speaking now.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The chair agrees.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—The irony for the ALP in all of this is that their policy is to introduce a coastguard. The irony for them is that, to have the coastguard policy that they require, they need the kind of legislation that we put up last night for them to support; then their policy would work. Otherwise it will not work. Yet their stupidity on this is manifest, because they actually opposed the legislation that they need themselves to make their coastguard policy work.The Leader of the Opposition had a chance at compromise on this. Last night, the Prime Minister offered to introduce a six-month sunset clause so that, if the worst-case scenario occurs and the Labor Party happen to fall into government after the next election—which will be a great shock to the Australian people—they can, if they wish, remove this legislation. The Leader of the Opposition rejected that compromise. He did not want compromise. He rejected it because he wanted to create a political issue out of this, but he will be the loser as a consequence.The government has acted decisively and entirely within its rights and, more importantly, in the national interest. The ALP has not. As the Prime Minister said on the Today show this morning:... what the Labor Party did in the Senate last night was to block legislation that would have reinforced the right of any Australian government to order a ship out of Australian territorial waters.Nobody wants to see people who are fleeing from their homes for a better life turned away. But what we do need to do in Australia is ensure that those people who do seek refuge here are refugees. That is the government's policy. We need to take into account that in refugee camps in the Sudan, Albania, Macedonia and Afghanistan there are genuine refugees waiting impatiently. Some of them may never get here—they may die in those camps—because of people who have jumped the queue, because of people who could afford to fly themselves to Malaysia, Indonesia or the Philippines. Those people are denied a position here because of the policies of the Labor Party yesterday and today. (Time expired)16:22:0030689Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—I will speak only for five minutes. I want not to repeat all the things I said yesterday but to take up some of the issues raised regarding what we can do about these matters and about the government's claim that the Australian nation appears to be a soft touch and a soft target for refugees. I was a bit surprised that the member for Sturt actually made these comments in light of the fact that, in the last two years in particular, all sorts of very tough policies have been put into place for the treatment of refugee claimants in this country. Every time we heard about these policies, their whole intention became clearer: `Aha, we have to send this message that we are being really tough so that Australia does not look like a soft target; in doing that, we will deter people from coming here.' The whole concept of `refugee' is misunderstood by those who think that the people who come here are doing so because somehow they have decided, `Let's go on a nice trip.' These people are coming here because they are being persecuted and they are in real trouble. Even the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has admitted that there are 20 million or more refugees around the world. There are refugees because there are persecution, violence and abuse of human rights. That is why there are refugees. By putting into place all these deterrent actions, have we succeeded in actually reducing the number of people in flight? Of course not. The number of people has not been reduced because the problem of refugees internationally is a very serious one. Are we receiving a disproportionate number of refugees in Australia? Of course we are not receiving a disproportionate number. The fact of the matter is that there are people crossing borders throughout the world, especially into richer Western countries, and many of these people are refugees. Germany, for example, has between 70,000 and 100,000 people a year crossing its borders; Italy has between 30,000 and 40,000 people a year. Do those countries go around behaving in this way, trying to maintain that they have no international obligations? They do not. It is time for us to recognise that we have international obligations in this matter.I said yesterday that eventually, whether we like it or not, this matter will have to be resolved by Australia. Let us try and get some agreement in this chamber on ways and means of dealing with the refugee issue in a humanitarian way. If the minister has serious concerns, such as the issue of excessive appeals to the courts, let us deal with those on their merits. I have suggested to the minister a way in which this matter can actually be confronted and resolved. Let us show some imagination and let us deal with those particular concerns on their merits. But we are not talking here about people who want to abuse the Federal Court system; we are talking here about people who are desperate, who are fleeing from persecution. As I mentioned yesterday, a significant number of these people are coming with whole families, including women and children—and numbers of other women and children are coming because the husband has already been accepted here on a temporary three-year visa.As the Australian newspaper said today, on the basis of the statistics, if we accept that two-thirds of such people will be accepted, as has happened with previous boatloads, that means that at least two-thirds of the people on this boat are genuine refugees— many of whom have relatives in Australia. But we are saying, `Turn them away; we have no responsibility.' This is absurd. This is an absurd way to approach this issue.The member for Sturt and the minister have said, `Oh, but if they were in Indonesia they would be treated differently; more of them would be rejected under the tougher UNHCR definition than they would be here under Australia's refugee definition.' Are we to say that, because our refugee definition is a compassionate one, we should change it and we should not have a compassionate one? This great country has so much available for people—and I might point out that refugees are people who have contributed to this nation. I appeal to the Prime Minister to think about how this matter will be resolved in the long term. I ask him to try and bring to this chamber a compassionate approach so that we can all get together and resolve this issue on a national basis, and save Australia's international reputation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The discussion is concluded. I have returned to the chair to give members the opportunity to ask questions of the chair or for the making of personal explanations.Questions to the Speaker306903069016:28:0030690Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—Mr Speaker, this week I contacted the Parliamentary Library to obtain figures and data on the Natural Heritage Trust funding of programs specifically in my electorate of Oxley but also in regard to all other electorates in Queensland. This information I have previously received by correspondence from the Department of the Environment and Heritage, including a breakdown of each program and the funding in all of the electorates in Queensland. I have now been informed by the Parliamentary Library that the department and the minister's office have assigned no urgency or priority to my request and hence I did not receive all of the information that I required. Although I did pursue it vigorously for two days and received some information, I did not receive all the information I required. I was also informed that I was not entitled to information outside of my own electorate. Given that the electorate of Oxley covers half of the city of Ipswich, which is cut notionally down the middle, I do not see how this is possible. Mr Speaker, could you report back to all members on our rights in relation to access of what is public funding information? If there is a directive from ministers to restrict information to members of parliament, or to have reported back to them requests for information from members of parliament, could I be informed of where else I might be able to obtain the information necessary for me and other members of parliament to represent our constituencies?30691SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—In response to the member for Oxley, and as chairman of the Library Committee, I can report that there has been no change in the way in which the library collates or makes available information to members. As far as the responsibility of individual ministers is concerned, and what their obligations are to make various information available, I will check that and report back to the member for Oxley. I would have thought that one of the opportunities that the member for Oxley had to access information would be to put a question on notice.Personal Explanations3069116:30:0030691Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I claim to have been grievously misrepresented by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services in question time today. In question time today, the minister suggested to the House that I, as shadow minister for transport, sought to immediately close Essendon airport and that, having detailed that policy position, I had made representations to the minister for the long-term access of 727 aeroplanes to Essendon, and that we had no regard for rural Victoria in that matter. The facts are that on 13 August I received a copy of correspondence to the minister for transport from Air Cargo Australia, seeking access for B727s for 12 movements over a 12-month period—XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In these matters, Mr Speaker, as you are acutely aware, the honourable member is not entitled to debate the issues to show where he has been misrepresented and then to move on.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison, I did not hear the Chief Government Whip specifically ask you a question. The member for Batman is a man of some experience in this House. The Chief Government Whip is right in that the member for Batman was going close to advancing an argument. I was listening closely to what he said and I will, of course, require him to resume his seat if he is advancing an argument. We do not need chapter and verse of events; we do need him to indicate where he was misrepresented.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I was clearly dealing with the facts; I am not seeking to enter into argument. I refer to a letter to the minister from a company seeking access to maintain 40 jobs in Australia, to prevent those jobs going overseas and the loss of skills to Australia.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman must indicate where he was misrepresented, as he is aware.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—The suggestion by the minister was that that correspondence was about long-term access to Essendon airport for 727s. It was for 12 months while a hangar facility was being built at Tullamarine—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman is now advancing an argument and he knows that he cannot advance an argument.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—so as to keep those jobs in Australia. Having dealt with the facts with respect to that issue and the misrepresentation of my position by the minister, I also indicate that his suggestion that we would close Essendon airport immediately is wrong. We will guarantee access to Melbourne— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will resume his seat. He cannot indicate where a party has been misrepresented; he can indicate where he has been misrepresented.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I was clearly indicating where the minister had misrepresented me.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Chief Government Whip is quite correct. When you wish to display that you have been misrepresented, it is necessary to say that something that was said to have been written was not written, or that something that was said to have been published was not published. It is not an argument about what the letter was meant to purvey nor what the statement that they would close was meant to say. It is a simple thing. The letter, he has just admitted, was written and, in fact, he has said that the airport was to be closed. So he has not been misrepresented and we are having a debate.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman was interrupted by the Speaker when he was advancing an argument. In fact, wider than is normally allowed, he had indicated the complexity of the aircraft negotiations he had had. He has not since advanced an argument. However, I do require him quickly to come to any other misrepresentation.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Clearly, I have sought to make my comments in accordance with the normal practice of the House.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman has been granted a good deal of latitude. Does he have any other misrepresentation?LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—To facilitate the proper correction of the record, I seek leave to table the correspondence referred to by the minister today, including the correspondence that I forwarded to him aimed at keeping jobs in Australia and keeping them in Essendon.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman can seek leave to table correspondence but not to advance an argument in the tabling process.Leave not granted. Questions to the Speaker306923069216:35:0030692Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise under standing order 150 to request that you write to the Treasurer requesting him to answer question No. 2040 which I placed on the Notice Paper on 10 October 2000. The Minister for Health and Aged Care was kind enough to supply me with an answer to a question on the same topic some time ago.30692SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Greenway as the standing orders provide. Leave of Absence30692Motion by (Mr Slipper) proposed:That leave of absence for the remainder of the current period of sitting be given to the honourable member for Indi on the ground of parliamentary business overseas.16:36:0030692Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I would like to express my appreciation to the House, to you, Mr Speaker, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration and to members of the House for giving leave of absence to me so that I can be part of the mission representing, as a parliamentary adviser, this great country at the United Nations. I am very honoured to be able to do that. May I, with the understanding of the House, take the opportunity—as this will be the last opportunity for me to be in this House to speak as the member for Indi—to make some comments and to express my deep gratitude to quite a few people who have assisted me and encouraged me in my parliamentary career.For 25 years I have had the honour to represent people in the Victorian parliament and in this Commonwealth parliament. I was elected as state member in the Victorian seat of Benambra over 25 years ago. I have had the pleasure and honour of working in that parliament with many fine people and have helped that state make progress and care for its people in the appropriate manner. I was given the honour of representing the Liberal Party as a candidate in the seat of Indi when my good friend and colleague Ewan Cameron announced that he intended to retire before the 1993 election. Being given the opportunity to come here involved a massive change in my life, and I was honoured to be elected. Looking back, I have participated in eight elections as a candidate in state and federal parliaments. I would like to express my deep appreciation to the voters in my electorate for their wonderful support and encouragement in some very tough and difficult campaigns. They have been my inspiration. In my view, the people that I have represented are the greatest people that you could ever have the honour to represent. I would particularly like to say that you cannot spend 25 years in this pretty challenging job in public life, in Commonwealth and state parliaments, without the support of a lot of people. My wife, Marjorie, who is in the gallery today with my brother and sister-in-law, has been my rock, my friend, my supporter and great adviser. She knows more about politics than anyone I know. She is very astute and very good. I thank her, my family, my children and my four grandchildren. I predict that there are at least four new Liebermans in the pipeline who I think will take part in politics—perhaps two of them in America. Who knows? As members know, I have family in America as well.I also thank those in the branches of the great Liberal Party that I am honoured to be a member who have supported and encouraged me. They have worked very hard to help me and other colleagues, in often very difficult circumstances with very difficult and challenging policies. In their way they have helped to advance this great nation. Without the help of those people and the volunteers I would not have been able to do any of my work at all. They are great people. Quite frankly, the pleasure of working with volunteers, whether they be members of the Liberal Party or those in the wider community, has been a great inspiration for me. This is the International Year of Volunteers, so I should say that, after 25 years, I think volunteers are, like the family, the glue of the nation. They are fantastic people and I thank them for their help in preparing the various submissions for upcoming events in the community.Mr Speaker, I thank you for your courtesy and friendship to me as a colleague. The officers and the clerks of the Victorian and Commonwealth parliaments have been absolutely inspiring. The integrity, balance and independence of advice that you get from the clerks and officers is a tremendous aid to any parliamentarian. I always say to new members of parliament, `Never, ever fear going to get advice from the clerks and officers.' You know that it is given in confidence, with integrity and that it is always good advice. Yesterday and the day before many generous words have been said about me by colleagues from both sides of the House. That was pretty special, and I thank those colleagues very much.I have had the pleasure of working on committees. I currently chair the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Publications. I have been a member of the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee; the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Privileges; and other committees. I encourage all members of parliament to spend as much time as they can serving on committees. I believe that the potential of parliament will be fully achieved if the committee systems of the parliament are given more encouragement and are made up of committed members of parliament from all sides of politics.It is absolutely rewarding and encouraging to see the number of times true consensus can be reached between members of different political parties. When you are in this pit here—without being disrespectful—you often despair and say, `How on earth can members of parliament ever achieve consensus?' In actual fact, in committees more than 95 per cent of the time consensus is achieved and good quality recommendations are made which governments and parliament take on board—sometimes a little slowly—and they are for the benefit of all Australians. I encourage parliamentarians to work on committees where they will be rewarded by the friendships and understandings built up with colleagues from all sides of the House. I have been very lucky with my staff, because I have not had a large turnover of staff. I would like to mention very briefly my current staff by their Christian names, because that is the way they prefer it: Sandie, Sandra, Christina and Suzan. I have had two special people before, both by the name of Margaret, who have helped me over the 25 years in many ways. I am indebted to them.The purpose of me having a go and coming up here, from the state to the Commonwealth, was because as a former minister in the state I had decided that the Commonwealth-state relations were not working well. One of the things I wanted to achieve was better Commonwealth-state relations. To do that a number of things were needed, one of which was tax reform. Tax reform was stifling Australia and was acting as a negative. It has been a very spirited and robust debate. I have enjoyed immensely the three federal campaigns in which I have been a candidate fighting for tax reform in the trenches.As a former minister for health, I, along with the state Premier, had to come to Canberra and, through the state Premier, had to beg for more money because of the limited scope of raising revenue in the state. In government, taxes against employment—like payroll tax, stamp duty and the like—are imposed in order that the state can get the revenue to sustain its services. I am particularly proud that as I leave this parliament we have a tax system—albeit still a little unpopular with some—which guarantees that the Commonwealth and particularly the states will have a regular supply of funds, which will grow over the years, through the GST. We will progressively see the taxes on employment—for example, payroll tax and some of the negative stamp duties—rapidly disappear.If ever you have held a state portfolio, knowing what your supply of income is going to be enables you to plan strategically far better for the delivery of better services, as any health minister will tell you. So I am very excited that that has happened. It has been a bit bruising to be involved in the debate. We went out there into the trenches. I have served under three leaders in the Commonwealth, arguing for tax reform, and I am very proud that John Howard, Peter Costello and all of us have achieved that. I know that some of our friends on the other side do not think it is a good achievement, but I am confident that this country is better for it. You will see a better system of government and services delivered. I think the role of the states will be better defined. The need for cost shifting—some of which I have been guilty of as a minister in Victoria; there were very clever ways of doing it, and I can assure you that they still go on—will rapidly disappear. That is a good thing.The other objective I had when I came up here was to try to have more done for the care of the environment, particularly in the areas of the Murray-Darling. Mr Speaker, you and I have the pleasure of representing substantial parts of it. I am very pleased to have played a small part in helping to achieve the Natural Heritage Trust, the salinity strategy for this nation and the new trust funds that we will have. There is almost $4 billion being spent, a record amount, on the environment. That is very good, and those of us who have the pleasure of meeting Landcare groups and volunteers who are using that money very wisely appreciate it, and they also appreciate it. The task they carry out for us in restoring the damage of the last 200 years, caused by us, is so important, and I thank them for their work.My young son got a job after school as what they call a `check-out chick' in one of the supermarkets. He was very excited about that because he could supplement the pocket money. We all know about that; we have been through that. He was outraged that, when he got the job, he was told that he would have to join a union, that he as a schoolboy had to join the union. He was absolutely outraged at that. I do not want to get too political today, but I am very proud of the fact that I have been part of a government that has made it no longer possible to force people to join an association. I think that is a great thing for all of us. If unions are good enough, and some of them are, they will recruit their members, provide services and go on and prosper. Those that rely on intimidation and legal force will soon disappear. I can tell you that, in my days as a minister for planning and local government, the BLF and I had many arguments. I think we won. Very briefly, because I know I have gone on too long, there are other things that I have been part of, with the help of my colleagues and the parliament: strengthening the defence forces, something that I am very keen on; seeing the cadet movement strengthened now, which I think is very important; and developing the primary care of health, with my good friend Michael Wooldridge. Some of you might know that Michael was a volunteer adviser to me when I was shadow minister for health and he was an innocent intern at the Alfred Hospital. Within those three years I had a little to do with persuading Michael to give some of his life to Australia in politics. I think Michael Wooldridge has been a fantastic health minister.I would like to say that there is a lot more work to be done, and I will be trying to help from the outside. I would like to see members of parliament go out to the Australian people very soon and seek an amendment to the Constitution so that we can have a four-year parliament. I will not go into it now, but the loss of opportunity and the loss of the delivery of good government because of this short electoral cycle is a negative.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Are you a republican?XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—As a matter of fact, I am. How did you guess? In conclusion, thank you all for your friendship. I wish you well. I thank John Howard for his great leadership. I have served under a lot of leaders, and to me John Howard is the best I have ever served under.16:51:0030695Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Because of the hour of the day, my remarks will not be anywhere near as long as they should be, following that very excellent final speech from the honourable member for Indi. Very few of us actually get to choose exactly the time of our own departure from the parliament, but the member for Indi decided when he was going. He announced it some time ago, and that has enabled the Liberal Party to choose another candidate. He and I were elected in 1993. He has been a good friend to all of us and a source of very solid advice. On behalf of the government, I want to congratulate him on his long political career. I know that he will continue to serve our nation when he represents us at the United Nations in New York. We wish him well.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills30695R126530695Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.30695Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Bills30695R139030695Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.30695Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Parliamentary Zone306953069516:54:0030695Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—On behalf of the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, I move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 28 August 2001, namely: Commonwealth Place—External lighting design, change of tree species and alterations to exhaust flues Commonwealth Place is currently under construction in the parliamentary zone at the junction of Walter Burley Griffin's Land Axis and Lake Burley Griffin. This motion seeks parliamentary approval for the design of the exhaust flues, a change of tree species, changes and additions to the walkway design, removal of the stair court, and the external lighting design of Commonwealth Place. The chamber may note that this approval is the third in a staged approval process and that the works necessary to construct Commonwealth Place have previously been approved by resolution of both houses of the parliament.The works associated with the changes have been submitted to the National Capital Authority for works approval consideration under section 2 of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988. The National Capital Authority has informed the minister that it is prepared to grant works approval pursuant to section 12(1)(b) of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988. As the Parliament House Vista is listed on the Register of the National Estate, the Australian Heritage Commission has been consulted and has advised it is supportive of the proposed works. The approval of both houses is sought for these minor changes to the design of Commonwealth Place, which will become a great new public area in the heart of the capital of the nation. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills30696S30230696Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day at the next sitting.Bills30696R120630696Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills30696R137930696Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day at the next sitting.Miscellaneous3069610000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—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:That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:Given the recent public statements from both the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) expressing their opposition to discrimination against gay and lesbian people, and noting the absence of comprehensive Commonwealth laws to redress this, the necessity for Parliament to enact national laws against sexuality discrimination.The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.Motion (by Mr Slipper) agreed to:That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills30696Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Migration Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Post-retirement Commutations) Bill 2000Trade Marks and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2001Workplace Relations Amendment (Termination of Employment) Bill 2001Committees30697306973069717:01:0030697Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—Mr Speaker, I promise that this is the last time I do this. I present the 29th report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.Committees30697306973069717:02:0030697Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10— On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report 383—Amphibious transport ship project; Implementation of whole-of-government technology and infrastructure consolidation and outsourcing initiative; AQIS cost-recovery systems; Knowledge system equipment acquisition projects in Defence—Review of Auditor-General's reports 2000-2001—First quarter.Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—Mr Speaker, the committee held a public hearing on Friday, 2 March 2001 to discuss these ANAO reports with the relevant Commonwealth agencies. I will briefly discuss issues in each of the selected reports in turn.Audit Report No. 8 examined the amphibious transport ship project. The committee in its review focused on the commissioning of HMAS Manoora and HMAS Kanimbla, which had been purchased from the US Navy in August 1994 for $61 million. On their delivery, Defence found problems with both ships, despite having engaged an inspection team to examine both carefully. On the basis of this experience, Defence acknowledged the need to have clearly established its functional requirements before proceeding with an acquisition, and to undertake a careful costing process for repair of older vessels.Extensive maintenance work and numerous capability upgrades were performed on Manoora and Kanimbla, costing about $395.1 million and taking up to 44 months. A decision to further increase the capability of the ships is planned for 2004-05 at an expected cost of between $50 million and $100 million. This will increase the total project cost to $445 million. The committee heard of the difficulties inherent in trying to assess the relative advantages and disadvantages of building a new ship, as opposed to acquiring two older vessels. Defence claimed that having two ships enhanced Defence's capabilities, because it is able to operate in two different locations at the same time. This has allowed Defence to increase its flexibility of operations.In the second report selected, Audit Report No. 9, the committee examined the strategies developed by the Office of Government Information Technology and the Department of Finance and Administration for outsourcing of Commonwealth IT services. The whole of government IT infrastructure consolidation and outsourcing initiative was directed at achieving long-term improvements in the structuring and outsourcing of IT services across agencies. It was designed to facilitate greater integration in the delivery of programs and to realise significant cost savings.Aggregate savings to the Commonwealth from the IT outsourcing initiative were confirmed in the audit report, in the Humphry report, and again at the public hearing by the ANAO. The committee noted the different approach to the accounting standards by ANAO and OASITO. The committee believes that correct treatment of accounting standards is fundamental to transparent reporting and budget honesty. Agencies should adopt consistent accounting standards which also are consistent with the proper management of risk to the Commonwealth.Audit Report No. 10, AQIS cost-recovery systems, was an audit initiated at the request of this committee. The audit sought to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of AQIS's cost recovery systems and to provide assurance to the parliament that the AQIS cost-recoverable programs were identifying and recovering the full costs of services provided, without cross-subsidisation. However, it appears to the committee that AQIS is taking a long time to reach an appropriate level of sophistication in its cost measurement processes. It appears to the committee that AQIS is taking far too long to reach an appropriate level of sophistication in these systems. The committee considers that AQIS needs to improve its risk management strategies and its fee-setting policies so as to reduce over-recoveries, and has recommended accordingly. I now turn to the final ANAO report the committee reviewed in this quarter—Audit Report No. 11, which examined Defence's military and administrative information systems. These combine to form the Defence Information Environment. DIE is aware that its data needs to be developed and shared in a coherent and integrated manner with all organisational areas with legitimate needs for the data. It has appointed a Chief Knowledge Officer to bring the knowledge environment under adequate management control.Effective use of information is vital to Australia's defence capacity. Defence's main problem is the inability of specific functional areas to transmit information from one area to another. In order to achieve its goal, Defence has to change its existing culture so that a holistic approach can be achieved. Management of knowledge system projects in Defence is a complex and demanding task. Integrated training is essential if this change is to be implemented successfully.I conclude by thanking, on behalf of the committee, the witnesses who contributed their time and expertise to the committee's review process. I am also indebted to my colleagues on the committee who have dedicated their time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the inquiries. I commend the report to the House.17:08:0030698Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—by leave—Once the department of finance and its ministers took seriously their role of protecting the long-term financial position of the Commonwealth and maintaining proper accounting standards. Unfortunately for current and future taxpayers, that time is gone. The minister and, it seems, his department have abrogated those responsibilities. A pattern of behaviour has emerged which is reminiscent of a bunch of financial cowboys running a disreputable merchant bank, doing reckless deals, exaggerating financial results and maintaining sloppy or creative accounts.This dissenting report deals with two issues arising from the government's outsourcing of information technology: deficiencies in the evaluation of tenders and estimates of savings arising from the outsourcing initiative, and incorrect accounting treatment of embedded finance leases in the outsourced contracts. In the early nineties the department of finance published Value for your IT dollar, supported by Finance Circular 1993/11. This guide set out the techniques for evaluating competing IT proposals, incorporating the analysis of income and expenses and the residual value of assets. This government ignored that guide and Finance Circular, and outsourcing proposals were not evaluated on a rigorous basis.The government also failed to make a proper assessment of competitive neutrality adjustments required under national competition policy. The Auditor-General reassessed the proposals and found `the true financial value to the Commonwealth of entering into the outsourcing arrangement was not revealed by the financial evaluation undertaken'. The Auditor-General found that the savings from IT outsourcing were overstated. One of the risks with outsourcing arrangements is the possibility of having to manage the changeover to a new tenderer or to bring the function back in-house at the conclusion of a contract.In December 1998 the Prime Minister wrote to all portfolio ministers advising them that `as a general government policy, outsourcing of IT infrastructure services should proceed unless there was a compelling business case on a whole of government basis for not doing so'. This letter was interpreted as meaning the government had taken a policy decision to outsource, and it was therefore assumed it was not necessary to contemplate buyback of tenderers' assets to bring the function back in-house. Government policy does not provide a basis for designing financial evaluation methodologies. Rather, rigorous evaluation methodologies should be applied to determine the cost implications of government policies and to provide decision makers with information on which they can make properly formed decisions about value for money in conformity with procurement guidelines and relevant legislation. The Prime Minister's letter was also taken to minimise the significance of one of the stipulations contained in the requests for tender: `Achievement of substantial cost savings is a precondition to the award of a contract.' Had the government conducted a rigorous evaluation, it would not have proceeded with one of the contracts because, at the tender evaluation stage, there would have been a clear indication that the preferred tender was more expensive than continuing to perform the work in-house.The disjunction between evaluation methodology and the substance of commercial arrangements is a major cause for concern. Rigorous analysis at an early stage that focuses on all relevant issues, including end of period asset values, competitive neutrality adjustments and the need to contemplate alternative arrangements for supply of the service for a subsequent period, should form the basis for both the development of an appropriate RFT and the criteria on which tenders are evaluated. Australian accounting standard 17 defines operating leases as being those where the lessor effectively retains substantially all the risks and benefits incident to ownership of the leased asset. Where substantially all the risks and benefits pass from the lessor to the lessee, the lease is classified as a finance lease, regardless of whether legal ownership is transferred or not. Finance leases are required to be brought on to the balance sheet as they are the economic equivalent of borrowing to acquire the asset. Similarly, the concepts for the ABS's government finance statistics require that `lease liability under a finance lease arrangement is treated as a long-term loan'.The Auditor-General examined the substance of the IT outsourcing contracts against the relevant tests. On the basis of the application of these tests, the Auditor-General found that these IT outsourcing contracts contained embedded finance leases for the assets employed in providing services to the Commonwealth. The total value of these embedded finance leases was a minimum of $36.1 million. The Department of Finance and Administration had, however, treated these leases as operating leases and provided the ABS with data for the government finance statistics that treated these contracts as operating leases. The department told the Auditor-General, `The Australian Bureau of Statistics has indicated that it will follow this treatment for government finance statistics.' Since the classification of the leases was not questioned until the issue was raised by the Auditor-General, and as the ABS does not examine all transactions submitted to it by government for inclusion in the GFS, that statement may indicate no more than that the ABS had accepted Finance's classification of the contracts.This was a sufficiently serious issue for the Auditor-General to have qualified the tax office's 1999-2000 financial statements because of the materiality of the finance lease issue in relation to the IT outsourcing contract. The Auditor-General said:The recognition of the lease as an operating lease in the Agency financial statements represents a departure from Australian Accounting Standard AAS 17 Leases, which requires leases to be classified as finance leases where substantially all of the risks and benefits incident to ownership pass from the lessor to the lessee. The effect of this departure is to understate assets by $70.9 million and liabilities by $62.2 million on the Agency balance sheet, and overstate expenses in the Agency operating statement by $8.7 million.Because the government failed to recognise that these IT outsourcing contracts contain embedded finance leases, the significant level of financial risk carried by the Commonwealth under the contracts was not identified. The government's reluctance to accept the Auditor-General's judgment indicates a continuing failure to properly deal with financial risk in the outsourcing arrangements.The executive's predilection to seek the advice of other advisers rather than accept the opinion of its auditors is a cause for alarm. Recent commercial history is littered with examples where auditors failed to warn of impending financial failure. The discovery that a previously conservative financial institution like the Department of Finance and Administration, particularly given its central role in the financial administration of the Commonwealth, chooses to ignore the Auditor-General should not go unnoticed. A significant implication of the misclassification of the contracts as operating leases and not finance leases is that net government debt has been understated in the GFS by a minimum of $36.1 million. The actual understatement of debt would vary between years but that would be the aggregate of the minimum understatements for each of these contracts. As the audit report covered only three outsourcing contracts, I am concerned that the actual under-reporting of debt may be larger. 17:15:0030700Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—by leave—Report No 383 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit once again contains a dissent, the third in a fortnight. In one fortnight, Labor members of the committee have brought down as many dissents as have been brought down in the whole history of the committee since it was formed in 1914. I have to say that I do not believe that this is a distinguished achievement in the context of a committee that has had the strongest tradition of bipartisanship.I would like to focus my comment on the Auditor-General's report on implementing IT outsourcing. The report itself attracted considerable attention and this is an unusual case where an independent review followed quickly on the heels of the Auditor-General's report. This allows some comparison of findings, which is instructive both for the JCPAA and for the Auditor-General, particularly given his important role in the system.The ANAO was critical of the IT outsourcing initiative's progress in meeting its implementation timetable. The ANAO's key explanation for this was that the IT industry's interest and capacity to meet tender needs was unanticipatedly limited. This, says the ANAO:... has been a significant factor in the need to revise and extend the implementation schedule ...The only problem with this, however, is that the Humphry report cited another factor as being central, one that was not to my knowledge mentioned at all in the ANAO report, and that was the lack of acceptance of the IT initiative by senior management. This is what Humphry said:There has been a general lack of buy-in by senior management and an unwillingness to accept that the Initiative is the most appropriate approach to IT outsourcing. This lack of buy-in is by far the most significant risk factor for implementation management.It is concerning that agency resistance was not found by the ANAO and not reported. I think it is worth while quoting the committee's own findings:The Committee considers that agency resistance is a key risk factor which limits the success of the IT outsourcing Initiative. The Committee is puzzled that the ANAO ignored the fact that some agencies were not supportive of the IT Initiative.In the limited time available to me—far more limited than it should be—I would like to conclude by saying that I hope the juxtaposition of the Humphry report and the Auditor-General's report, which I have only cited one significant instance of, shows that there is always ways for improvement in clarity and transparency in the Auditor-General's report.17:17:0030700Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10— by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.307003070017:18:0030700Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—On behalf of the Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, I present the eighteenth report of the committee entitled Examination of annual reports for 1999-2000 in fulfilment of the committee's duties pursuant to section 206(c) of the Native Title Act 1993.Ordered that the report be printed. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—by leave—The Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund reviews the annual reports of the National Native Title Tribunal, the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund. The committee is entitled to take a broad approach to its powers and duties in this regard under the Native Title Act 1993. In its examination of annual reports since March 1995, the committee has conducted what might be regarded as performance audits. This inquiry into three annual reports required four public hearings and over 20 submissions were received.Firstly, I will speak about the National Native Title Tribunal. In the 1999-2000 year, the National Native Title Tribunal maintained 215 employees and had an operating expenses budget for the year in excess of $23 million. At the close of the reporting period, 241 claimant applications had been discontinued or combined with others and 539 claimant applications requiring resolution remained. The tribunal has indicated that more resources will now be available for the mediation of these claimant applications.The use of consultants by the tribunal concerns the committee. In 1999-2000, the tribunal engaged 49 consultants, with a total expenditure approaching $2 million. This represented an increase of 12 consultants and almost $900,000 in expenditure over the year 1998-99. It is the committee's view that the tribunal members should be engaged to do the work of members. Where there is a shortage, the tribunal president should advise the Commonwealth government so that an adequate number of members can be appointed.The committee records its impression that the tribunal is a most professional authority, performing its functions extremely well. For example, the tribunal takes a leading role in the dissemination of public information about native title and performs a very important educative function in that regard. The tribunal has performed an important service in assisting with the introduction of the new Indigenous Land Use Agreements, ILUAs, regime included in the Native Title Amendment Act 1998, which commenced in September 1998. The tribunal's functions now include assisting parties to negotiate ILUAs and the registration of those agreements. The tribunal is commended for the manner in which it has devised strategies to deal with the unique challenges created by ILUAs. The committee has recently concluded its inquiry into ILUAs and a report will be tabled shortly. The tribunal has presented an excellent report and is to be commended for it.I will now discuss the land fund. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund is intended to assist indigenous people to acquire land and to manage it. In 2004, the Commonwealth's allocations to the land fund will cease. Should the target balance not be met by that date, a top-up payment will be made to bring the account to $1.106 billion, indexed from 1994. The value of the land fund at 30 June 2000 was over $784 million. In the reporting period, an amount of over $50 million was drawn down to the Indigenous Land Corporation, the ILC. Amounts are to be drawn down to the ILC from the land fund immediately.With regard to the Indigenous Land Corporation, during 1999-2000, the ILC board approved the purchase of only 18 properties, a significant decline on the 69 proposals approved during the previous year. The ILC has attributed this decline to the land needs planning process. Two inquiries were commissioned during 1999-2000 affecting the ILC. First, the then minister, Senator the Hon. John Herron, commissioned an inquiry by Mr Stephen Skehill into the behaviour of the ILC directors. Secondly, the ILC board initiated an inquiry, completed by Mr Andrew Rogers QC, into the purchase of two cattle stations in Western Australia.The Skehill inquiry arose from a request by four ILC directors for the minister to terminate the appointment of the then ILC chairperson, Ms Sharon Firebrace. Ms Firebrace also made a variety of allegations concerning other directors. Mr Skehill's report was delivered to the minister on 1 December 2000. The report's findings have not been announced. The committee has not been able to examine it. Ms Firebrace has admitted that the minister suggested on three separate occasions that she should stand down. The committee is unable to accept Ms Firebrace's claims about the cause of dysfunction within the ILC during her two-year term of office which expired in August 2001. The report of the Rogers' inquiry has not yet been published. Mr Rogers has released a statement in which he confirms that he found no evidence to support the allegations of criminality and serious misconduct in regard to the purchase of several cattle stations. An SBS Insight program on the matter stated that Ms Firebrace could not provide any evidence about her claim of secret commissions and international conspiracies. The committee was also unable to find anything to substantiate Ms Firebrace's claims regarding an alleged Australian Federal Police investigation of this matter.The committee has concluded that, in the course of its inquiry, it may have been misled by Ms Firebrace about two separate matters. This is a matter which the committee has taken extremely seriously. As a result, these conclusions will be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges. The committee has also been very concerned about the performance of the ILC over the last two years. There is reason to believe that the ILC's performance has affected the delivery of benefits to indigenous people by way of land ownership. The committee hopes that the newly appointed chairperson and the general manager will direct the ILC into more competent performance.In conclusion, in its deliberations the committee sought to go through a morass of detail in particular about the ILC and its leadership, and the ILC board. It was quite difficult and I want to thank the committee and its chair, Senator Ferris, and its other members, Senator Crossin, Senator Lees who is a new member on the committee, Senator Mason, Senator McLucas, the Hon. Ian Causley, Mr Haase, Mr McMullan and Mr Secker. I pay particular tribute to Peter Grundy, the secretary, and to his staff for the excellent work they did in drafting this very comprehensive and quite difficult report.Miscellaneous3070217:27:0030702SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—For many years, Mr Errol Silver has been closely associated with the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings and has recently retired. Errol had a long broadcasting career, including nearly 30 years with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. During that period, he worked as an announcer and managed several ABC branches in Canberra, Hobart, Adelaide and Newcastle. In recent years, he has been the chief parliamentary broadcaster in Canberra with the responsibility of managing the broadcasting of proceedings from both houses. I would like to take the opportunity of wishing Errol well in his retirement and pass on our good wishes to his wife Dorothy and family.Adjournment30702Motion (by Mr Slipper) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.3070217:27:0030702Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—The government's handling of the incident involving the MV Tampa is well summed up by the Warren cartoon in last Tuesday's Daily Telegraph. The cartoon shows the Prime Minister sitting in a small boat calling out to a huge, crowded container ship, `Turn back. You are entering an election year.' The decision to draw the line in the sand with the Tampa incident has more to do with catching votes than catching people smugglers. It is a desperate move by a desperate government. Whatever the government's strategy was, it has failed. We only have to look at the figures for arrivals in recent years to see how it has failed. The number has grown from 365 in 1996 to 4,592 so far this year. It has grown so much that the government announced only last week that it would open a further three detention centres. When local opposition to those centres became apparent, the government needed a new strategy and, just in time, a foreign merchant vessel came to the government's rescue. But what sort of government gets a foreign merchant vessel to do its dirty work for it? A government whose leader is more like the commander of HMS Pinafore than HMS Victory.That `fight them on the beaches' strategy is doomed to fail, because what it ignores is that the only effective measure to reduce unauthorised arrivals is cooperation with the governments of countries in our region. In the early 1990s, a high number of unauthorised entries were from China. Only through negotiation and close cooperation with the government of China was the number of unauthorised arrivals from that country reduced. It was not by gunboat diplomacy but by good diplomacy, something this government is incapable of. Let me give the House an example of why governments of neighbouring countries do not trust this government when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers. It is now over a quarter of a century since the first boat people left South-East Asia. At the time, there were many critics of Australia's open door to boat people. Many suggested that the boats be turned away, but how could we have done that when Australians had so recently fought and died to defend the freedom of those people? In the recent Centenary of Federation parades, one float has stood out from the rest. The Vietnamese community in Australia float was a full-scale replica of the type of boat in which thousands of people arrived in Australia. The float carried a simple message. On it were written the words `thank you, Australia'. But the Vietnamese, Cambodian and Lao communities have expressed their gratitude in a practical way: they have become solid Australian citizens making a positive contribution to our economy and society. The true position is that Australia has benefited greatly from the thousands of boat people who have arrived from Indo-China in the past 25 years. Some were left behind in other countries. I refer in particular to some 2,000 Vietnamese people who remain after the closure of refugee camps in the Philippines. Some 480 of those people with close relatives here have applied to come to Australia. Their cases have been supported by parliamentarians in the Philippines, which is willing to accept those who remain and who do not have relatives in countries such as Australia and the United States. But so far appeals from the Vietnamese community in Australia to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs have fallen on deaf ears. The Vietnamese community has even offered to pay their fares to Australia and to support the refugees in their first two years here, but the government does not want to know about them.Countries such as Indonesia see a rich, developed country like Australia forcing our problems onto countries which simply do not have the resources to cope with them. Given the experience I have mentioned, we cannot expect cooperation from other Asian countries and we can expect the number of people making unauthorised entry to Australia to continue to increase. (Time expired)3070317:33:0030703Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—It is offensive of those opposite to talk about the MV Tampa and bandy about the terminology of refugees. The people on board MV Tampa are not refugees; they are occasional tourists who have embarked upon—83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Rubbish! How do you know that?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Moreton will resume his seat. A characteristic of this parliament is the capacity for people to put opposing views without interruption. The member for Fowler was heard without interruption, and she knows that she would have been defended as I am now defending the member for Moreton.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Tell him to tell the House the truth.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will be dealt with if that is the way she deals with the conventions of the House. CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The people on board MV Tampa are occasional tourists: people who have contracted criminal elements or crime gangs who are often involved in the transportation of drugs to our shore, and on this occasion are transporting another form of human misery in the form of some who are seeking to come to Australia but not go through the regular channels. It is offensive to those who are genuine refugees who have come to this country and experienced the generosity that this nation has, without question, offered to them. I represent many of those refugees. They have stood in the refugee camps outside Nairobi, like Kakuma. Today genuine refugees are distressed to think that those who have tens of thousands of dollars to throw at their problem of where and how they want to live, and to force themselves upon a nation that they say they want to live in but for whose laws they have no regard, are regarded in the same way as the real refugees, who came to this country with virtually nothing. The member for Fowler has talked about those who came from Indochina. There is no doubt that those people were refugees; it was easy to follow. It is offensive that the Australian yesterday tried to draw an analogy between what is happening at the moment off the coast of Christmas Island and the so-called ship of the damned involving the Jews, who obviously were refugees fleeing religious persecution under the Nazi regime. This has nothing to do with race or religion. This has everything to do with national sovereignty. The people of Australia rightly expect that a basic tenet of any government is to uphold national sovereignty. It is disgraceful that those who pretend that they could be the government by Christmas this year are offering such an `open door without question' policy. They are rubbing it into the noses of genuine refugees who are fighting the threat of death and annihilation because of their race or religion in the countries they have fled. The Australian Labor Party are trying to create a split in the multiculturalism underpinning this country. Today, in Brisbane, members of the Australian Labor Party began a whisper campaign amongst refugees, suggesting that they soon will be deported, because that is what the government's next move is. The Queensland Labor government, for instance, gives priority to temporary protection visa recipients, a signal that is echoed all around the world, to say, `You will get housing in Queensland as a priority ahead of genuine refugees.' The Labor Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Jim Soorley, just a week ago told a refugee forum that we should encourage more boat people to come and that we should welcome them because, after all, our ancestors came here on boats.Is this part of the Labor Party's platform for Australia 2002 and beyond? Are they in favour of the integrity of an immigration system that has generously delivered a place of refuge to real refugees in the past? Are they in favour of ensuring that the integrity of that system is always going to be upheld and that Australia's national sovereignty is going to be defended? Or are they, instead, in favour of bringing down the status of those who, as genuine refugees, are afforded a place to stay here in Australia? We have 12,000 a year coming here. There are 23 million refugees around the world. Australia's standards are so generous that, if they were applied to the world, the UNHCR's numbers would not be 23 million, they would be closer to 200 million.The Australian Labor Party want to create some sort of splittist agenda in Australia, some sort of racist and religious campaign to claim the government is not acting properly. Of course, the majority of Australians see through their parlous and splittist approach to Australian politics and support the government, because we are standing for national sovereignty. (Time expired)R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Sieg Heil!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Mr Speaker, the member for Grayndler has made a suggestion to me which I find highly offensive. In fact, given my track record in defending multicultural Australia—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Moreton will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler will withdraw the remark.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Mr Speaker, I found that speech offensive. All five minutes of it had racist overtones.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler will withdraw the remark or I will deal with him.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—All five minutes had racist overtones.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is well aware that the obligation of the chair is to maintain the standing orders.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—I withdraw the previous remark.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Grayndler. CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Mr Speaker, I ask also that the member for Grayndler withdraw his suggestion, just made on the record, that my speech contained racist overtones. It clearly did not.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am not here to have a stand-up battle with the member for Grayndler or the member for Moreton. The member for Grayndler has indicated he was prepared to withdraw the remark that he made, as I asked him to do. The obligation everyone has is to hear each other out without interruption and without reflection on the speeches made. The member for Grayndler's comments were in fact inappropriate in the standards of the House and I ask him not to make those sorts comments about the speeches that have been made.3070517:40:0030705Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I had planned to raise this matter before hearing the contributions from the member for Fowler and the member for Moreton. The World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance will be held in Durban, South Africa, from tomorrow, 31 August, to 7 September 2001. The conference will bring together 189 countries of the United Nations to focus world attention on measures to prevent and eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance.On 30 July I put a question on notice to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, asking whether there would be an official Australian delegation attending the world conference and, if so, whether he would be leading the delegation; if not, why not? I understand that, while Australia is in the international spotlight in relation to the MV Tampa moored off our coast, the delegation to this very important conference is going to be led not by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, not by the minister for immigration, but by Senator Kay Patterson.I wrote to many organisations in my electorate regarding the conference. I have received a response from the students of Morisset High School, from Susan McDonald, the antiracism contact officer at Morisset High School, and Margaret Gibbs, the relieving principal of Morisset High School. I am very proud of the students at that high school. In the short period of time between when I wrote to them and now, they have surveyed all the students at the high school and have come up with responses to the five major themes of the World Conference against Racism. The themes are: the sources and causes of racism, the victims of racism, prevention and education about racism, effective remedies and strategies. The students from my electorate at Morisset High School came up with some great ideas. I will continue my remarks on this later.Question resolved in the negative. Miscellaneous3070517:43:0030705Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That this House:(1) notes that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the alliance between Australia and the United States of America under the ANZUS Treaty;(2) reaffirms the commitment of Australia to that alliance, recognising its fundamental importance to this nation's ongoing security;(3) recognises that the alliance has significantly contributed to peace and security in the Asia Pacific and beyond;(4) expresses its profound gratitude to the men and women of both nations who have served together throughout the world in defence of freedom and in the pursuit of peace and prosperity for all;(5) acknowledges that this is an alliance between two peoples forever committed to democracy, and its foundation stones of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the independence and authority of the rule of law; and(6) affirms its belief that the alliance will continue playing a vital role in a changing world, building a prosperous and secure future for our two nations, the Asia-Pacific region and the global community.As all members of the House will know, 1 September marks the 50th anniversary of the signature in San Francisco of the ANZUS Treaty, which joined in a security alliance Australia, New Zealand and the United States. ANZUS, or Ausmin, as it has become known more recently, joined those three countries and has been the cornerstone of Australia's national security over the past 50 years. This motion—which I believe, and will be grateful to see occur, will be unanimously supported by the House—recognises the great significance of the ANZUS Treaty to the people of Australia and the people of the United States. It is symbolic that this motion should be moved on the very day that the people of East Timor are voting in their first election, because it was the joining of Australian forces with the assets of the United States which played a crucial role in the people of East Timor having an opportunity to exercise their rights as citizens of the world in a democratic ballot. And that is but the most recent of the occasions on which Australians and Americans have fought together in furtherance of the values they have in common and the commitment they have in common to individual liberty, democracy and freedom.In a little over a week, I will have an opportunity of conveying directly to the President of the United States, and also in an address to a joint sitting of Congress, the commitment that the Australian people have to the ANZUS alliance. Although there will properly remain differences between the government and the opposition in relation to aspects of the bilateral relationship—as is proper in a robust democracy—I know that I will speak on behalf of all of the Australian people in saying that the relationship between us has been a very fruitful one and one that we prize as a people very much.I want to take the opportunity of recording the contribution made by successive prime ministers of Australia to the ANZUS alliance. ANZUS was signed when Sir Robert Menzies—or Mr Menzies as he then was— was Prime Minister of Australia. Despite his well-documented affection for the links between Australia and Britain, he was always hard-headed in his assessment of what was in Australia's national interest. When it came to foreign and defence policy matters, he knew that an alliance between Australia and the United States was absolutely essential to Australia's future. I also record of course historically the enormous contribution made by John Curtin, before the signing of the ANZUS Treaty, to building links between Australia and the United States when he made his highly significant appeal to the Americans for assistance in the darkest days of World War II. I also record the contribution of Bob Hawke, when he was Prime Minister, to the ANZUS alliance and the links between Australia and the United States.Can I say for myself that I remain personally very dedicated to that relationship. It is not only a relationship based on strategic and defence interests; it is also a relationship more importantly based on common values and common aspirations. We are people who share the same world view, generally speaking. We are people who prize individual liberty. We are people who value democracy. We are people who have been prepared to defend those values and to fight together in their defence. When I meet the President and address the Congress, I will express those attitudes on behalf, I know, of all the Australian people.I therefore commend this motion to the House. In advance I thank the Leader of the Opposition and his office for their cooperation in the preparation of the motion, in anticipation that it might just receive total support from the parliament, as I think a motion of this kind should. I think the Australian people owe a lot to the United States and we share a lot in common. I think it is a very appropriate motion to mark the 50th anniversary of what has been a very important treaty for us and something that enshrines so much of what both of our societies stand for.17:48:0030706Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I agree with this motion and I agree with the sentiments that were expressed by the Prime Minister. He certainly has the support of the opposition should he choose to mention in his speech to the US Congress that the ANZUS Treaty has been a matter of longstanding bipartisan support in this country. When former US President Bill Clinton visited here, I thought he put the way in which we look at each other as nations very nicely when he said:In one another ... we see a distant mirror of our better selves—reflections of liberty and decency, of openness and vitality. He had a nice way with words and I cannot think of a better way to express the way in which we do see each other and have seen each other through the vicissitudes of that relationship which has developed not simply over the last 50 years but over the century.We should not forget that the value which we placed on each other as military partners was forged not even in the Second World War but probably at the Battle of Hamel in 1918. The fact that we have a treaty at all was cemented in our wartime experiences in the period from 1941 to 1945. Sometimes our contribution in that particular conflict and its value to the Americans are underrated. There is no doubt at all that the United States was the nation whose intervention ensured that, for any purposes whatsoever, the Japanese would not successfully invade this country.But our salvation lay with ourselves as much as our allied partner. In that period of time, a mutual respect grew between our forces, though from time to time that was robustly expressed on the streets of various Australian cities. But on the battlefield itself, I always remind my American friends that it was not until early 1944 that General Douglas MacArthur had more American troops than Australian troops fighting under his command and that in many ways his great reputation was made, at least in its first instance, by Australian armed forces.I want to pay tribute too to the foresight of the Liberal external affairs minister, Percy Spender, who drove the issue of a security pact. At the time, Mr Menzies believed that a security guarantee was both unnecessary and unobtainable, but Spender was a creative advocate and it was his drive which sealed the deal. Initially, the US was shy of military commitments in Asia, but I am sure that Australian and US strategic interests will always coincide—for instance, over Indonesia. Nevertheless, on 12 July 1951, after relentless diplomatic efforts, ANZUS was publicly initialled at a ceremony at the US State Department in Washington by John Dulles, then policy adviser to US Secretary of State Acheson, with Spender, then Australian Ambassador to the US, and the New Zealand Ambassador, Carl Berendsen. As the Prime Minister said, on 1 September 1951 at a brief ceremony at the Presidio overlooking San Francisco Bay, the treaty was signed. When the treaty was subsequently debated in the Australian parliament, my father had this to say:Every person who seriously studies this pact will welcome it. The opposition believes it to be good. It simply expresses in writing what has always been a fact—that is, the community of interest exists between Australia and the United States.Having an alliance does not necessarily mean that we always see eye to eye on issues—it is always a matter of interpretation—and the military relationship, which underpins it, will change its character from time to time. At different points of time the ANZUS Treaty has presided like an umbrella over strategies of forward defence. More recently it has presided over strategies of defence self-reliance, albeit within a framework of an alliance relationship. For either purpose, the ANZUS relationship served us well in terms of improving the capabilities of Australian military forces and, through that, the security of the Australian nation. Early on, it was a question of troops, of soldiers on the ground and the possibility of an intervention of armed forces; more recently, it has been technical excellence. As more and more of our armed forces rely for their effectiveness, in the region in which we live, on a margin of technical superiority in terms of equipment, on excellent intelligence, the military significance of the alliance to Australia has taken on more of that character.One of the most interesting periods of my life, and in many ways one of my proudest moments, was the negotiation done by Bill Hayden and me on our side and by Secretaries Schultz and Weinberger on the American side in the creation of Ausmin. This was rendered necessary by the de facto withdrawal of the New Zealanders from the alliance after their disagreement with the United States over the question of ship visits. Paradoxically, those determinations were made, those agreements were arrived at and those meetings were set up in a conversation between us at the Presidio in San Francisco, where ANZUS itself had been signed on 1 September, as the Prime Minister mentioned earlier. When we discussed the issue of how that relationship should continue in the absence of New Zealand, we went through all sorts of processes. Consideration was given to the creation of a separate bilateral treaty. Consideration was given to what we ultimately arrived at: a set of ministerial discussions, albeit under a rubric of a continuation of that treaty. At the time we all sat down and talked it through, it was quite evident to us that, to get together the type of treaty that could be sustained through an argument in Congress and through deliberations between our two peoples, with the difficulties that seemed to emerge from that process, the best thing we could do was to stick with what we had— which only went to emphasise how extraordinarily good was the timing of the folk who determined it back in 1951. Treaties are hard things to get together on; and treaties that last 50 years, particularly military treaties, usually signed for specific purposes, are even harder. The fact that it has endured and the fact that it has been seen as so important to both sides in politics is a very significant fact indeed.I do believe that the opportunity arises under ANZUS now to consider more regular ministerial policy dialogue; regular high level officials' contact; increased joint research and development of new defence capabilities and systems; combined doctrine development, common training and coordinated military planning; intelligence exchanges to keep pace with regional developments in our mutual interests; and working with the US on common approaches to develop an Asia-Pacific regional security community, building on the work of Gareth Evans and others with the establishment of the ASEAN regional forum. Of course, though this treaty needs to be firmly kept within the context, I believe, of a military arrangement and not compromised by its involvement in other elements of the bilateral relationship, the fact that it exists makes it possible to consider other issues related to our mutual economic cooperation. That means that we benefit from this arrangement not only on the military side but in other areas as well.Much needs to be done in the future to ensure that the relevance that this treaty has had to this generation of Australians is sustained in future generations—future generations who perhaps look at that Vietnam era in which the ANZUS Treaty went through some of its rockiest periods as basically a backdrop for 1960s music and who are unacquainted with the significance that this treaty has enjoyed in Australian political life for so long. So the continuing dialogue is critical in that regard and, therefore, it is a good thing that the Prime Minister further cements that relationship we have had in the discussions that he has in the United States over the next week or two.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous3070817:57:0030708Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I move:That this House:(1) recognises and celebrates the centenary of the Australian National Flag which occurs on 3 September this year;(2) honours the ideals for which our national flag stands including our history, geography and unity as a federated nation;(3) notes that this is the world's only national flag ever to fly over one entire continent;(4) acknowledges that our flag has been Australia's pre-eminent national symbol in times of adversity and war, peacetime and prosperity;(5) recognises that our flag now belongs to the Australian people and has been an integral part of the expression of our national pride; and(6) expresses its respect for the Australian National Flag as a symbol of our profound achievements as a federation; our independence and freedom as a people; and our optimism for a common future together.I am very pleased to speak in support of the Prime Minister's motion, celebrating the centenary of the Australian National Flag. In April 1901 the government announced a competition to design the flag. It received over 32,000 entries. The judges chose five designs that were almost identical and split the prize among the winners. Those five designs form the basis of the flag that we celebrate today. I think it is only appropriate that I should pay tribute to the contest winners, those five men and women who designed our best known national symbol. They were Anne Dorrington, who became a famous artist; Ivor Evans, a 14-year-old with a taste for Dante; William Stephens, the first officer on a steamship; Egbert Nuttall, a municipal architect; and Leslie Hawkins, an optician's apprentice.After the decision on what it would look like was announced by Prime Minister Barton, the flag flew for the first time on 3 September 1901. It floated above the dome of the Exhibition Building in a strong south-westerly breeze. It was, according to the Melbourne Age, a brave and inspiring picture.Since 1901, the flag has been flown in war and in peace, in adversity and in prosperity. It flew over Charleroi in Belgium in 1918 when the 2nd Division of the Australian Corp entered the city. The citizens of the town had made it from brown paper, and they offered our troops the use of the local university as a training centre. It flew over the X3 working camp in Singapore after the Japanese surrender; it had been made in secret by Australian prisoners of war, using handkerchiefs from Red Cross parcels.I know that there has been very strong support in the Australian community for an action taken by this government in 1998 when we amended the Flags Act to ensure that the flag could not be changed unless a national vote of the people supported an alternative design. This guaranteed that the Australian flag was properly recognised as being the property of all Australians—not of Canberra, not of members of parliament.Also of note is the fact that it is the only flag in the world that flies, or has ever flown, over an entire continent. Until the independence of Papua New Guinea in 1975, it flew over Australian territory from the equator to the geographic South Pole. In fact, it still flies today at the South Pole with the flags of other members of the Antarctic Treaty. It was broadcast around the world at a very proud time for Australia, and that was during the Sydney Olympics. It flies above Parliament House tonight as an enduring symbol of our achievements together and of our common future. I commend the motion to the House.18:02:0030709Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Given the time, I will be very brief. On behalf of the opposition, I rise to support the motion. The Australian national flag does have a special place in the hearts, minds and psyche of the Australian population. I think all of us witnessed that at the Olympics and, I should add, this week at the Goodwill Games, thanks to a wonderful start. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister and members of the House would also want to join me in acknowledging that the Governor-General, representing the Queen, proclaimed the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag as flags of the Australian nation generally, and those proclamations were made in 1995 under section 5 of the Flags Act.Though we celebrate today the 100th anniversary of the Australian national flag, it is interesting to note that it was not until 1953 that our flag was officially declared the Australian national flag. Before that it was referred to as the Australian blue ensign. The flag, as we all know, came from a competition conducted in 1901 which was the result of popular demand at the time. Most of the designs included the Union Jack and the Southern Cross, although there were some notable additions. Of the 32,800-odd designs, one design drew the scene of native animals playing cricket with a winged cricket bat. I suspect Steve Waugh could well have taken that on his recent sojourn to the United Kingdom. I think the Prime Minister would not have objected had he had a flag of that sort to celebrate the result.As has been mentioned, during World War I and World War II the flag was proudly displayed. There are stories of the kind that the Deputy Prime Minister referred to and others, which I will not go into because of the time, that indicate the feeling with which the Australian troops regarded the flag. It should not be forgotten, though, that a number of soldiers during those wars also fought for Australia under the Union Jack and the red ensign. My father often used to tell me that when he was a serviceman in Papua New Guinea during the Second World War his unit fought under the red ensign. The use of the then blue ensign became very popular during the Menzies years, the Chifley years and with Arthur Calwell's strong commitment. In 1996, the government legislated that the Australian flag could only be changed by a vote of the Australian people. The Labor Party supported that at that time and believes that to be most appropriate. In view of the time, I will curtail my remarks at this point. Again, I put on the record the opposition's support for the motion. 18:04:0030710Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10— Very briefly, by way of indulgence, I explain to the House that the Prime Minister had to leave a very short time ago. He did not want to leave during this debate, but he had a very urgent phone call and believed the House should be aware of that. His support for the flag is without the slightest doubt.Question resolved in the affirmative. 18:05:0030710House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.2001-08-30—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members307113071109:40:0030711Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—In the Adelaide Advertiser of 17 August, the Minister for Community Services responded to claims by welfare organisations that Centrelink is unfairly breaching people regardless of the circumstances by saying that Centrelink was `flexible enough to recognise when someone has personal problems'. Here is one case that demonstrates how out of touch that statement by the minister is. Belinda is 21 years old and has been unemployed for several years. For the past year, she has had mental health problems. Her behaviour has been erratic at times and she has been unable to cope generally with daily living, often appearing vague, confused and disorganised. As there was a history of mental illness in the family, Belinda was in denial and did not seek appropriate help. A welfare worker with whom she had been having contact finally got her to see a doctor in October 2000. She was diagnosed as suffering from major depression and placed on medication.The welfare worker lost contact with Belinda during November 2000. On 24 December, just before Christmas, she had her Newstart payment suspended for eight weeks because she had incurred a third breach within a two-year period. It was alleged she had not responded to a letter. Belinda maintains that she never received it. Due to her condition, Belinda did not dispute this at the time. Her family subsequently found her in her unit in a distressed state with no food and with the electricity disconnected, as the bill had not been paid. Her pensioner parents had to support her financially through the eight-week period, which caused them significant hardship. Belinda is now in debt as a result of the loss of income. Had it not been for the fact that Belinda resides in public housing and her family were able to negotiate an agreement, she may well have become homeless. Belinda's doctor wrote a letter to Centrelink in April this year confirming that she had been suffering from major depression since October last year. He emphasised that her financial situation was making it difficult for her to afford her medication. Centrelink was given this letter but ignored it.Belinda requested a review of the decision, but both the local Centrelink office and the authorised review officer refused to change it. The ARO said Belinda would not have been paid the money had she been successful, as she requested a review more than three months after the decision was made. Belinda's only option now is to appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Belinda has been an in-patient in the psychiatric ward of a local hospital for several weeks, and it is not known when she will be fit enough to pursue an appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.3071109:43:0030711Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—We all know that one of our difficulties in rural and regional Australia is that we lose a lot of our young people to the city. Part of the reason that is the case is that young people often cannot undertake tertiary education close to their homes. One of the great health initiatives of the coalition government to encourage doctors to work in the rural areas is to select more rural people to undergo medical training. The more courses that we can get running in our regional areas, the better our regional areas are going to be. That was the philosophy behind the setting up of the Bega and Batemans Bay access centres, along with TAFE and other instrumentalities. The federal government put significant money into both of those access centres. Currently, there are over 50 students doing Bachelor of Business and Bachelor of Arts courses at the University of Wollongong through the Bega Access Centre and the Batemans Bay Access Centre. One of the other great gaps that we have is in nurse training generally in our rural and regional areas. I was extremely pleased to support a project put forward by a group down in Bega. Dr Robert Hartemink and Sue Bryson led that group, which put forward a nurse education project. We made strong representations to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp, and I am very pleased that last week, in the announcement of the additional regional places, 25 specific places went to the Bega Access Centre to run this nurse education project. It is a great move forward, and it has strong support from the community.In the Canberra Times Dr Hartemink said:“There is already a crisis retaining nurses in rural areas. ... If we can train nurses in centres like Bega, we have more chance that they will stay in these areas.“It should also provide opportunities for our young people—over 90 per cent of kids leave the area once they finish high school. In three years time we will have about 75 nursing students in Bega.”The article also says:Ms Bryson believes the training will revitalise the town. `It means we do not have to lose these young people 18-30 years old.'I congratulate those people who put forward that project. I certainly supported it very strongly. Some of the other support for the project has come from the Bega District Hospital, Bega District Nursing Home and Retirement Trust medical staff, council of Bega and Pambula hospitals, New South Wales Nurses Association, New South Wales Ministerial Standing Committee on the Nursing Workforce, and high school service clubs. You name them—everybody has really supported this project. I give my congratulations to them for getting these 25 places in Bega. (Time expired)3071209:46:0030712Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise to express my anger and the anger of my constituents over the massive job losses that the ADI plant in Bendigo has suffered because of privatisation by the Howard government. Privatisation of ADI Australia by the Howard government has cost Bendigo ADI plant 149 jobs. This is a massive 37 per cent of the 405 jobs that were provided to ADI in Bendigo in 1996 when the Howard government took office on a promise not to sell ADI. The firm's work force at Bendigo is now down to 283 as of June this year.Now there are grave fears among ADI workers and unions that the federal government's stalling of production of the Bushmaster vehicle until 2003 could cost another 100 workers their jobs. Their fears have been intensified by facts sent to ADI by another company, Sea Tiger Marine, noting that the Bushmaster project was `on offer' and effectively expressing an interest in buying that project. Given the appalling record of the government's broken promises over ADI, the workers' fears have not been allayed by assurances by ADI that the Bushmaster project is not for sale.Defence minister Mr Reith put up an elaborate charade a few weeks ago to hide the privatisation job losses. When I questioned him on notice in parliament he pretended he did not have the figures. He tried to throw up a new diversion by telling me to ask ADI itself. I had no doubt that he had the figures all the time. It was the same stonewalling I got earlier when I asked the Prime Minister about public sector employment levels in the Bendigo district. Now ADI has provided me with the figures. The figures show that. from the time the government was secretly hatching the sell-off of ADI until the new owners took over, workers were hit with a series of three rounds of redundancies, adding up to 149 workers by August last year. The Howard government is privatising and downsizing Bendigo district jobs, but they will never own up to the heavy price that workers and the district's economy pay for their policies. The coalition parties promised a bright new future for ADI with privatisation. During the 1999 state election campaign in Bendigo the then coalition Premier, Mr Kennett, promised greater development for ADI Bendigo with the privatisation. He openly boasted he had been pushing for the sale of ADI. The same Premier and government had earlier promised that the sale of the Bendigo railway workshops would create a second ordnance factory in Bendigo. The railway workshops did not get the 400 to 500 jobs promised from privatisation. It was scaled down from 262 jobs to 100 before privatisation and it has now ended up closing down. Today it is just an empty shell and a great monument to coalition dishonesty. ADI workers are only too well aware of the fate of the Bendigo railway workshops and of the coalition lies told about its privatisation. At their stop-work meeting last week, which I attended and addressed, ADI workers endorsed a motion calling for urgent action by the government on the Bushmaster project and on Australia's heavy engineering industry.I urge the government to ensure that ADI Bendigo has a future, that jobs be secured, and that Bushmaster be proceeded with and constructed in Bendigo. The Bendigo region has suffered too much already with the recent job losses at Rocklea, Vectus and Goninan's, the jobs disaster inflicted on Maryborough by Nestle, and the possibility of more job losses at Thompson Kelly and Lewis at Castlemaine from the sale of its rail production facility. (Time expired)3071309:49:0030713Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the matter of seatbelts on school buses. I would like to thank the member for Forde who raised this important issue in her recent motion in the House. In my own electorate of Dawson every school has a large proportion of its students who travel by bus, mostly from rural areas. The safety of these children and many others is paramount. Parents in my area should not need to worry about their children's safety in getting to and from school to the extent that they currently do. I recognise the concern that bus operators have in regard to the cost involved in fitting seatbelts to existing school buses. In some cases fitting existing school buses with seatbelts would be arduous and perhaps in many cases technically impossible. The member for Forde's motion called on all states and territories to ensure that all new school buses be fitted with seatbelts. I do not have to remind the House that this is entirely the responsibility of the state and territory governments and their respective transport departments.One of the key policies of the Queensland National Party at the last state election was a comprehensive policy on school bus safety. Following the election, Premier Peter Beattie made some positive noises after several school bus accidents throughout the state. Parents in my electorate have been waiting for some positive action to follow, but to date Mr Beattie clearly has his foot on the brake. My advice to Mr Beattie is to go to the National Party web site at www.npa.org.au and download the Queensland National Party policy. Implementation of this policy will provide infinitely more safety for our children than they enjoy now. I urge Mr Beattie to get on with the job of protecting our schoolchildren. I would like to share with the House some aspects of the motion that the member for Forde moved in the House recently. She called for the following:That this House:(1) acknowledges that the safety of our children should be a paramount concern for all Governments;(2) recognises current safety standards imposed on coaches and long-distance buses include the mandatory requirement that these vehicles be fitted with seat belts;... ... ... (5) calls on all State and Territory Governments across the nation to put safety first and move urgently to at least require all new and replacement school buses be fitted with seat belts so this safety issue is eventually and finally addressed.I congratulate the member for Forde for raising this very important issue. I am pleased to support her wholeheartedly in the House today. It seems extraordinary to me that, while it is a requirement that conventional buses in many cases are now being fitted with seatbelts, children—our future young leaders—are crowded on buses, with many of them standing in the aisles, without the benefit and safety of seatbelts. I am happy to support the member for Forde and I look forward to the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, finally acting. (Time expired)3071409:52:0030714Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—Last night, in the adjournment debate, the member for Holt tabled a letter from Mr Jorge Ladowsky relating to very serious issues involving the Commonwealth and a company which Mr Ladowsky owned and operated called GD Advertising. One reason why Mr Ladowsky made his statement was that two newspaper articles appeared, one on Monday and one on Tuesday of this week, purporting to accuse me of wrongdoing in relation to these matters. In his letter, Mr Ladowsky apologised to me for attempting to mislead me and he also apologised to the member for Holt for actually misleading him in relation to dealings with the Commonwealth.Mr Ladowsky admits that GD Advertising has done work for the member for Holt. More seriously, he says in his letter: ... my gambling problem led me to siphon funds from the operations of GD Advertising with the Commonwealth. As I pointed out in a personal explanation to the House on Monday, the smears directed against me in relation to this matter are completely false. They were coordinated by Senator Kim Carr and his assistant Maria Vamvakinou, who also happens to be the Labor candidate for my seat of Calwell. It is clear from what has happened that, far from having done anything wrong in this matter, it was my actions which effectively led to the uncovering of these problems with respect to this company.On 26 July—four days before the member for Holt first received allegations concerning Mr Ladowsky—I stopped payment for an order which had been made with GD Advertising. I believe that it is this action and my letter to the Department of Finance and Administration on 28 July which led the member for Holt to confront Mr Ladowsky on 1 August and led to the resignation of Mr Ladowsky from his office on 6 August. The disgraceful situation in this matter is that Senator Carr and his henchmen knew about these problems in relation to Mr Ladowsky and did not inform the member for Holt—one of their Labor colleagues—for whom Mr Ladowsky was then working. Rather, Senator Carr and Ms Vamvakinou sought to misuse one of my staff members—Mrs Catherine McGovern— who had effectively been acting as a spy for them, to make a false attack on me in the newspapers concerning this company and its activities. Mrs McGovern has been exposed as directly working with operatives of Senator Carr and Ms Vamvakinou, including one Dale Hobsbawn—a person who was dismissed from my office 12 months ago for disloyalty.I do not have time to go into the full details of this issue, but let me say that I welcome any official investigation. Furthermore, the continuous dirty tactics for which Senator Carr is well known will not dissuade me from standing in the forthcoming election and offering the people of Calwell a real choice. Senator Carr has not only failed in his duties and obligations to a Labor colleague in this matter, but he continues to resort to totally improper actions in his campaign with Ms Vamvakinou in Calwell. I have been informed that the Democrat candidate in Calwell has written to the Special Minister for State demanding an investigation of Senator Carr and the misuse of more than $30,000 which was spent on a personalised letter from Senator Carr to every home in Calwell. In this letter he named and supported Maria Vamvakinou as the Labor candidate for Calwell. This is totally contrary to the guidelines for the use of Commonwealth funds and Senator Carr should be required to repay this money to the Commonwealth. (Time expired)3071509:55:0030715Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—In 2001, you would think that the state governments would be most conscious of gifts from the nation to various communities to celebrate their participation in bringing about the great federation of this country in 1901. Two years ago this Commonwealth government made a most generous donation of the nation's funds towards rebuilding three bridges along the Murray River: Corowa, Robinvale and Echuca-Moama—state bridges which are owned by New South Wales—to mark the fact that those communities had been absolutely crucial in bringing about the unification of this country. You can imagine the consternation of those communities some two years later, as we approach another election, when they realise that the state governments of Victoria and New South Wales have absolutely steadfastly refused to commit any of their funds to make those bridges a reality.The Corowa bridge—which we agreed to fund entirely—has now been left so long that there is a gap between the funding that is needed for that bridge and the dollars that were originally put aside. There is enormous concern about the Echuca-Moama bridge, which is in the electorate of Murray. It seems that the Bracks and Carr governments are determined to have the cheapest possible outcome, where only the $17-odd million that the Commonwealth has put on the table is spent. The state governments are going for what we would call the central option. That option would deliver a slightly rehabilitated bridge—using the old railway bridge which is now the road bridge there—adding a new laneway. This overlooks the tourist precinct of the town and goes through the CBD of Moama. It would involve an increase in stop-start traffic. It is totally inadequate to believe—with the growth we anticipate in Echuca-Moama in the future, with the increase in industrial traffic and B-doubles and heavier transport—that the option they now favour could do anything for the community except be a quick and cheap resolution to what is a major community problem.The Commonwealth government is most concerned that one rationale that the state governments are using in not putting up their contribution to the Echuca-Moama bridge is that the community's growth will, they say, in fact slow by 10 per cent. That is extraordinary, given that the Echuca-Moama communities are some of the fastest growing regional centres in Australia. So, on that basis, they have said, `We can sit back, sit on our hands and not put any dollars forward.' They will leave the town with a single transport linkage across the river, which leaves the community exposed to trauma if there is an accident on that bridge, as people cannot get to the hospital from the New South Wales side. The state governments' cynicism means that, despite the Federation gift to that community, they have no intention of bailing out that community with dollars they should have spent 50 years ago.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills30715R1265Consideration resumed from 7 August.3071609:58:0030716Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 is a most important amendment bill. The principal purpose of this bill is to make amendments to the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Imports and Exports) Act 1989. The bill also amends the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 in relation to the analysis of fuel samples and evidentiary matters in relation to these samples. The bill also contains amendments of a minor and technical nature affecting the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, the Ozone Protection Act 1989 and merits appeals under the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000. The latter amendments are intended to rectify a small number of operational anomalies and unintended consequences of drafting.The main purpose of the amendments to the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Imports and Exports) Act 1989 is to ensure that Australian companies cannot avoid the act's requirements by selling hazardous wastes to foreign companies.In September 1997, an Australian company sold hazardous waste to a foreign company and the foreign company then arranged for the waste to be exported. This breached Australia's obligation under the Basel convention not to allow the export of hazardous waste to another country unless that country has given its consent. As required by the Basel convention, the Commonwealth was obliged to bring the wastes back and dispose of them in Australia.The police investigation into the export led to the conclusion that the foreign company was in breach of the act but was beyond the reach of Australian courts.The Commonwealth was unable to prosecute the Australian company because the sale of the waste was not an offence under the act. These amendments are intended to prevent this situation arising again, by making it an offence to sell hazardous waste to a foreign company unless an export permit is in force.Other amendments to the act will allow ministerial orders to be made in a more effective and appropriate manner in incidents of this kind. They will also deal with administrative matters such as clarifying the definition of hazardous wastes.The amendments to the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 are concerned with the analysis of fuel samples and evidentiary matters in relation to those samples. The amendments propose that a certificate signed by an accredited person or an authorised person in relation to an accredited laboratory is admissible as prima facie evidence of the matters stated in the certificate, and of the correctness of the results of the analysis of a substance in relation to which an offence is alleged to have been committed. The amendments protect the rights of defendants to have reasonable notice of the use of such certificates, and enable persons to be cross-examined in relation to the contents of such certificates.I commend this bill to the Main Committee. I table the explanatory memorandum.10:01:0030716Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The purpose of the Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 is to amend the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Imports and Exports) Act 1989 and the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 and to make minor machinery changes to other portfolio legislation, including the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 and the Ozone Protection Act 1989. Amendments to the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Imports and Exports) Act 1989 will ensure that Australian companies cannot use a current loophole that allows them to avoid the act's requirements by selling hazardous wastes to foreign companies. Amendments will make it an offence to sell hazardous waste to a foreign company unless an export permit is in force. Other amendments to the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Imports and Exports) Act 1989 will allow ministerial orders to be made in a more effective and appropriate manner in incidents of this kind. They will also deal with administrative matters such as clarifying the definition of hazardous wastes. Labor believes that these improvements to the act are an improvement on the existing legislation, in the sense that it bans or stops the export of waste to any overseas corporation that does not have an existing permit and registered office in Australia. However, it does not take into account partnerships or individuals, and there are concerns that the loophole has not been completely closed through this amendment. We believe that this is an improvement but does not go far enough.Many of the most significant implications of hazardous waste trade would be avoided if Australia ratified the Basel ban amendment of the Basel convention which prohibits the export of hazardous waste from OECD countries to non-OECD countries. The government has failed to ratify this treaty—yet another international agreement on which Australia is dragging the chain. There is virtually no trade of hazardous waste to non-OECD countries from Australia, and therefore no reason not to progress the amendment decision through Australia's treaty making process.The bill also makes further amendment to the Fuel Quality Standards Act. Overall, Labor supports the Fuel Quality Standards Act and considers it a positive step towards greater protection of the environment and human health. Indeed, Labor supported the passage of the act, with significant Labor amendments that improved consultation and disclosure provisions and removed unnecessary ministerial discretion in the granting of exemptions for standards. We are still waiting, however, for the government to introduce standards that allow the delivery of the full potential of the legislation.A 1997 government study estimated that the cost of deaths associated with fine particles— just one of the many air pollutants to which most Australians are subjected daily—is at least $3.7 billion each year. This is a serious health issue, and an issue that is of concern to many Australians. Public opinion surveys consistently show air pollution as being the number one environmental issue of concern to urban Australians.The amendments to the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 that are before us today are primarily concerned with the analysis of fuel samples and evidentiary matters in relation to those samples. The amendments propose that a certificate signed by an accredited person or an authorised person in relation to an accredited laboratory is admissible as prima facie evidence of the matters stated in the certificate and of the correctness of the results of the analysis. The amendments protect the rights of defendants to have reasonable notice of the use of such certificates and enable persons to be cross-examined in relation to the contents of such certificates where notice requirements have been satisfied. Other minor amendments to the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 replace references to the Administrative Review Tribunal with `Administrative Appeals Tribunal' in accordance with the commencement provisions in the bill. These amendments are reversed if and when the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2001 comes into effect.Labor supports the bill as an improvement to the status quo; however, we expect more significant steps forward on environmental protection. Many of the significant environmental implications of hazardous waste trade would be avoided if Australia ratified the Basel ban amendment to the Basel convention, which prohibits the export of hazardous waste from OECD countries to non-OECD countries. In 1992 when we were in government Labor signed the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. Our commitment to this international instrument extends to more recent developments. For example, the Labor platform for the 1998 election stated: Labor in government will ratify and enforce our treaty obligations banning the export and transboundary movements of toxic waste and will ratify all current amendments to the Convention including the Basel Ban. The amendment has been open for ratification since late 1996 and currently has some 25 countries which have ratified it.The Hazardous Waste Regulation of Exports and Imports Act 1989 establishes a regulatory regime to implement Australia's obligations under the convention. As the act currently stands, the major offence provisions focus on the act of importing or exporting hazardous waste without the appropriate authorisation. It is not an offence to sell hazardous waste per se, even in the knowledge that the sale will possibly lead to an unauthorised export. This loophole was highlighted following an incident in September 1997 when hazardous waste in the form of computer scrap was exported from Sydney to Hong Kong in contravention of the act. The Environment Australia 1997-98 annual report, in commenting on this incident, states:The Australian Federal Police investigated a breach of section 40 of the act ... The Director of Public Prosecutions decided not the proceed with a prosecution, given that the likely exporter of the material had no presence in Australia. In response to that, item 10 in schedule 1 of the bill introduces a new offence that focuses on the circumstances of the sale of hazardous waste rather than the act of export, so we get a new section 40AA that creates the offence of unlawful sale of hazardous waste. A person would be guilty of that new offence if all four of the following elements are proved: the person sells hazardous waste to a body corporate incorporated outside Australia, whether or not the sale occurs within or outside Australia; the body corporate does not have a registered office or a principal office in Australia; the person sells the waste knowing or being reckless as to whether the waste is to be exported by the body corporate; and finally, an export permit authorising the export of the waste is not in force when the sale occurs. It would not be an offence to sell waste to a private individual or to a foreign corporation with a registered Australian office. In relation to this second circumstance, the parliamentary secretary's second reading speech says that the bill makes it `an offence to sell hazardous waste to a foreign company unless an export permit is in place'. That is not strictly correct if the foreign corporation in question has an office in Australia. Obviously, the presence of an Australian office provides a more solid jurisdictional footing for Australian authorities to pursue a prosecution against the foreign corporation, but there is no guarantee that the corporation would have any significant assets in Australia upon which a fine could be levied. Under section 40B of the act, corporate executive officers can be held criminally liable for unlawful exporting of hazardous waste, although these officers would presumably have to be Australian based if jurisdictional problems are not to arise.It is also curious why someone selling hazardous waste in the possible knowledge that the sale could lead to an unauthorised export should escape prosecution merely because they sold the waste to either a private individual or a foreign corporation with a registered Australian office. Such loopholes do not seem to have any great relevance to a person's moral culpability if they have failed to take reasonable steps to verify that a permit authorising the export of the waste is not in force when the sale occurs.In conclusion, we think that the bill has some shortcomings. We think that, as a whole, it represents an improvement and, on that basis, we support it. We think that, if Australia were to ratify the Basel ban amendment, we would be able to avoid the problems and the environmental implications of hazardous waste trade. So we would prefer to see ratification and full implementation of the Basel amendment. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before calling the next speaker, the chair would like to compliment the member for Wills for making a speech in which every word was relevant to the bill under discussion—a great rarity in this place. I call the honourable member for Dunkley, who will also be relevant, I know.10:11:0030719Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I hope so, Mr Deputy Speaker, except for a few concluding comments on LPG, if I could seek your patience in that regard. We are dealing with two main amendments in the Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. One relates to the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act and the other relates to the Fuel Quality Standards Act—where I am sure my comments on LPG will be extraordinarily relevant and well appreciated. There are also a couple of very minor amendments to the sea dumping and ozone protection legislation.In relation to the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989, the bill proposes to close a loophole so that it will be an offence to sell hazardous waste to foreign companies under certain circumstances. The member for Wills touched on the case that gave rise to the amendment that we are discussing today. As the act currently stands, it is possible for an Australian company to avoid the requirements of the act by selling hazardous material to a foreign company which then exports the waste. While the exporting of that waste by the foreign company is in breach of the current act, we have seen, in a case that occurred in 1997 which my colleague mentioned, that the possibility of securing a conviction against a company with no presence and no assets in Australia is extremely difficult, costly and, ultimately, a waste of time. The case involved the export of waste offshore and not only revealed a flaw in the current legislation but also led to the waste having to be returned to Australia for disposal. As I understand it, the taxpayer was put in the situation of having to incur some expense to recover those surplus computer items. The current legislation does not provide for any recourse against the Australian company which sold the waste in the first place, irrespective of whether there was any knowledge on the part of the company as to the intent of the foreign company actually to export the waste material once they had acquired it. In such situations as the one I have just mentioned, the taxpayer incurred the ultimate expense of having to recover the material and return it to Australia for subsequent disposal. The amendment outlined in this bill will make it an offence for an Australian company to sell hazardous waste to a foreign company unless that company has a registered or principal office in our country or an export permit is in force when the sale occurs. That is bringing the activity within the purview of our jurisdiction. This will ensure that the Australian company can only sell waste to foreign companies over which the Australian courts have some jurisdiction if an offence is committed—or, if they sell to a foreign company, the company must have been granted an export permit for the waste they are actually purchasing. Basically, it is ensuring that we have some avenue for recourse. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, which came into effect in 1992, requires parties to prevent contraventions and to prosecute illegal movements of hazardous waste. The Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 sets up the regulatory structure under which Australia fulfils its obligation to the Basel convention. It is worth noting that, under the international convention, it is the country from which the waste is being exported which is responsible for ensuring that the destination country is happy to accept the waste and has suitable facilities to dispose of it according to all relevant laws. The disposal of hazardous waste is an issue that rightly creates a lot of concern in the community and particularly in those countries where waste disposal facilities are located. It is important to have in place sufficient safeguards to ensure that hazardous waste disposal is carried out safely and efficiently. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! That gentleman will not intrude his person on the floor!1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—I thought it was my comments that were getting you quite excited, Mr Deputy Speaker. The potential for serious environmental damage which can result when incorrect waste disposal technology and methods are used is quite high, hence the reasons for the provisions of the convention. These considerations are particularly important when waste is being exported out of a country to a country that may not have had the benefit of the process and the experience that produced the waste in the first place. The proper handling of hazardous waste in these circumstances is particularly important. The Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act is one of the mechanisms to ensure the correct disposal of these wastes. The amendment that we are discussing today is important in ensuring that Australian companies do not inadvertently or purposefully avoid the requirements of the act. This amendment puts the focus on the circumstances of the sale of the hazardous waste rather than on the act of importing or exporting the waste, and in doing so it recognises an important part of the processing and disposal of the hazardous material.We mentioned the September 1997 example of when computer waste was purchased from here to be exported to a South-East Asian country. The only thing we can lament from that is that Greenpeace was aware of this transaction taking place. Rather than alert our authorities to it at the time, when we could have intervened, they waited for it to actually occur and then made a big issue out of it. The good outcome of that is the amendment we are discussing today. One of the amendments moved by the Democrats in the Senate and referred to by the previous speaker called on the government to ratify the Basel ban amendment to the Basel convention. It was an amendment which would prohibit the export of hazardous waste from OECD countries to non-OECD countries. Senator Bolkus, the shadow environment spokesman for the Labor Party, argued in support of that amendment. He said that many of the significant environmental implications of hazardous waste trade would be avoided if Australia ratified the Basel ban amendment. He was suggesting that this was another example of where our country was `dragging its feet' in relation to an international agreement. These were free, easy and cheap shots but not terribly well informed. The environment minister, Senator Hill, has clearly outlined the government's position on the Basel ban amendment on a number of occasions, but for the benefit of the member for Wills and maybe his colleagues let me briefly share with you those reasons this morning. The Basel ban amendment would ban all exports of hazardous waste from parties listed in annex VII to all parties not so listed. As expressed by Senator Bolkus and Senator Bartlett in the Senate debate on this bill, this would mean a ban on exports from all OECD countries to all non-OECD countries. Australia is one of the countries which has expressed reservations about the criteria to assign countries to annex VII. The view among these countries and Australia is that the extent to which parties have the necessary technological expertise and systems to ensure environmentally sound management of hazardous waste should be the main criteria for listing. Senator Bolkus claimed that Australia is `dragging its feet'. This is opportunistic hogwash. It is clearly the case that we have put the point to the wider community explaining our reasoning. We are not alone in that view of having some reservations about the way countries are assigned to annex VII. It is clearly just a wider point that the ALP is trying to make about the government's interaction with the international treaty system without actually looking at the substance of our view and position. If we look at that then clearly an examination of the criteria and the issues relating to the listing of countries on annex VII is quite a reasonable and well considered position and the decision not to ratify that amendment is well justified. In the meantime, our country has very strict legislation in relation to exports of hazardous waste to countries where environmentally sound management of that waste is an issue. This bill is a further step in tightening that legislation. Senator Bolkus himself recognised in his speech in the Senate that Australia has `virtually no trade in hazardous waste to non-OECD countries'. So ratification of the Basel ban amendment as it currently stands will not change anything. We are being called upon to ratify an amendment that will not change anything and that, in effect, masks some genuine concerns about the way countries are listed as part of annex VII. If the criteria for annex VII listing were limited to those countries with the technological expertise to ensure sound environmental management of the waste, it would only serve to raise the standard of hazardous waste management worldwide. If we had some progress on the key area of concern that the government has raised, we would see an improvement in the management of hazardous waste at a global level. So Labor's complaints and the comments of Senator Bolkus are nothing more than an opportunistic spray at the government in an attempt to cover up the ALP's appalling record on environmental issues.The other major amendment being discussed today refers to amendments to the Fuel Quality Standards Act. The amendment introduced into the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 specifies provisions allowing evidentiary certificates to be used in prosecutions under the act and also allows for regulations to be made to deal with the handling and analysis of fuel samples. The Fuel Quality Standards Act is an important instalment in the government's environment agenda and, as the member said earlier, air quality issues are a significant environmental concern for many Australians. It regulates the quality of fuel supplied to Australian motorists with a view to reducing the level of pollutants and emissions arising from motor vehicle use and the consequential environmental and human health problems associated with those emissions.We often think of modern engines as extremely complex pieces of engineering, and it might come as a bit of a surprise that the fuel itself is one of the most complex elements of the internal combustion process. So you can have the best engineering technology in the world under the hood, but if you are putting crummy fuel into it you are really undermining the performance, the efficiency and the environmental impact of that engine technology's use. There are a number of choices that are available to motorists at the petrol pump: unleaded petrol, premium unleaded, high octane unleaded, lead replacement petrol, diesel of various grades and one of my favourites, LPG, or liquefied petroleum gas. The chemistry of these fuels has become more and more complex over the years as the ability to refine the internal combustion engine has reached a critical point whereby vehicle manufacturers and oil companies have turned to the fuel itself as a way of improving engine performance and reducing emissions.We have played a role in pushing that along as legislators with acts like the Fuel Quality Standards Act. We do this so we can have world's best engine technology utilised in our country and in our vehicles not only to achieve optimum vehicle performance but also to look at the environmental and human health impact of the fuel that is used and the emissions that it creates. That increase in the complexity of fuel and stricter requirements on fuel quality has resulted in a double-edged problem. Some in our community have seen an opportunity to produce fuel of a lower standard than that required by the legislation and engine technology has found that difficult to cope with. The consequence of that sort of profiteering from lower production costs has been poorer vehicle performance for motorists and poorer air quality and human health consequences from the emissions.Meanwhile, the task of detecting such substandard fuels has become increasingly difficult, especially in a forensic sense. We need to tool up our regulators with some help, and that is what this bill is about today. It may be patently obvious to a driver, from the performance of his or her car, that the fuel is substandard. However, proving in a court that the fuel does not meet the requirements of the Fuel Quality Standards Act requires a far more scientific approach. The fuel standards amendment provisions outlined in this bill put in place a system of evidential certificates that can be accepted by the court as prima facie evidence of the contents of the fuel and that the certificate can be used as the analysis throughout the prosecution. So the court does not need to call forward the analyst to go through the whole process of the way the fuel was analysed; the certificate will provide that evidence for the court and allow a prosecution to proceed. This is a very practical, effective and convenient step that will keep court costs down to a minimum, without removing the right of either side to call the analyst to give evidence if that is required. At least the facts are on the table to be considered as part of the prosecution. Coupled with these measures, and central to their success, is the requirement that such a certificate be issued by an accredited laboratory. These are relatively minor but important amendments ensuring the efficient operation of the Fuel Quality Standards Act and the enforcement of standards that seek to pursue the objectives of that act—to secure the environmental and health benefits that the act is designed to deliver.Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I come to a favourite topic of mine that is very closely related to the bill—LPG. It is a terrific transitional fuel, and I take the opportunity to impress upon you, all those present and the government the need to quickly bring forward the LPG fuel standards. I make no apology for being evangelical about the need to have an LPG fuel standard, because it is a fantastic alternative fuel in terms of the environment and in terms of the value and health issues surrounding emissions. The Labor Party has sought to criticise the use of LPG, arguing that it is somehow less attractive now because of its price, and therefore not as attractive as an alternative fuel. That analysis by the ALP is blatantly incorrect. What matters to the motorist is not the actual price of the LPG, although that is important. What is critical to the cost-benefit argument for using LPG is the difference between its cost and the cost of petrol. Many years ago you might have been able to buy LPG for 18c a litre; petrol was 48c a litre at that time and the cost differential was only 30c a litre. In considering the payback time for investing in LPG technology, we looked at that 30c a litre as the dividend for the conversion. Today, admittedly, the price of LPG is somewhat higher, but the price of petrol has gone up at a greater rate; so the cost differential now between LPG and petrol is greater than it was back in the supposed halcyon days of conversion to LPG. It is a better business case to convert to LPG today, notwithstanding that the cost per litre is a little bit higher, because it is substantially cheaper than the cost per litre of petrol. Those in the opposition that seek to talk down the conversion to LPG ought to have a look at the kind of simple analysis that shows you that LPG is a very cost-effective, environmentally friendly and satisfying fuel for motorists. There is anecdotal evidence from previous years that suggests that, as we go into the warmer months, there is a change in the demand for propane and butane. These are the main constituents of LPG. Without the fuel standard, suppliers of LPG can mix and change the brew of the fuel. They can change the proportion of propane to butane as domestic and international demand for those two gases vary. With that change to the brew of LPG, problems are created for motorists. Motorists running on LPG may find that they get more or less bang for their buck, the distance that can be travelled on a tank of LPG can vary and vehicle performance can vary, often requiring a retune or a converter clean. Some might recall I actually brought an LPG converter into the parliament. It looked as though someone had smeared it with vegemite—very clear evidence of the sorts of impurities, phalates and the like, that find their way into LPG fuel. Those are the sorts of things that a mandatory standard for LPG would avoid and give motorists that have converted to LPG the best possible vehicle performance. Why does that matter? If we have not got good vehicle performance from LPG, people will not make the conversion. We will not be able to secure the environmental benefits of having people convert from petrol to LPG if their experience with LPG is unsatisfactory. We want to make sure that those converting to LPG have the best possible motoring experience, so that it encourages them to talk about the success of their conversion and encourages others to do likewise. A fuel standard is central to that task. If we are uncertain about the brew of the fuel, if the fuel itself is a moveable feast, how can we design gas conversion technology and vehicle engine systems to optimise the performance of the LPG? I have discussed these issues in this place before. There is an urgent need to develop a mandatory fuel standard for LPG so that motorists using this fuel can have some certainty about the performance of their vehicles and the functioning of their LPG systems. A mandatory fuel standard is also crucial for those vehicle technology designers, such as Ford, that are making passenger motor vehicles with only LPG as the fuel source. Gone are the days where, if you have a dodgy batch of LPG, you just flip a switch and go back to using petrol. If you are driving a vehicle that has only LPG as a fuel source, you want the LPG to function well; otherwise you would be dissatisfied with your vehicle choice and your conversion to LPG, and you would not do it.The bill before the Main Committee today contains what may be considered as relatively minor amendments, but they are important and they deserve to be taken seriously, not treated in the opportunistic and simple way that Senator Bolkus has referred to them in the other place. I commend the bills to the Main Committee and encourage all members to consider the virtues of LPG and the importance of a mandatory fuel standard to make sure you get optimum performance from that choice of fuel.10:30:0030723Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—in reply—In summing up this debate today, I want to thank the member for Wills and the member for Dunkley for their contributions. I am pleased to see the bipartisan support for the Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. The bill makes amendments to the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 and to the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 in relation to the analysis of fuel samples and evidentiary matters relevant to those samples. The bill also contains amendments of a minor and technical nature affecting the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, the Ozone Protection Act 1989 and merits appeals under the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000. The latter amendments are intended to rectify a small number of operational anomalies and unintended consequences of drafting.Australia takes its international responsibilities very seriously, whether they are to do with our greenhouse gas emissions or our oceans policy, which is why we are amending the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989. We want to ensure that Australian companies cannot avoid the act's requirements by selling hazardous wastes to foreign companies. The member for Wills seemed confused about one part of the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989. He suggested that a foreign corporation that had an office in Australia could still export hazardous wastes from this country. We need to draw his attention to section 2(a), which quite clearly states:A person is guilty of an offence if:(a) the person sells hazardous waste to another person; A person is defined as a `natural person, body corporate or partnership', so we believe that the act does not contain a loophole in the way that the member for Wills suggested. Both the member for Wills and the member for Dunkley commented on the ban on Australia exporting hazardous waste and the fact that we have not signed the Basel convention. The member for Wills suggested that we should sign, and of course the member for Dunkley was quite right in explaining that there are a lot of issues to do with the signing of that convention. Australia is amongst many countries rightly concerned about whether or not we have that convention substantially ready for Australia to sign. Senator Hill, in the other place, has referred to this convention on a number of occasions and he very recently expressed reservations about the Basel ban amendment, which would ban all exports of hazardous wastes from parties listed in annex VII to all countries not so listed. We are amongst those countries who said at COP5 that the criteria used to assign state parties to annex VII should be based on the extent to which parties had the necessary technological expertise to ensure environmentally sound management.It is worth reminding the member for Wills of the Australian context. Australia already has strict legislation which prohibits exports of hazardous waste to countries which do not consent to their input or in circumstances where the environment minister is not satisfied that the waste will be managed in an environmentally sound manner. In relation to the ratification of the convention itself, we are one of a number of countries that are still exploring all the issues through a process that has been agreed and is currently being implemented. I do not think we need to be concerned at all. As the member for Dunkley suggested, that is simply political point scoring.The Howard government's commitment to repairing our environment and natural resources is tangible and is now being applauded across the country. When we look at the expenditure, the largest number of dollars on record have been committed to the environment through the Natural Heritage Trust. $1.4 billion has been expended already and more than $1 billion is committed over the next seven years. Our commitment to the environment is such that I know that the community understands we are the most reforming government on record. We have brought about real change in biodiversity protection, vegetation management and tackling the big issues like climate change—human induced climate change. We have just introduced a National Action Plan on Salinity and Water Quality. We are the first national government to recognise this environmental problem which is destroying much of our productive agricultural land across Australia and is also threatening the biodiversity in this country. This country is still a mega-diverse nation, even though the last 200 years have meant that lots of our species have been brought to extinction or are now endangered.We were recently commended for the $1 billion which we committed to the Australian Greenhouse Office. We are the first nation to have a dedicated greenhouse office. It is doing extraordinary work, in particular in the carbon accounting area. We lead the world in successfully documenting, over the last 30 years, how the vegetation covering this country has changed. We can be amongst the first to work in an internationally agreed carbon accounting trading system when one comes into being.The amendments to these bills all go towards stronger environmental protection and conservation for this country. I am pleased that the member for Wills has acknowledged that and supported these amendments. Once again, I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills30725R139030725Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Speaker:That the bill be now read a second time.10:37:0030725Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The measures in the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2001 will enhance the mobility between the Australian Public Service and the Parliamentary Service, something which we have consistently supported. We believe that the movement of staff between the two services will enhance the vitality and the effectiveness of both organisations. We also recognise the need for technical amendments which rectify a problem with the drafting of the original bill which would have required amending legislation each time there was a change to the name of a parliamentary department. The details of these amendments have been fully canvassed in the Senate and the opposition supports the bill.10:38:0030725Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—What a day of brevity and unanimity it is in the chamber. This proposal really does change what was thought to be a permanent arrangement, but which is not accurately reflected in the legislation. The Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2001 proposes that a person engaged in the Parliamentary Service or in the Public Service can move from one to the other without penalty and that they, without giving formal notice, are deemed to have ceased employment and then can pick up their former career in their previous department. This provision is for that to occur without penalty to the individual. There are also provisions to make sure that, when the names of departments change, this can be accounted for without further amendments to the legislation.The main provisions of this process apply to ministerial staff as well as to the staff of the parliament. The parliament in particular benefits from having people from outside on its staff. Often we are accused of being too closely aligned to the Public Service. Similar provisions could be put in place or could be considered for people from private enterprise or senior positions in business to take up positions on parliamentary staff. That would be valuable. I do not know how you write that sort of legislation but it would be by a matter of agreement with the private sector employer.The provisions of the legislation also note that changes to the joint departments—not the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of the Senate, which are created in section 54 of the act and can be abolished or retitled, but other changes which may occur to the names of the departments—are accounted for. This is an excellent proposal. Both sides of the House agree with it and the government recommends it to the parliament.10:40:0030725Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The members will recall that the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 created for the first time a parliamentary administration which is legislatively separate from the Australian Public Service. This was a fundamental milestone for the parliament. The Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2001 proposes amendments to the Parliamentary Service Act in the light of experiences over the first 18 months of its operation. While the act has worked well since it first came into force on 5 December 1999, two issues have emerged which require clarification, and the amendments proposed are intended to do this. The first amendment is to clarify the scope and operation of the mobility provisions of the existing section 26 of the act. The amending bill recasts these provisions in a way which we believe fully meets the parliament's original objectives. Mobility between the Parliamentary Service and the Australian Public Service is fundamental to the effective functioning of the Parliamentary Service. Without an unfettered capacity to recruit staff on merit from the APS, the Parliamentary Service would be severely hampered. APS staff who join the Parliamentary Service for either long-term or short-term employment bring to the parliament an invaluable range of skills, experience and knowledge. Equally, staff who move from the Parliamentary Service to the APS take to the APS important attributes and knowledge. The parliament recognised and endorsed this when it passed the act with the present mobility provisions. At the time, these were thought sufficiently comprehensive and broad to achieve the objective of allowing staff of either service to compete on merit for promotion or transfer to the other service. It has subsequently transpired that clarification of section 26 is needed to meet fully the parliament's and the government's policy objectives, particularly to avoid any requirement to resign from Commonwealth employment before moving between services. A requirement to resign would have been a major disincentive to recruit to the Parliamentary Service. The amendments proposed are a revised section 26 dealing with ongoing moves between the services and a new section 26A dealing with non-ongoing moves. The second amendment clarifies section 54. Section 54 provides that parliamentary departments, other than the Department of the Senate and the Department of the House of Representatives, may be created or abolished by means of each house passing resolutions. There is no explicit provision to rename an existing department, nor is there any provision for references in legislation to a department which has been renamed to be read as references to the newly titled department. The proposed amendment relates only to the joint departments: the Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Joint House Department. These amendments are of a technical nature and will, if enacted, assist the effective running of the Parliamentary Service.This bill builds on the achievement of a separate parliamentary service. It will assist the parliament's ability to attract suitable employees, to provide them with better career paths and to adjust its own administrative arrangements in an appropriate manner.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Adjournment307263072610:44:0030726McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—It is with some sadness that I again speak in the Main Committee about the issue of bank closures in the Stirling electorate. This time the Commonwealth Bank is closing its branch in Yokine. Last year I spoke to the House about bank branch closures in Tuart Hill, and we are now adding another casualty to the obituary for bank branches in my electorate. This time it is the suburb of Yokine mourning the loss of its banking service. In those two speeches I also described my ongoing community campaign which involved a number of community forums and the circulation of the petition throughout the electorate. This campaign focused on increasing bank fees and on branch closures. I was worried—and I am still worried—about the effect of changes to the banking sector on the disadvantaged in our community, especially seniors, people with disabilities and people on low incomes.This campaign is not over. It will not be over until our banks fulfil their social obligations. I will probably be accused of bank bashing. This is not the case. The two speeches I made last year earned me phone calls from the then head of the Australian Banking Association and two senior public affairs managers from major banks who proceeded to argue their case from the banks' perspective. I am not interested in repeating this exercise, so I will make the following comments. I am not arguing against the fact that banks have a responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit. They are publicly listed companies and like all companies are in business to make money. I am not arguing against the fact that banks now provide service in the form of 24-hour phone, ATM and Internet access. There is no doubt that this type of banking benefits a huge number of people who have busy lives and who enjoy the convenience this type of banking affords the technologically adept and fortunate. What I am going to deal with today is the public perception that banks have lost touch with their communities. This is a perception throughout our community and, though the banks do not like to admit it, they are actively battling this every day. There are some facts that support this public perception. The first of these is the substantial profits banks have made in the last few years. Last year alone the four big banks made a combined profit in excess of $9.4 billion for the financial year. The media continues to report these billion dollar profits made by the banks. What is causing anger in our community is not the profits themselves but the widespread belief that these profits have been made at the expense of and without regard to consumers' welfare. Bank closures fuel this anger. To give the House an idea of the scale of this problem, I will quote the following statement from an article by Patricia Howard in July's edition of Australian CPA:According to the Reserve Bank of Australia 2,060 branches have been closed across the country between July 1993 and July 2000, a cutback of 29 per cent of all bank branches. For the banks it is a simple accounting decision, but for the thousands of Australians who suddenly find they can no longer access even the most basic financial services in their local area the effect can be devastating.This article highlights the enormous social costs of bank closures in rural and regional Australia. But people in metropolitan areas are also feeling the pain of bank closures. In metropolitan areas it is the poor, the disabled and the aged who are disadvantaged, while in rural and regional areas it is the whole community that is affected. A simple illustration of the rate of bank closures in this country is that five branches a week have closed over the last seven years—one every working day. Every weekday a bank branch closes in this country—unbelievable but true. What can government do? Labor believes that banking is an essential service and banks do have social obligations that are broader than for other commercial organisations. The licensing of banks imposes responsibilities as well as privileges which go beyond just being good corporate citizens. An essential plank of Labor's policy is a social charter of community obligations for banks. Through a process of consultation with industry and community groups Labor will negotiate a social charter of community obligations for banks. The social charter will be legally binding on the banks, like a contract. If the banks refuse to negotiate an acceptable charter, then a Labor government will impose a social charter through legislation. Labor wants the social charter for the banks to include the following items: a basic bank account which enables fee-free banking for social security recipients, a no-frills bank account offering minimal bank fees for all Australians and a number of other measures. These items are not unreasonable. They are the basic building blocks of a fair and equitable banking system.Labor recognises that the Australian public has had enough of being taken for granted. It is now time for the banks to fulfil their social responsibilities voluntarily or to be forced to do so by legislation. The Howard government has not done enough to stop the erosion of retail banking services in this country. I hope to stand in this House next year and not have to complain about the further erosion of banking services again. I hope to stand in this House and talk about the success of the social charter of community obligations for the banks. Only a Beazley Labor government can deliver this. (Time expired)3072810:50:0030728Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—About three or four weeks ago, in a blaze of publicity, the New South Wales State Education Minister, John Aquilina, announced some $567,000 in funding for a skill centre to be built at the Woy Woy High School. This was a sweetener to the parents and students involved in the merger of two schools, Umina High School and Woy Woy High School. Obviously there has been a great deal of concern in the community about the merger of those two schools. In this great blaze of publicity John Aquilina said, `We will give you the skill centre down at Woy Woy High School for the senior part of the school to access and give you IT training, service and business skills.' What Mr Aquilina forgot to tell the parents, and the rest of the community, was that the $567,000 was not state government money. It was not new money. It was $567,000 of Commonwealth funding—and not one dollar of state government funding—which had already been allocated to a skill centre which was to be located in Donnison Street in Gosford in a one-stop shop youth facility. It had already been funded with $220,000 under the ACC RAP funding. The state government was contributing to that as well. This facility was to allow all high schools on the Central Coast to access it. I have a list of them: high schools at Berkeley Vale, Erina, Kincumber, Lisarow, Narara Valley, Terrigal, The Entrance, Tumbi Umbi, Umina, Woy Woy, Wyong and Green Point, and Henry Kendall High School, St Peters, St Edwards, St Josephs and Central Coast grammar. Mr Aquilina has not told the parents of Umina high or Woy Woy high whether those 1,470 other students are still going to be able to access that centre or whether it is only for the students of Woy Woy high. There are a lot of questions which need to be asked of Minister Aquilina on what is happening. The fact that they have withdrawn $567,000 from this important youth centre in the centre of Gosford—where every student could access these facilities—now jeopardises the whole viability of this project. The Commonwealth had already contributed $220,000. Only three weeks ago the Special Minister of State, who is also the minister for the Central Coast and minister for many other things in the state government, John Della Bosca, came up to the youth facility in Donnison Street to a great fanfare. We had a lovely function there with the media present. He presented a cheque from the state government for $250,000. He was not even aware that his own state government member John Aquilina had ripped out $567,000 of Commonwealth funding proposed for this facility. The state government have been up there grandstanding saying, `We are giving you $250,000'. But secretly they have ripped out $567,000 of Commonwealth funding to give it to Woy Woy High School and have made a big song and dance about all this extra funding from the state government to the school. That is not the truth. This is not what the parents are being told at public meetings. We need to continue to ask questions of John Aquilina.There is no doubt that there is a need for a facility down at the combined high schools of Woy Woy and Umina. I have no problems with having a skill facility there to enable students to make the transition from school to work, but the facility should be funded by the state government. They are state government schools. This just shows the sneakiness of the state government in claiming all the time that the Commonwealth is not contributing to state government facilities and schools. Here is a classic example of the deceit of the New South Wales Carr government in the way that they secretly snuck this money out of this very important facility, rebadged it and claimed it as their own. They made a big song and dance about how wonderful they are. In fact, they have not added one extra dollar.This is another example of how the state governments have claimed that the Commonwealth government is not contributing to state school funding. The Commonwealth's spending on government schools is at the highest level ever. All states and territories have received funding increases for government schools every year since this government came in during 1996. The total funding for government schools in the 2002 budget is estimated to be $2.2 billion. Over the 2001-04 quadrennium it will total over $9 billion. In 2002 Commonwealth spending will increase by 43 per cent. (Time expired)3072910:55:0030729Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I was very proud to be elected to the House of Representatives on 2 March 1996. I have not been too proud of this parliament in the last week. At the end of the day, the issues we are debating come down to race and religion, and I believe the debate diminishes us as a parliament and as a nation. It was one thing to have Pauline Hanson as an Independent sprouting words and pressing reactionary buttons in the community. It is another thing to have a government and a Prime Minister that are prepared to do that as well. I would rather lose my seat than engage in the sort of divisive conduct that we have seen from this Prime Minister.Last night a bill was presented to the parliament, a bill for which no notice was given to the opposition, a bill for which there was no explanatory memorandum; a bill which sought to override decades of laws in this nation without any public or community debate. That bill would have overridden all other laws without qualification, including international maritime laws and Australian criminal and civil laws. It allowed unreviewable, absolute discretion for Australian officials in removing vessels from Australian territorial waters without giving any consideration whatsoever to whether those vessels are seaworthy or any consideration whatsoever to the health and safety of people who may be on board. It provided no guidance as to when, how or why a decision on a vessel would be made. It provided no definition of `reasonable means' or `reasonable force'. It was so broad that it would allow the exclusion of Australian citizens on Australian vessels without any avenue of parliamentary or judicial challenge or review.As the leader of the Labor Party said last night and on AM this morning in opposing this bill, we need `cool heads and generous hearts'. I am firmly of the view that we do need leadership, and leadership is not about responding to every poll. Leadership is about doing what is right.Government members interjecting—R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Leadership is about humanity, caring for people and being prepared to take a stand, as the leader of the Labor Party has done in opposing this bill. This is not a refugee crisis—400 people on a boat do not represent a crisis. This is a political crisis for us as a nation, which has been brought on by a desperate Prime Minister.Unfortunately members of the Liberal Party are interjecting during my speech. At their caucus meeting this week, the new member for Aston suggested that we drop bombs either side of boats as they approach Australian territory. That is the level of debate that has been brought on by the conservative parties. In his speech in the parliament, the Prime Minister referred to Australia's response to the Indo-Chinese crisis. Well, Prime Minister, you are no Malcolm Fraser! This was a nation in which we had bipartisan support for tolerance and compassion on these sorts of issues. What we need is a comprehensive solution, and the government's legislation would not provide that. You can push this boat out to sea but, unless it has somewhere to go, what will happen? The problem will remain. And does it become a yoyo: going out to sea and back again, going out to sea and back again? This is an issue that requires a comprehensive solution based upon the law and based upon decent humanity. (Time expired)3073011:00:0030730Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—In the Kimberley region of my electorate is the township of Broome, an area that many Australians would recognise for its tourist appeal generally and for its world renowned South Sea pearls in particular. Broome is one of the fastest growing communities in the vast Kalgoorlie electorate. The greatest encumbrance on the continuity of that growth is its wharf facilities. Infrastructure, while satisfactory at the time of building, can quickly become inadequate when trying to cope with rapid growth. That is the case in Broome, where the Broome wharf, managed by the Broome Port Authority, is in dire need of expansion to cater for the growth in the shipping industry, particularly that related to oil and gas exploration ventures.The berthing space at the wharf is unchanged since the jetty was completed in 1966, even though the number of vessels of all types calling at the wharf has increased from 15 to a maximum of 190 a month over the period. In addition to the obvious restrictions of lack of berthing space, there is major inconvenience and restriction whenever a petroleum tanker is discharging. The 25-metre exclusion zone around the 183-metre long Australian Pride encompasses the entire wharf, resulting in the need to close the wharf to all other traffic whenever the tanker is discharging. The port has to be closed because of this about eight times a year, for periods of between 36 hours and four days. This is unacceptable for a region that is thriving, growing and contributing substantially to the regional and national economy.The Broome Port Authority has plans to almost double the length of the wharf by constructing a 148-metre extension. The cost of this extension is estimated to be $14 million. The port authority is seeking funding from both the federal government and the Western Australian state government, in addition to raising capital itself. The port authority is seeking $5.5 million in federal funding for this expansion. This request for funding is one that I strongly support and urge this government to support. Every encouragement should be given to expansion of this infrastructure to service the growing regional economy, much of which is maritime dependent, in the West Kimberley.The prospective growth in this region is phenomenal. There was $42 million in live beef exports through the Broome port last year. Numbers of cattle exported annually have grown from 30,000 in 1997-98 to over 80,000 a head in 2000-01. Whilst dominated by pearling, the fishing industry in Broome also includes fin fish and prawning. The fishing industry in the region is serviced solely by the port of Broome. The number of visits from luxury cruise ships is also increasing, with Broome rapidly being recognised as a new and exotic destination for the world's cruise shipping companies. There have been at least seven visits to the port during the last couple of years by luxury cruise liners, and the port has had an inquiry from the cruise liner QEII to call at Broome. This vessel is 110 metres longer than the deepwater berth at the port. There has also been proven growth in the oil and gas exploration industry using the port, and the port authority aims to secure the business of all offshore exploration in the port's 1,000-kilometre long catchment area—midway between the distant offshore service bases of Dampier and Darwin. In addition to industry use, the berthing space is rapidly becoming inadequate to service the growing needs of customers, including the Royal Australian Navy, Customs and Immigration.Extension to the wharf could be completed within 18 months of obtaining approval for project funding, and the benefits are substantial. Benefits would include an enhanced ability for strategic deployment by naval and customs vessels, something that is immensely topical at this time; an ability to cater for and service vessels whilst a tanker is alongside; increased berthing space; cost-efficient oil and gas exploration; a reduction in waiting time for berths; and a boost to maritime dependent industries in the Kimberley. I believe adequate port facilities are vital to ensure the sustained growth of industry in the Kimberley region, and I urge the government to show its support by way of financial assistance. 3073111:05:0030731Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a government without honour or sense. This is a government that introduced last night one of the most draconian pieces of legislation that any parliament or any assembly in the world could have envisaged in the darkest days that those countries may have had. The Border Protection Bill 2001 is not merely draconian but it is senseless. Our legal position, based on our current legislation and on our current understandings with our treaty partners worldwide as well as on our understanding of what international maritime law is, covers our situation with regard to the vessel that is currently off Christmas Island. What we did not need is a bill which is directed towards the re-election of the coalition government on the basis of generating a crisis and continuing it and trying to profit from that crisis electorally. We have a situation where a bill was introduced into the parliament without notice—except for probably the shortest of notices, 40 minutes or so, to the Leader of the Opposition—and that was deliberately done in order to push a certain point of view. I say it is without honour and without sense for two reasons. First, the current situation that we find ourselves in in relation to this vessel and the people who are on it is only part of the broad fabric of what has happened in the last 5½ years in regard to the refugee problem. We have had over 11,000 people enter Australia during that period. In the 13 years that we were in office we had about 3,000 people enter in the same sort of way. Before I was in this place, working in the previous job I had, I spent more than 11 years ensuring that our border protection and control was as strong and vigorous and tough as we could possibly make it. It is important, no matter who is in government, that we actually control our borders, that we determine what our immigration policy is and that we determine how Australia responds to crises. It has not helped us at all—this is where this government is completely without sense—not to deal with the other countries in the region with a view to staunching this at the point where it started. We have professional people smugglers being paid money to bring people to Australia in large numbers. We have had that situation previously. Whilst we were in government we had that situation with people from southern China, from the Hunan province—not just a couple of people, not just dozens of people, not just hundreds of people, but thousands. The way to fix the problem finally, instead of just having truck loads, boat loads or plane loads of people landing on these shores and then having to be dealt with by our processes at hand, is to actually negotiate with those other countries involved—in our case with China—to seek a local solution to the cause of the problem. We do not have many people coming from that province now. Why? Because the Australian government and the Australian department of immigration put the time, the effort, the thought and the sense into solving the problem at its point of initiation.Here we have a clear problem that we need to talk about to Indonesia, which is providing a way of passage for people flying into Indonesia and then on to Australia. We need to talk to them seriously, not just about this current issue but about the whole issue of how we deal with the wider problem of people smuggling into Australia. We cannot protect our borders unless we do it in an extended way with every other country in the region.I note with pleasure, from talking to the ABC, that the ABC will be bringing back an Australian television coverage into the Asia-Pacific region—and not before time. This is coverage that was slashed by this government. We need an independent presence for Australia in the region, and at no time more than now so that we can restore an honoured position, and a sensible and logical position, to Australia's approach to these problems. (Time expired)3073211:10:0030732Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, there are some things that you know are certain in life and some that you do not. I happen to know that today is certain to be the last occasion on which I will have the privilege of standing in this adjournment debate in the Main Committee because of things that are about to happen to me with regard to my future. It is an opportunity for me to record my deep appreciation to you, to the Speaker and to all the officers of the parliament—the clerks, the advisers, the attendants and the wonderful people who help us to do our difficult job and keep us out of strife, as they often do with great dignity and integrity and, of course, always with absolute independence and even-handedness. That has been a great thing that I have observed over the 25 years that I have been in state and federal parliaments: the hidden strengths of our parliamentary system.I would just like to make a couple of comments. I have not got all the answers by far, but I have been listening very closely to some Labor speakers this morning on the Border Protection Bill. I have watched the Leader of the Opposition, the person who aspires to be Australia's next Prime Minister, and I have watched my Prime Minister very closely over the last little while. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he supported the government's actions up to yesterday. The Prime Minister was obviously getting an endorsement as, in a Westminster system, in serious times you do come together.I am puzzled, though, because suddenly the people on the government side—and I am one of them, and proud to be—are being accused by some Labor members of being racist, and that is just not on. It is not on, it is not fair and it is not consistent because what you are saying is that most of the things we are doing—you might not agree on some, but the core of what we are doing—are for Australia's sovereignty. This is something that needs to be done and has to be done. It is not easy and it is not pleasant, but it has to be done. How come the Leader of the Opposition can take the same stance that we have been taking—until he did last night depart somewhat—while we are branded by his colleagues as being racists? It is inconsistent in that you are actually in a way indirectly branding your own leader as a racist, because the core principles and values we have spoken about in this place on this issue are, I think, bipartisan. So it is really quite strange.The second thing I would like to say, in a friendly gesture, is that you have the right in a democracy to put your view on legislation and, of course, you should do it robustly and with courage. There are no problems with that. I am not offended by you doing it, except when you label good hardworking colleagues in the parliament on both sides unfairly and turn the debate into one about racism, which is quite wrong and unfair. My understanding of international law and maritime law—and I am not an expert on it—is that all countries have a sovereign right to protect their waters and their borders. They have a right to say to someone who comes in without authority and without our approval, `Go; remove yourself.' That is unarguable. That is the law. Furthermore, countries in the world have a right to use reasonable means to ensure that their order is obeyed.If you do not have that inherent right, which is what the legislation the Prime Minister brought in enunciates in codified form, what are you arguing? Is it that the sovereign right of a nation does not exist to enforce a decision? That is really intellectually the issue, and I have not heard anything about it. I would like to see what you say about what steps you would take to protect your sovereign rights. I really would. If you want to codify the law, tell us what you say the law should say about how you can enforce the rights.Time is nearly upon me. I just want to say one thing: if ever this nation needed four-year parliaments, it needs them now. I have observed the fact that we do not get enough things done because of the short cycle of elections, and I hope that we will amend the Constitution very quickly to allow for four-year parliaments. Thank you for all your courtesy and for your friendship towards me. I wish you all well. Main Committee adjourned at 11.15 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing30734The following answers to questions were circulated:30734(Question No. 2375)237530734Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LawrenceXS4FremantleALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 27 February 2001:(1) Does he recognise that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) can provide significant medical benefits for women who (a) require relief for the symptoms of menopause, (b) have undergone partial or complete hysterectomies and (c) are at risk of, and/or suffering from osteoporosis.(2) Does he acknowledge that due to negative side effects many women who have had a hysterectomy are unable to take alternative forms of hormone replacement therapy such as Estraderm or Premarin.(3) Is he aware that oestrogen implants are not available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).(4) Why are women ineligible for oestrogen implants under the PBS whilst under certain circumstances, men are eligible for testosterone implants under the PBS.(5) Will he consider the inclusion of oestrogen implants for PBS listing.30734Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) HRT can provide significant benefits in terms of symptom relief for women suffering from both natural and surgically induced menopause. The benefits may include reduction in hot flushes and sweating, improvement in urinary symptoms, improved mood and reduction in sleep disturbance;(b) Women who have undergone partial or complete hysterectomies can benefit from HRT providing they are menopausal; and (c) There is also good evidence to show that HRT has a protective effect against bone mass loss and thus may be an aid in the prevention of osteoporosis. There is some evidence to suggest that in women who have developed osteoporosis, HRT will increase bone mass density.(2) Negative side effects are formulation specific and whether a woman has had a hysterectomy or not, or has undergone natural or surgically induced menopause is not considered to have a bearing on their tolerance to treatment. Generally, the choice of oestrogen dosage form by a prescribing doctor will depend on a number of factors, including the indication for treatment, the risks associated with the particular condition and side effects experienced by an individual patient. A variety of oestrogen dosage forms such as oral tablets, transdermal patches, vaginal creams and pessaries, and implants are on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, to meet the various needs of patients.However, there is a high, long term risk of osteoporosis in patients who have undergone surgical menopause and therefore, it is necessary to ensure long term treatment and compliance with HRT, often at higher doses. In this group of patients intolerance to oestrogen may pose a significant clinical dilemma. The focus in these cases would be toward a multidisciplinary approach that includes, weight-bearing exercise, cessation of smoking, reduction in alcohol use, diet and calcium supplementation.(3) Yes(4) Before a medicine can be subsidised via the PBS, it must be both recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and a suitable price for listing agreed with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority. At its September 1996 meeting, the PBAC recommended that oestrogen implants be listed as pharmaceutical benefits for postmenopausal symptoms and where oral oestrogens are not tolerated. However, negotiations between the Government and the pharmaceutical company for a mutually acceptable price have not been successful and consequently listing has not eventuated.In the case of testosterone implants, listing on the PBS was implemented on 1 November 1996 following a positive recommendation from the PBAC and the successful completion of price negotiations with the manufacturer. (5) In order to progress the PBAC recommendation, there must be a satisfactory outcome on price; the Government hopes that negotiations will continue, with a view to agreeing a price which allows the listing of oestrogen implants on a basis which is cost effective.30735(Question No. 2793)279330735Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 6 August 2001:(1) How many individuals in Australia were sent letters signed by him informing them about the Pension Bonus Scheme.(2) How many individuals in the electoral division of Prospect were sent these letters.(3) What criteria were used to select each individual.(4) Were local Centrelink offices advised that the letters were being sent.(5) Was information provided by the Australian Taxation Office to him about each individual; if so, what information was provided.(6) Was Centrelink excluded from the process; if so, why.(7) What has been the overall response to his mail out.30735Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 243,797. (2) That data is not available. (3) People over Age Pension age (who were not on Age Pension) or registered for the Pension Bonus Scheme with Centrelink, and people within 5 years of pension age who declared income from employment or self-employment and primary production in their 1999/2000 tax return.(4) All Centrelink local offices were advised about the mailout and its contents.(5) No.(6) No.(7) There has been a marked increase in the number of people registering in the scheme since the mailout. 30735(Question No. 2803)280330735Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 6 August 2001:(1) When was the $400 duty free allowance introduced.(2) Has consideration been given to increasing the allowance since then.(3) Is a review process in place to monitor the level of the duty free allowance; if so, what is the extent and nature of the review process.(4) Was consideration given to reviewing the duty free allowance at the time the GST was introduced.(5) What sum of GST revenue has been generated as a result of the imposition of the GST on goods on which customs duty has been paid.30735Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The $400 duty free allowance was introduced in 1987.(2) Yes. In 1994 an inter-departmental committee (IDC) considered submissions from industry and subsequently recommended that there should be no change to the $400 limit. An IDC to review passenger and crew concessions was also convened this year and is currently reviewing the allowance as part of that process.(3) Yes. The level of duty free allowances is reviewed periodically by relevant Government agencies in consultation with industry bodies. Submissions are considered by an IDC. Its recommendations are considered by the Heads of the departments involved and submitted to relevant Ministers (through me as Minister for Justice and Customs) for their approval. Any changes to concessions require amendments to Customs by-laws issued to item 15 in Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff and to the Incoming Passenger Card (owned and printed by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) as well as a range of Customs publications.(4) No. It was considered more appropriate to conduct a review once the effects of the GST could be better assessed.(5) The total amount of GST revenue collected from incoming passengers in respect of goods not covered by the $400 passenger concession between 1 July 2000 and 12 August 2001 was $237,833.31.30736(Question No. 2820)282030736Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 6 August 2001:Can the Minister guarantee that payments of the $300 one-off bonus announced in the 2001 Budget to eligible residents of aged care facilities were paid directly to, and received separately by, those residents and not the management of the aged care facilities in which they reside; if not, why not.30736Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The $300 one-off payment was forwarded to eligible people with their pension payments in June 2001.The $300 one-off payment is not part of the Age Pension, and so it is not counted in calculating daily care fees for residents in aged care homes. Centrelink explained these arrangements in a letter dated 20 June 2001 to all nursing home proprietors.Some residents have chosen to have their pensions directed to the aged care home, and in these cases, the aged care home deducts the resident's care fee and pays the balance to the individual. Where there is an additional payment such as the $300 one-off payment, the full amount of the one-off payment is paid, either by cheque, cash or into the resident's own trust account, for their own use. 30736(Question No. 2833)283330736Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 7 August 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an apparent unfairness in the Child Support Scheme where, following a marriage breakdown, the female payer left the marital home and her husband and three young children, subsequently took out a bank loan and studied in order to secure employment, obtained a good job, and has now been advised that she had incurred a debt of $6,134.08, plus interest, due to her salary packaging.(2) What measures are in place to allow payers who pursue further education to support themselves and advance their careers, to not be subjected to paying ever-increasing child support payments.30736Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Parliament decided in 1988 that parents should financially support their children, according to their capacity to pay. Child support is calculated on the basis of a parent's capacity to financially support their children as they would have had they not separated. If a paying parent is receiving some benefit from salary packaging that is not reflected by their taxable income, then it is appropriate that this be considered in determining the amount of child support payable.(2) The Child Support Scheme is based on the principle that parents have a primary duty to financially support their children and that children have a right to share in the changing financial circumstances of their parents. If a paying parent chooses to pursue further education, their individual circumstances can be considered in the assessment of an appropriate child support liability. Where this leads to career advancement, it is appropriate that the child support assessment reflect the parent's increased capacity to pay.30737(Question No. 2860)286030737Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 August 2001:(1) Which firms actually submitted bids for the ADF Explosive Ordnance Storage Maintenance and Distribution Project.(2) Did Complete Ammunition Services submit an in-house bid in conjunction with their commercial sector sub-contractors Brown & Root, J D Edwards, Wesfarmers and Skilled Engineering.(3) Was the in-house bid the lowest cost compliant bid for the contract.(4) On what basis was the in-house bid, submitted on behalf of experienced staff involved in providing explosive ordnance storage and distribution for the ADF, rated as compliant but inferior to all other bidders in terms of their ability to conduct the business.(5) What was the difference in the indicative tender price submitted by the in-house bid compared to that submitted by the successful bidder, ADI Ltd.(6) Did the in-house bid fail to comply with any of the tender requirements; if so, which specific requirements did it fail to meet.(7) Was the in-house bid rated as presenting minimal risk to Defence.(8) On what specific grounds was the ADI proposal considered to provide better value for money than the less expensive bid submitted by the existing in-house team.30737Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Bids were received from: (a) ADI Limited (ADI). (b) Australian Defence Logistics Pty Ltd, a joint venture company between TNT Australia Pty Ltd and Transfield Pty Ltd. (c) British Aerospace Australia Limited. (d) Complete Ammunition Services, the (In-House Option). (e) Force Logistics Pty Ltd, a joint undertaking between Serco Australia Pty Ltd and Mayne Nickless Limited.(2) Yes.(3) The in-house option submitted the lowest price bid. There was some doubt as to whether the in-house option was compliant but the issue did not need to be resolved because the in-house option was not chosen as the Preferred Tenderer. Financial investigation showed that significant costs had not been included or were understated by the in-house option and there was substantial risk of cost escalation.(4) A rigorous tender evaluation by an experienced team was conducted against published evaluation criteria. Each response was assessed fairly against each criteria for technical merit and risk. The in-house option was favourably assessed but in a strong field did not represent best value for money for the Commonwealth. The in-house option team has been briefed in detail on the reasons why it was not successful.(5) The ranking of tenders is based on value for money not price. The price submitted by the in-house bid was less than that of the Preferred Tenderer. The lower price from the in-house bid was questionable and assessed as an underbid over the life of the contract. The in-house bid claimed that it did not need to comply with the price variation formula and that cost increases in labour and materiel would be passed on to the Commonwealth. In summary, the evaluation team had a low level of confidence in the in-house bid price. ADI's bid was assessed as providing best value for money. The in-house team has been fully debriefed - including a comparison of their price and the successful bid price.(6) For technical merit, tenderers were assessed on a ten point scale against compliance and performance. No tenderer received a score of less than 5 which indicated “meets the requirement, but with some shortcomings”. The Preferred Tenderer received significantly higher assessments than the in-house option and was selected on an overall assessment of “value for money”.(7) The in-house option was assessed as presenting low risk in the provision of explosive ordnance support, but a higher risk in staffing and price levels. (8) The Preferred Tenderer was assessed as presenting very low risk in the provision of explosive ordnance support. The Preferred Tenderer's technical solution was considered to provide better value for money. The assessment was based on an aggregate consideration of all issues rather than one or two specific issues.