2001-09-1939110REPS3093102001-09-19—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous3093109:31:0030931Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:(1) Private Members' business, notice No. 2, Corporate Responsibility and Employment Security Bill 2001, standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition—which is urgent because:(a) as the Treasurer noted last night, Air New Zealand and Ansett had common Directors, a joint treasury, shared aircraft and joint responsibilities to Ansett employees;(b) holding companies must be held responsible for meeting the full employee entitlements of employees of related companies;(c) legislation is needed to give this effect:(i) where companies are so closely connected that it is their responsibility to do so;(ii) where the companies share management; and(iii) where the holding company is partly responsible for the insolvency of the related company;being called on forthwith; and(2) the bill being passed through all stages without delay.If you want to get at the resources of Air New Zealand to defend workers' entitlements you do this—Motion (by Mr Anthony) put:That the member be not further heard.A division having been called and the bells being rung—DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—Mr Speaker, at an appropriate time in these proceedings, could I ask that you consider the wording of the motion and whether it is within the standing orders.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am not in receipt of a copy of the motion. When I have one, I will look at the matter raised by the member for Farrer.09:36:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 71Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.65Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Cameron, R.A.O'Keefe, N.P.Lieberman, L.S.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.09:40:0030932Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I second the motion. If you work for Stan Howard, the Liberals think you should get your entitlements—Motion (by Mr Anthony) put:That the member be not further heard.09:42:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 71Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.65Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Cameron, R.A.O'Keefe, N.P.Lieberman, L.S.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Farrer raised a concern earlier about the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I have consulted with the Clerk and believe the motion to be in order.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to.09:45:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 65Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.71Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.Burke, A.E.Lieberman, L.S.O'Keefe, N.P.Cameron, R.A. * denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills30934R139330934Bill presented by Mr Anthony, for Mr Anderson, and read a first time.3093409:50:0030934Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Transport and Regional Services Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 amends certain offence provisions, in legislation within the Transport and Regional Services portfolio, to reflect the application of chapter 2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code) to all Commonwealth offences from 15 December 2001.For reasons of convenience, the bill also includes proposed amendments to the Australian Antarctic Territory Act 1954 and the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act 1953 administered by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage.Subject to several exceptions, where the penalty attached to existing offences of strict liability is reduced in order to comply with Criminal Code policy, the bill does not affect the current operation of existing criminal offences. Rather, it seeks to ensure that the existing criminal offences are not altered following the application of the Criminal Code.The bill provides for amendments that specify whether an offence is one of strict liability. In the absence of such an amendment, offences that were previously interpreted as strict liability would be interpreted as not being of strict liability. In addition, the bill provides for amendments that restate any defences to an offence separately from the physical elements of the offence. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the defence is not mistakenly interpreted to be an element of the offence that must be proved by the prosecution. The bill also provides for amendments to:(1) recognise that the Criminal Code does not apply to applied state and territory offence provisions;(2) recognise the application (in whole or in part) of the Criminal Code;(3) clarify the physical elements of an offence and the corresponding fault elements;(4) identify the evidential or legal burden in relation to a defence;(5) repeal offence provisions that are general offences in the Criminal Code;(6) ensure that the meaning of the phrase `engage in conduct' includes omissions; and(7) replace references to provisions in the Crimes Act 1914 with references to corresponding provisions in the Criminal Code.The bill also exempts the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995, the Road Transport Reform (Heavy Vehicles Registration) Act 1997, and the Road Transport Reform (Vehicles and Traffic) Act 1993 from the application of the Criminal Code. These acts have been exempted because they were passed under a cooperative scheme relating to road transport existing between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. As a consequence of the terms of the scheme, these acts can only be amended on the basis of a recommendation from the National Road Transport Commission (NRTC) and subsequent approval from the Australian Transport Council (ATC). The exemption is not to be permanent. The Commonwealth will refer the question of amending the legislation so that it is Criminal Code compliant to the NRTC immediately to be pursued through the workings of the ATC.The bill does not change the existing criminal law. Rather, it ensures that the current law is maintained following application of the Criminal Code to Commonwealth legislation. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Horne) adjourned. Bills30935R1350BillsR135130935Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Downer:That the bill be now read a second time.09:55:0030935McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am very pleased to be participating in the debate on the Intelligence Services Bill 2001 following my involvement in the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services in its preparation of the advisory report on the Intelligence Services Bill. I commend those speakers who have participated in this debate so far. I acknowledge the cooperation of the member for Kingsford-Smith in his detailed response to the bill and the cooperation of the opposition in ensuring that the final outcome will be that this bill will pass both houses. The member for Kingsford-Smith made the observation, amongst his detailed comments— and I agree with him—about the responsibility of the parliament in relation to the secrecy of operations. I will speak a bit further on these matters later. The member for Fadden, the chairman of the ASIO committee, made the very interesting observation that during the deliberations of the select committee there was very little interest by the press. That is an unusual situation, given that the press have over the years taken a remarkable amount of interest in matters related to ASIO, ASIS and other covert operations. I particularly commend the member for Banks for his bipartisan spirit. He was particularly active on the committee looking at the bill. I note that he suggests that both sides of the parliament have ownership of the bill dealing with this very sensitive matter. I well recall the member for Banks's particular concern about clause 14. I will allude to that in a minute. The background to this bill before the parliament is the fundamental dilemma facing Western democracies—and it has been drawn very much to our attention in recent days—of the ability of elected parliaments to control the secret service operations of major Western powers. I think the Howard government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have now come to a situation of providing a legislative backing for ASIO and ASIS. After a very cooperative approach by all members involved, the parliament now has a reasonable oversight of a secret service operation, a surveillance operation, on behalf of Australians, of those people, be they internal or external agents, who may cause us damage. I made the comment in the parliament when we were discussing the joint select committee's report, and I will put it on the record again, that the focus of the Intelligence Services Bill is that ASIS was established by executive direction on 13 May 1952. It was not until 1977 that the government publicly acknowledged the existence of ASIS as Australia's foreign intelligence agency. It demonstrates the move that has taken place under the Howard government that ASIS is now under the control and direction of the parliament in terms of some of its policies but not its operations. I make that very clear. The Samuels and Codd report, which other members have referred to, dealt with the fundamental problem of the ability of the government and the parliament of the day to oversee the operations of ASIS and ASIO. Our report states:The IS Bill reflects this recommendation by seeking to provide a legislative basis for ASIS which details levels of accountability and oversight, and sets out the functions of ASIS and of the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD).I will not go into the further detail of that. It raises the fundamental issue that the Australian parliament—unlike some of the other parliaments around the Western world— have compromised, with the help of the opposition and the select committee, to have genuine parliamentary oversight of these operations so that no longer are the press grabbing hold of headline material which really does not constitute the major operations of either ASIS or ASIO.I particularly note that parliamentary scrutiny of these two organisations is based on parliamentary observation of general policy positions but not of operational day-to-day activities. It is very important that we understand that. The bill limits the immunities that are provided for ASIS and Defence Signals Directorate personnel. Those persons, be they on Australian soil or on foreign territory, have some limited immunities. I draw the attention of the House to the debate that is going on in the USA at the moment after the catastrophe in New York. Last week, I noted in the Australian the headline `CIA incompetence is criminal'. I make no particular judgment about the ability of the CIA in America, but the article points out that the CIA spends $US30 billion each year on the 13 intelligence agencies in the US. The article suggested that they failed `to protect Americans from a handful of lunatics' and `was just the latest in a line of disasters'. The article went on to state: Yet Mohammed Atta, who piloted one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Centre, was a prime suspect in the 1986 terrorist bombing of a bus in Israel. How does someone like that— none of the hijackers used aliases—get into the US?That indicates the difficulty that Australian or American agencies have in finding and identifying persons who eventually turn up as terrorists and cause remarkable damage by using small numbers of people. Everyone in this House is aware of the catastrophic outcome of the events in New York. Recent headlines suggest that the CIA should have been more vigilant. I suggest that that is a fairly difficult assignment. Hopefully, here in Australia, ASIS and ASIO, in executing their task under parliamentary direction, will do their best to identify such persons or activities. In the short term at least that will be very difficult for Western nations, because with modern technology individuals can cause havoc, as has been demonstrated in the USA.The committee, in looking at the relationship between the parliament and the agencies, was particularly concerned with clause 14 and it certainly took a lot of care and consideration to identify people who acted for the agencies in a way that conformed to Australian laws, yet it was able to ensure that those people could execute a successful outcome on behalf of ASIO or ASIS. In my judgment, after the committee discussion and the discussion of the definitions among members opposite, members of the government and professions involved in ASIS and ASIO, a sensible outcome has been reached in identifying persons who would be involved in such activities.We now have a bill before the parliament and a clearer understanding of the role of ASIS and ASIO. Both organisations will be supervised by a parliamentary committee. That will depend very largely upon trust on the part of the executives of those two organisations in dealing with the parliamentary committee. In the UK and the USA there has been concern about who supervises the operatives, whether members of parliament have that capacity and whether they would receive sufficient trust from intelligence organisations. One witness before our committee suggested that even members of parliament should undertake an ASIO check. That was rejected on the basis that members of this parliament who form the parliamentary committee and who are trusted by ASIO and ASIS executives can play a sensible role.In my judgment, the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, as he has been operating in providing written supervision of the operations of ASIO, has demonstrated a very successful modus operandi. The minister must provide written instructions to operations by ASIO. The inspector-general, on behalf of the committee and the parliament, can provide his observations on whether those instructions are lawful and whether they execute the wishes of the parliament. In my observation, that has been a successful way to solve a very difficult problem. I emphasise the fundamental problem that we face in the parliament: we are asking the parliament, which is an open and democratic institution, to supervise covert organisations, because that is the nature of their activities. After struggling for many years, the Howard government have come up with a solution to provide the necessary balance.I note that members opposite and members on this side have agreed that there is ownership of this legislation by both sides of the parliament. It augurs well for the attitudes of future governments and for the future operations of ASIO and ASIS that persons involved in those two organisations can have confidence that both sides of the House of Representatives and the Senate have agreed to a set of guidelines and directions in the statute book that will assist the operations of those two organisations into the future without fear of undue interference by the parliament, yet retain accountability to parliament by way of annual reports and informal discussions with the committee from time to time. It has been in the national interest that, after this interesting and fairly long process following the royal commission, the Codd and Samuels inquiry, and long deliberations in drafting the legislation, we have come to this final position. In a world of terrorism which has been drawn very much to our attention in recent days, when the President of the USA is now suggesting that they will step up efforts to attack terrorists wherever they might be, in any part of the world, this shows a new dimension of terrorist activity and warfare between nations. It is appropriate that, in this particular week, this parliament has agreed to this legislation in a bipartisan manner, that the matters have been debated in full by a joint select committee and that those people with an interest and an understanding of these matters have agreed on the fine print. The legislators have agreed to the details of the bill.It would be my earnest hope that the element of trust between the parliament and the two operations—ASIS and ASIO—would continue to be the order of the day and that these organisations will continue to execute their tasks. I put on the record the very good outcome of ASIO's activities during the Olympic Games in Sydney where I know and understand that they did their job professionally. The Sydney Olympics went ahead without any incident, and it is a credit to both those organisations that that outcome was achieved without any public fanfare or undue concern by members of this parliament.I commend the legislation and the spirit in which it has been put to parliament. I hope that it can be a model for other parliaments and other such organisations around the world. At a time when some political leaders around the world are calling for yet more secret service activity and more of an attack on terrorists—which is quite right—the execution of those political statements is somewhat more difficult. I hope that members of ASIS and ASIO feel confident that the supervision by this parliament will be professional and that they will not be hindered in their activities to find the people who will be challenging the security of Australia, both of Australians personally and of Australian institutions. This is landmark legislation and I am delighted to participate in it and support it.10:10:0030937McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Like the previous speaker, I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on Intelligence Services that looked at the Intelligence Services Bill 2001. The committee did its job quite well. The government and opposition members on the committee cooperated with each other to come up with a report which we debated in this House a few weeks ago. The government has accepted most of the recommendations in that report and that shows that there is some movement here. It is particularly gratifying to me, as a member of the committee, that the government has done that.As we know, this bill will place Australia's foreign intelligence collection agencies, ASIS and the Defence Signals Directorate, on a statutory basis. As members are probably aware, ASIS was originally established in 1952 by an executive minute and for 20 years very little was known about the organisation by anyone outside of the government. An article in the Daily Telegraph in 1972 exposed its existence and since that time there have been numerous incidents and sundry inquiries into the aspects of various intelligence agencies, and of ASIS in particular. This legislation is, at long last, an attempt to regularise ASIS and its activities and to put it on a firm legislative basis.It is very appropriate that we are debating this legislation now after we have seen the outcome of last week's attack in America and the talk of the failure of the intelligence services in the US. That seemed to be a particular failure of human intelligence, and there is now talk in the US that they are going to go back to what some people might think were the rather irregular good old days of the CIA. There has been talk that the intelligence services will have to cooperate with criminals and that they might have to enrol criminals and unsavoury people. In the words of one of the leading American officials, `It's a bad world out there and we've got to get down in it.' This legislation makes sure that ASIS and DSD do not get down to doing illegal things in that bad world. It is very important for Australians to understand that there is now a legislative footing for this organisation, that this legislation will spell out the things that ASIS can and cannot do and that it will spell out the role of ministers and the parliamentary committee in overseeing the body. That is probably a very good thing for the organisation because too often with intelligence services people outside have an idea that they are up to everything—and all sorts of things—and that is often as much an impediment to the way these organisations work as it is a help. Putting ASIS on a legislative basis is a good thing for the body.During the committee inquiry I learnt of the very high level of dedication of the people who run the security services in Australia. As long as we attract such people to run them, I do not think we will see any of the excesses that we sometimes see of intelligence agencies overseas. To have a parliamentary committee having oversight of ASIS and DSD will be a good thing. I have noticed as a member of the ASIO committee that the more open the intelligence services are with members of parliament, the more confident we feel with them. The model of the ASIO committee has been a very good way for parliament and for the government to regulate the security services.I remember that in the seventies and the eighties all sorts of conspiracies abounded about what ASIO were doing here, what ASIO were doing there, that they were keeping files on everybody and that they were doing this, that and something else. But since the legislation was changed and ASIO was put on a more formal basis, there has not been that sort of paranoia and there has not been that hysteria among some sections of the community in Australia. I think the model for regulating ASIO, the internal security service, will be a successful model for regulating the work of ASIS and DSD. The role of the joint parliamentary committee that will be set up will also help to dispel some of the ideas that people have about what these organisations do.The amendments the government has accepted to the bill that were put forward by the committee will also strengthen the bill and strengthen the rights of individuals. Explicit provisions have been put in the bill to prohibit political activities by ASIS. The immunity provisions have been tightened up because the committee was concerned that the immunity provisions in the original bill were extremely wide. The work of the committee was very useful in that when that was brought to the attention of the agency they said that was not their intention. They then worked with the committee with a proposal which would overcome what I am now willing to believe was an unintended consequence of the legislation. If the legislation had not gone to a parliamentary committee for discussion, the bill would have gone through in its original form, which would have had that very wide classification of an immunity of a person who was nearly any person who was helping ASIS to do anything in Australia.The provisions of this bill make it also very clear that ASIS cannot get themselves involved in a lot of the things that we have seen more proactive people talk about in the US in recent days. I think to have that laid out in legislation for ASIS is a good protection for them, because there will always be people who think that in these James Bond sorts of areas everybody is out there trying to be James Bond. Members of the committee found to their relief that ASIS do not see themselves as James Bond or M or Q or whoever is sitting in the officials' box and that they do not have those views of the way that the organisation ought to work. But it is important that it is legislated to show that, because it is as much a safeguard for them as it is for the rest of us.We have provisions for the Leader of the Opposition to be briefed by ASIS. We have provisions in the bill to ensure that the rights of Australians who might come to the attention of the organisation are protected, and we also have a much stronger definition of what the immunities are for ASIS officers. It is important that people do not get too carried away with wondering what those immunities are. They are designed basically to protect people from the conspiracy laws here in Australia. There is no doubt that some of the work that ASIS do will by definition be illegal in the country in which they do it, but there are laws now in Australia that provide that, if Australians conspire to break the law in another country, that can also be a crime here. While one would not want to see planning committees in the foreign affairs building being carted off to jail for considering something that may have been illegal in some other country, one also does not want to see planning committees in the foreign affairs building deciding to go out and burglarise people here in Australia. It is fairly clear from the way the legislation is now drafted that the vast majority of that work will be about planning things overseas and very little to do with people actually breaking anything other than the conspiracy laws here in Australia. But the original draft of the bill would have allowed people to do a lot more than that. All in all, the legislation is very timely because it makes the point that the external security services and the internal security services here in this country are not in a position, and will not be in a position, to do the things that some of the more cowboy elements in America are suggesting that their security services ought to do. The framework in which they should operate is very explicitly laid out now, and I have no doubt that that is probably as much a relief to them as it is to us.It was also an interesting experience to see the heads of at least four of the major spy organisations in the country sitting at the table, if the fellow from the Defence Department does not mind being referred to as a spy. The Director of DSD, the Director-General of ASIO and the Director-General of ASIS appeared before a parliamentary committee and gave frank evidence in public. I congratulate my fellow committee members for taking the decision at the beginning that all evidence would be taken in public. If we had not done that—if we had had in camera hearings—it would have led people to believe that some secret deal was being negotiated and that it was not all above board. The evidence the witnesses gave to the committee was frank, and it helped us to come to those unanimous decisions. There are not too many committee reports of this nature that go through this parliament. My recollection is that there has never been a unanimous decision out of an area that has as much contention as this area sometimes does. The committee members worked well together, and our job was helped by the fact that the officials were frank and honest with the committee. There were some rather humorous asides, particularly on the issue of who has the safe that disappeared from the Parliamentary Counsel's office. In all, it was a very useful exercise.I look forward to the work that the joint committee will do. I hope that the members who get elected to that committee will take their roles very seriously. The people who have been on the ASIO committee over the years have done that and have achieved a good working relationship with the security services and have provided critical support without being captured. If this new committee develops that type of relationship with the agencies, it will be useful both to the agencies and to the parliament. I will be interested to see how the legislation works. I think there should be a review of the legislation in a few years time to see how it is working. You can never be sure of these things. If people know there will be another time line to look at it, it will focus people on it. It would be useful for the parliament and whoever is in government in a couple of years time to look at how this legislation is working. The closer we can make this legislation mirror the ASIO legislation, the better template we will have for the other organisations coming under our purview now. I commend the bill to the House.10:25:0030940Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—This Intelligence Services Bill 2001 will place the foreign intelligence collection agencies, ASIS and DSD, on a statutory basis. The bill establishes a joint parliamentary oversight committee, which the member for Watson described. The current ASIO committee will be disbanded and replaced by a new select committee that will have expanded jurisdiction and will supervise all of them. The opposition has cooperated fully with the government on this legislation. As was explained to me as a new member, the role of a number of senior people from both sides was to refine and finetune this legislation. The legislation was examined by a select committee and very senior people from the opposition and government sides have improved this legislation, which shows the Australian people that people in the Australian parliament from all sides take these issues and the defence of Australia very seriously. From what I have heard from both sides of the House, the officials of these agencies are to be commended for their cooperation and for the more refined state that we have now got to.I cannot imagine that the Australian people would ever have seen a time where they understood the need for these kinds of agencies and organisations more than in the last week or two. I do not think it has ever been more apparent. I remember reading a speech by Senator Ray some months ago in the wake of the Olympics. He made the point that the effectiveness of these agencies' work could be judged by the fact that there was nothing on the public record about the Sydney Olympics in this regard. I think his point was a very good one. The Australian people should be very grateful that apparently everything ran smoothly at that major international event and there were no problems of terrorism or anything else.What do we need these organisations for? I am not going to speak on the detail of this legislation. I want to examine the need for these organisations, particularly in the current circumstances. We need these organisations to preserve our freedom, our societies and—as the events in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania show—our lives. Unfortunately, there have been some people who have argued against the ethos of our cooperation on these matters with the United States. They take a view that British author William Shawcross has described as fundamentalist anti-Americanism. I will read something he said in yesterday's Age, because I believe it is very germane to these bills. Shawcross argued:The US is the most important democracy on Earth. It is the anchor of what we call (properly) the free world. That is an imperfect world, but it is far better than anything else on offer—as millions of migrants attempting to join it from other parts of the world will testify.I think that applies not just to the United States; it applies equally to Australia. He went on:American treasure and American blood were essential to Britain's victory of 1945.And, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said about Australia's defeat of the aggression that threatened Australia's very existence in 1941-42, the article goes on:America is the vital centre that held through the Cold War and enabled the world to defeat communism, the greatest terror of the 20th century. To be sure, Washington made mistakes, but American international engagement was essential to progress in the past century.This new century's enemies are incredibly dangerous, as last week's attacks show. The assault on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon reveal also how vulnerable the US now is.I would say that that vulnerability applies equally to Australia and that, therefore, the need for these agencies is as important here as it is in the United States. Mr Shawcross continues:But those who claim the US `had it coming' should realise that the attack on America is an assault on us all—and that we are all equally vulnerable.That is the point I want to focus on: this new threat of terrorism is an existential threat. I believe it is our very societies that those extremists would like to see destroyed. This is why I rise to support this legislation. I believe that, under proper parliamentary supervision, and with the cooperation of the opposition and the government working together with the responsible heads of these important organisations, Australia can prepare itself for these kinds of challenges. Indeed, these organisations may be at the frontline of preserving our liberties. As Mr Shawcross explains, the usual suspects are arguing in the Australian media that US foreign policy, and maybe Australian foreign policy, is to blame for these terrible events in the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people who are perpetrating these deeds are not suffering from some angst about Western colonialism. They believe fundamentally that our societies are evil and should be attacked. It is very interesting to note, as the member for Corangamite did, that all of these threats are interlinked. This is why we need these agencies overseas performing the tasks that they do; it is vital that they understand all of the international interlinks. The member for Corangamite pointed to the fact that the chief perpetrator of crashing those planes into the World Trade Centre, Mohammed Atta, had been the prime suspect in a 1986 terrorist bombing of a bus in Israel. If ever we needed proof that all of these events were interlinked and that we need serious organisations to analyse these links and to prevent them, surely that is the proof. It is also very interesting that one of Mr bin Laden's first and most serious interviews took place in Australia, in the magazine Nida'ul Islam in 1996, when he predicted his attacks on the United States. Those of us who live in Melbourne will remember the Herald Sun picturing one of Mr bin Laden's associates wandering around the streets of Melbourne a couple of years ago before he was expelled to Denmark.Prior to the events of the past week, I wrote to the Attorney-General in his capacity as the minister who supervises ASIO, regarding an incident that took place in Canberra that I want to put on the public record. It was at the Canberra synagogue some three or four weekends ago where, with 100 people present, the lights on and 80 people in the car park, five men wearing balaclavas got out of a car, threw stones through the windows and then molotov cocktails and accelerant after the stones through the broken windows. This is an incident that I believe is terrorism. These people were not participating in desecration or vandalism. They knew there were people in the buildings, and this was a serious threat to the lives of those people. I commend the agencies that will be subject to the joint parliamentary oversight of this new select committee. I understand that they are taking these particular kinds of threats very seriously. I do, I know members of this parliament do, and I am sure the agencies will be informed by the extreme public concern with these kinds of events.I have taken a very strong personal view that we ought to be as compassionate and humane as possible with the asylum seekers on the ships that have tried to approach Australia. I believe that we should not conflate our concerns with extremists who defame the great name of one of our world's monotheistic religions by using it for their own ends. We should not conflate the poor victims of the Taliban who are on the Tampa with those extremists. But we need to walk that fine line: the balance between the preservation of our liberties and a tough-minded defence of our societies from this existential threat from extremists. This legislation means that, with the parliamentary oversight of the joint select parliamentary committee, we will now strike that balance. It is a balance between parliamentarians having any undue influence on this committee and the intelligence agencies, as the member for Watson said, and supporting the agencies on a bipartisan basis in their ability to continue work that is needed for the preservation of the kinds of free societies that we have in Australia.I mentioned during the condolence motion our support for the US, with the invocation of the ANZUS Treaty for the first time in 50 years and the cooperation of our Australian intelligence services which will flow. This cooperation ought to be informed not by the spirit of revenge or retribution that those who would have us do nothing say is our driving force; it ought to be informed by an intelligent, measured, calm and cool ethos of self-defence. What we want to do is to prevent these extremists from perpetrating these kinds of deeds again, and certainly in this country.I believe that, after the events of this last week, these bills could not be more timely. The opposition supports this legislation. I think the process of cooperation between senior parliamentarians is very interesting, and I am sure the agencies are reassured—as the Australian people should be. Both political parties seem to self-select in choosing some of the most senior and responsible people from both sides to sit on these committees. We have thought about these matters very seriously and are approaching the defence of Australia, in the sense that these agencies are involved with them, very seriously. At the conclusion of his article in the Age yesterday, Mr William Shawcross, in writing about the events in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania said:The core of democratic values was attacked last week. We are in this together. We are all Americans now.Those are certainly my views, and I believe they are the views that should inform us in handling this threat to our society. I believe that this legislation and these agencies are necessary in the current circumstances and that the way we have now set ourselves up with this legislation means that we are in a position to defend Australia.10:38:0030942Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise in this cognate debate and support this important legislation, the Intelligence Services Bill 2001 and the Intelligence Services (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001. The agencies which are the subject of this legislation are important and integral parts of this nation's defence of its national security. This has been the truth for some decades. It is doubly the truth today, given the events of the last week.If recent events demonstrate anything, it is that the challenge of our national security is not just the concern of a narrow elite of the strategic or security policy establishment; it is now the concern of us all. Similarly, the events of the last week demonstrate that questions of foreign policy are not just the concern of a narrow diplomatic elite; they are now the concern of us all. These events demonstrate the total indivisibility of what we have always categorised—falsely, I believe—as the domestic and the international, strategic policy and economic policy, defence policy and social policy. These are not clinically separable concepts any longer, and they have not been for a long time. They are now part of an integrated whole.Why do I say this? Because in the age of the new security policy, all of us are affected—not just a nation's standing army, not just the naval units of a particular nation state, not just the aircraft of our respective air forces. All of us are now affected. The clinical divide between the military and the civilian no longer exists. What was once the concern of a nation's main army is now the concern of a nation's main street.The second factor alive in all this is that the threats to our security are now in multiple forms. There are still the so-called classical threats to security, defined in the classical defence policy literature, but there are also so-called soft threats to security: narcotics, illegal people movements and cyberterrorism and its threat to security. Then, of course, there is terrorism itself—physical terrorism of the type we saw graphically and grotesquely at work in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania last week. The professional defence policy, strategic policy, and security policy literature have debated concepts of total security for almost a quarter of a century. In our policy debates we often conflate these terms as if they are identical. They are not identical. Defence policy and defence studies properly concern the discrete examination of the force structure of the armed forces of a nation and the military doctrine which will be used in the deployment of those armed forces in given strategic scenarios. This is a necessary science and it is one in which this country has a long and proud tradition, with our various academies and professional defence studies institutes.Security policy is a much more all-encompassing concept. Defence policy is one of its subsets, but it has many other component parts. There is the whole field of economic security with its subfield technological security, the continued viability of a nation's financial infrastructure, of the world's international financial infrastructure and of a nation's physical infrastructure: power generation, transmission, distribution, water reticulation and transportation systems. All of these are component parts of a nation's security policy environment. Added to that we have the field of illegal people movements—23 million internationally displaced persons at present—and the merchants of death who currently prey upon them; we have the field of health and quarantine and a concern about the impact of communicable diseases; and we have the field of international narcotics traffic and its physical assault on our people. Then we have the violence of terrorism itself, global, regional and subregional. Terrorism is a field which is changing in its qualitative state; changing because of the impact of globalisation, with instantaneous communications, rapid transport and near-invisible financial transactions. All of these underpinnings of what we see as the magnificent advances of the global economy are at the same time equipping agents of terrorism worldwide with a new armory which in past decades has not been available to them. Overshadowing all these dimensions of what I have described as a nation's total security, we have the continuing effect of weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical and biological. The changing nature of the threat to a nation's national security, including this nation's national security, requires, I believe, a fundamental re-evaluation of how we best manage security policy in this country. I say that not as some invitation to a rancorous or partisan debate; instead, I believe it is time for a dispassionate discussion amongst us all about how we now integrate the range of security policy capabilities we have and how we enhance those capabilities against the changing nature of the total security policy environment in which this nation now finds itself.It was in this context that the Leader of the Opposition on 13 September released a statement outlining a series of proposals about how we might begin to do this in the future. One of those proposals, immediately relevant to the propositions I was advancing just now on total security, is the last in this statement, which says that there is a need to:Establish an integrated national security policy approach by broadening the focus of our Cabinet National Security Committee so that it not only covers traditional issues (defence and foreign policy, security and intelligence, international trade strategy), but also strategic law enforcement policy (drugs, terrorism, border protection, information infrastructure protection, protective security). Government agencies covering these issues must also be more closely integrated.The practical challenge we face is how we can better integrate the intelligence product of the Office of National Assessments, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Defence Signals Directorate, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Customs, the Australian Federal Police and the various agencies of state governments currently engaged in the analysis of our security policy environment, and how we can better paint an integrated picture of the changing nature of our security policy environment in any given week, month and year because it now changes quite rapidly.Our traditional approach in these areas, that of a semi-quinquennial strategic basis document produced by the defence policy establishment about the changing nature of our strategic environment, is, I believe, no longer adequate to this task. Our security policy environment is changing with extraordinary speed and complexity. Providing a mechanism which delivers an integrated analysis of our security policy environment is one thing; providing an integrated set of policy advices to government on what to do about changes in our security policy environment is another; and a third is to provide integrated mechanisms to give effect to policy decisions of government across its various agencies in pursuit of the maintenance of this nation's national security. How all this is to be done is a matter for fair and reasoned debate among us all. One proposal is for an enhanced National Security Committee of the cabinet and perhaps for that to occur with an enhanced secretariat, with personnel drawn from the multiple agencies of the existing security policy establishment. Another proposal which is often advanced is for a fully fledged national security council. I believe these are the parameters of the debate which we as a nation must now have with speed, urgency and without any partisan rancour for, very simply, our national interest now demands it. However, fundamental to an effective defence policy in the narrow and an effective security policy in the broad is an effective intelligence capability, and this goes to the specific objects of the legislation before the House. Why is intelligence important? For some I think this is self-evident; for others it is less so. I suppose its key component is that, to the extent that it is humanly and technologically possible, we need to see beyond our own immediate horizons in time and space in order to meet any emerging threats to our total security before those threats fully materialise and then assault, weaken or even destroy our security. A second dimension is simply this: intelligence represents relatively inexpensive security. If you get intelligence right, if you can stop or reduce a problem before it requires a massive response involving multiple agencies of state, it is far less expensive for the Australian taxpayer. That is why I have always believed that our intelligence agencies in this nation should be properly resourced without any debate.As for the immediate provisions of the legislation, the Intelligence Services Bill 2001 places ASIS, DSD and ASIO on a statutory basis. This is to be welcomed by all sides of the parliament. Secondly, it creates oversight of these agencies through a joint parliamentary committee. This is also welcomed by all sides of the parliament. This new mutual engagement between those who work within the agencies and those who occupy benches in this parliament will be an interesting and creative exercise as it unfolds. It will be a challenge to our professionalism and a challenge to our goodwill. I am advised by those who participated in the Joint Select Committee on Intelligence Services in the preparation of this legislation that what has characterised its deliberations and its discussions with the agencies concerned has, in fact, been that spirit of professionalism and goodwill. I believe that this balance that we will seek to achieve between accountability to the parliament and, through the parliament, to the people on the one hand, and the effectiveness of our agencies in the field on the other, is eminently doable.I conclude by simply saying this: when we talk about the various intelligence agencies of this nation in our public debate, often those who work within them are derided in the media; often they are regarded as incompetent in what they do. Plainly, each of these agencies—as have all agencies of state— have had their ups and downs in their bureaucratic evolution. That is the nature of things. No department of state in this country or in any other Western democracy ever evolves without getting it wrong from time to time. That is just reality. We as a parliament and as a nation need to place on record the fact that we commend the professionalism of these agencies, because they discharge an important function for the nation. When they are attacked, in the main they cannot respond. We need to be mindful of that in this place and across the nation at large. The work which they do is not only important, it requires a high degree of professional ability; and in some cases the work is arduous and dangerous. The staff of these agencies should be commended for their professionalism. I am happy to join those on this side of the House in our support for the legislation.10:53:0030944Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—in reply—At the end of this debate on the Intelligence Services Bill 2001 and the Intelligence Services (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001, I thank all those who have spoken and, in every single case, thank them for the valuable contributions they have made to the broader issue of discussing the intelligence agencies and for their support for the intelligence agencies of Australia. I regard this as very important legislation. All of us agree that ASIS needs to be put on a statutory basis. There needs to be a degree of transparency and accountability, but at the same time we do not want to do that in a way that undermines the efficacy of the organisation.Secret intelligence is, ipso facto, secret and must be kept that way. So too must the people who work for intelligence organisations be protected—perhaps above all they must be protected. So if we want to have effective intelligence agencies, there have to be some quite substantial constraints on the degree to which their work can be made public. In other words, there are limitations to the transparency of those organisations. This legislation represents a very good compromise between, on the one hand, transparency and, on the other hand, maintaining the integrity and the efficacy of the organisations. I took the view that it was important to get the parliament itself fully engaged in this process. Given the sensitivity of intelligence agencies, it is not going to be helpful to the country, let alone to the work of those intelligence agencies, if there is a great and divisive debate about their work. That has meant a degree of cooperation with the opposition, and I appreciate the good will with which the member for Kingsford-Smith, as their principal spokesman on this issue, and others have approached this whole task. We established the select committee, which I thought was going to be the most constructive way to handle this. There was a number of different alternatives that could have been pursued— House of Representatives committees, Senate committees and so on.The idea of a select committee was built out of not only trying to engage the parliament very fully in this process but also ensuring that the members of the select committee had access to the sort of information they needed to be able to make balanced and educated judgments about the legislation. They therefore had to know a fair bit about ASIS and DSD, what they do and how they work. The briefings that were given by ASIS were—I know, as their minister—very full and very frank. As I have often said about intelligence, the more people know about it—as this committee would have found— the more they would have realised that it was not actually a conspiracy and, to some extent, the more they would have begun to understand that there is a certain element of it which is almost prosaic. In other words, it helped the legislation and it helped the passage of the bill to have the select committee know more about ASIS. I suppose that is a statement of the obvious.The member for Fadden did an outstanding job as the chairman of that select committee, and I pay very warm tribute to him. He worked well with the other members of the committee—Labor and coalition: Liberal and National. He has shown a great interest in the task; he has put a lot of work and a lot of time into it. He has really made an outstanding contribution to public policy through his role as the chair of the select committee. A number of amendments, which we are going to get to in a moment, have been proposed by the committee. I sat down with ASIS and other agencies and we have gone through the proposed amendments very closely. I have to concede that in some cases it is my view that the amendments have improved the legislation—they have taken the legislation forward. It also in my view has been important to address some of the concerns that have been raised by some members.The opposition, I notice, in a characteristic way claim, `These are all our amendments. If it hadn't been for the Labor Party none of this would have happened.' I think we can perhaps get off the grass a bit there. In the community there are understandably a couple of issues of concern which, as the minister, I am very happy to address. One of them was the question of immunities. At the level of talkback radio, the kind of proposition is that these immunities would mean that I, as the foreign minister, could speed through my electorate at 150 kilometres an hour and not be charged for speeding because I have immunities under the intelligence services act. This of course is a complete nonsense. But it has been important to clarify and define more clearly the immunities. There were recommendations made by the committee, and they have been taken up.Also, the committee was rightly concerned about protecting the privacy and the integrity of Australian persons and Australian organisations. Again, I think the amendments there have been very helpful in addressing that concern. Finally, there were views within the bureaucracy about whether DSD should or should not be brought into the purview of this parliamentary committee to be established by this bill. My personal view was that it seemed like a good idea. I am glad that the committee made the recommendation that it did. I am obviously personally happy to endorse it and I am glad that others have now endorsed it as well. It has been a very interesting process in terms of the work of the parliament. And that leads me to my two concluding comments. Firstly, I really do appreciate not only the remarks that many members in this debate have made about the importance of intelligence in general but also the way members of parliament in this debate have steered away from the hysteria that you sometimes find in the media about Aussie spies, networks of spies and how we are out there running conspiracies against the Labor Party or some other domestic political organisation through ASIS. That is just nonsense. But you often find yourself having to try to prove your innocence, which is very hard to do. I really do appreciate the support which has been given, and which has been demonstrated in this debate, by the parliament for the work of our intelligence agencies. They are made up of extraordinarily dedicated, professional and, in some cases, rather brave people. I have enormous admiration for the people who work for the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. I noticed the other day that the Leader of the Opposition produced something that he called a `10-point plan' for addressing terrorism. I am glad that he showed some interest in these issues because obviously all of us need to focus very much on them. One of the 10 points, from recollection, was that there should be an increase in expenditure on intelligence. I make the point that, fair enough, there should be an increase in expenditure on intelligence, but we did actually increase the ASIS budget this year by around 23 per cent. The Director-General of ASIS, Allan Taylor, would say that there is no limit to the amount of money that you could spend on ASIS—he probably thinks that—but there is a limit to the amount of money that you can spend on anything. It is not a concept that the Labor Party has ever been very familiar with, but there is a limit. I have put a lot of extra resources into ASIS since I became the minister in March 1996. It is a much bigger and more extensive organisation now than it was then. Why? Because I think that the work of intelligence, the value adding—some people would say the force multiplier—we get from intelligence agencies is simply immense.The last point that I wanted to make is in relation to the media. The media in this country never cease to amaze me. One of the things that has amazed me is how they have shown absolutely no interest in this legislation at all. If you want to know why the public is so cynical about politics and politicians, one of the reasons is that the media concentrate on trivia so much and on differences. They promote conflict because they think that it sells their papers or the TV shows better. This is an enormously important piece of legislation; this is historic legislation. The government has taken the initiative to bring the legislation forward. It has worked very intimately with the opposition and through a parliamentary committee to improve the legislation and, other than on the day that we announced the introduction of this legislation, I do not think that there has been much of a squeak from anywhere in the media about it. This debate began yesterday and there was nothing in my clips this morning about the debate either. It is a pathetic indictment of our media. Nevertheless this has been a very important exercise. In a way, it sets up a great model for how the parliament can work with the government to ensure that legislation is truly effective and can yield broad national support. I very much appreciate the comments that have been made by members on both sides of the House. I commend the bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.30946Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:04:0030946Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments Nos 1 to 70: (1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 15 and 16), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”. (2) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 15 to 22), omit the definition of operationally sensitive information, substitute:paramilitary activities means activities involving the use of an armed unit (or other armed group) that is not part of a country's official defence or law enforcement forces.(3) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 24), after the definition of permanent resident, insert:police functions means: (a) the arrest, charging or detention of suspected offenders; or (b) any other activity undertaken for the purposes of prosecuting, or for determining whether to prosecute, an offence.(4) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 28), after the definition of responsible Minister, insert:serious crime means conduct that, if engaged in within, or in connection with, Australia, would constitute an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding 12 months.(5) Clause 6, page 5 (after line 32), before note 1, insert:Note 1A: For paramilitary activities see section 3.(6) Page 6 (after line 7), after clause 6, insert:6A Committee to be advised of other activities If the responsible Minister gives a direction under paragraph 6(1)(e), the Minister must as soon as practicable advise the Committee of the nature of the activity or activities to be undertaken.Note: For Committee see section 3.(7) Clause 8, page 6 (lines 29 to 34), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The responsible Minister in relation to ASIS, and the responsible Minister in relation to DSD, must issue a written direction under this subsection to the relevant agency head. The direction must: (a) require the agency to obtain an authorisation under section 9 from the Minister before: (i) undertaking an activity, or a series of activities, for the specific purpose, or for purposes which include the specific purpose, of producing intelligence on an Australian person who is overseas; or (ii) undertaking, in accordance with a direction under paragraph 6(1)(e), an activity, or a series of activities, that will, or is likely to, have a direct effect on an Australian person who is overseas; and (b) specify the circumstances in which the agency must, before undertaking other activities or classes of activities, obtain an authorisation under section 9 from the Minister.(8) Clause 9, page 7 (after line 30), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Before a Minister gives an authorisation under this section for an activity, or a series of activities, of a kind mentioned in subparagraph 8(1)(a)(i) or (ii), the Minister must also: (a) be satisfied that the Australian person mentioned in that subparagraph is, or is likely to be, involved in one or more of the following activities: (i) activities that present a significant risk to a person's safety; (ii) acting for, or on behalf of, a foreign power; (iii) activities that are, or are likely to be, a threat to security; (iv) activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the movement of goods listed from time to time in the Defence and Strategic Goods List (within the meaning of regulation 13E of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958); (v) committing a serious crime by moving money, goods or people; (vi) committing a serious crime by using or transferring intellectual property; (vii) committing a serious crime by transmitting data or signals by means of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy; and (b) if the Australian person is, or is likely to be, involved in an activity or activities that are, or are likely to be, a threat to security (whether or not covered by another subparagraph of paragraph (a) in addition to subparagraph (a)(iii))—obtain the agreement of the Minister responsible for administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. (1B) In subsection (1A):foreign power has the same meaning as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.securityhas the same meaning as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.Note: For serious crime see section 3.(9) Clause 9, page 8 (line 8), at the end of subclause (4), add “The period of effect specified in an authorisation for an activity, or a series of activities, of a kind mentioned in subparagraph 8(1)(a)(i) or (ii), must not exceed 6 months.”.(10) Clause 10, page 8 (after line 19), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The renewal (or any subsequent renewal) of an authorisation for an activity, or a series of activities, of a kind mentioned in subparagraph 8(1)(a)(i) or (ii), must be for a period not exceeding 6 months.(11) Clause 11, page 9 (after line 8), at the end of subclause 11(2), add:Note: For police functions and serious crime see section 3.(12) Clause 11, page 9, after the proposed note to subclause (2), insert: (2A) The agencies' functions do not include undertaking any activity for the purpose of furthering the interests of an Australian political party or other Australian political organisation.(13) Page 9 (after line 14), after clause 12, insert:12A Special responsibilities of Director and Director-General Both the Director and the Director-General must take all reasonable steps to ensure that: (a) his or her agency is kept free from any influences or considerations not relevant to the undertaking of activities as mentioned in paragraph 12(a) or (b); and (b) nothing is done that might lend colour to any suggestion that his or her agency is concerned to further or protect the interests of any particular section of the community, or with undertaking any activities other than those mentioned in paragraph 12(a) or (b).(14) Clause 14, page 10 (lines 10 to 15), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) the act: (i) taken together with an act, event, circumstance or result that took place, or was intended to take place, outside Australia, could amount to an offence; but (ii) in the absence of that other act, event, circumstance or result, would not amount to an offence; and(15) Clause 14, page 10 (after line 17), after subclause 14(2), insert: (2A) Subsection (2) is not intended to permit any act in relation to premises, persons, computers, things, or telecommunications services in Australia, being: (a) an act that ASIO could not do without a Minister authorising it by warrant issued under Division 2 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 or under Part III of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979; or (b) an act to obtain information that ASIO could not obtain other than in accordance with section 283 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. (2B) The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security may give a certificate in writing certifying any fact relevant to the question of whether an act was done in the proper performance of a function of an agency. (2C) In any proceedings, a certificate given under subsection (2B) is prima facie evidence of the facts certified.(16) Clause 15, page 11 (line 4), at the end of paragraph (c), add “and the Attorney-General”.(17) Clause 15, page 11 (line 7), at the end of subclause (4), add “ and to the Attorney-General”. (18) Clause 15, page 11 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add: (6) The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security must brief the Committee on the content and effect of the rules if: (a) the Committee requests the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to do so; or (b) the rules change.Note: For Committee see section 3.(19) Clause 19, page 12 (line 25) to page 13 (line 3), omit subclauses 19(1) and (2), substitute: The Director-General must consult regularly with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives for the purpose of keeping him or her informed on matters relating to ASIS.(20) Heading to Part 4, page 17 (line 2), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(21) Heading to clause 28, page 17 (line 4), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(22) Clause 28, page 17 (line 6), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(23) Clause 29, page 17 (lines 18 and 19), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(24) Clause 29, page 17 (lines 19 and 20), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(25) Clause 29, page 17 (line 21), omit “ASIO or ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS or DSD”.(26) Clause 29, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit “particular aspect of the activities of ASIO or ASIS”, substitute “matter in relation to the activities of ASIO, ASIS or DSD”.(27) Clause 29, page 17 (line 31), omit “aspect”, substitute “matter”.(28) Clause 29, page 18 (lines 2 and 3), omit “ASIO or ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS or DSD”.(29) Clause 29, page 18 (line 5), omit “ASIO or ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS or DSD”.(30) Clause 29, page 18 (line 8), omit “ASIO or ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS or DSD”.(31) Clause 29, page 18 (line 12), omit “ASIO or ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS or DSD”.(32) Clause 29, page 18 (line 16), omit “ASIO or ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS or DSD”.(33) Heading to clause 30, page 18 (line 18), omit “Directors-General”, substitute “Agency heads”.(34) Clause 30, page 18 (after line 23), after paragraph 30(b), insert: (ba) the Director of DSD;(35) Clause 41, page 25 (line 18), omit “agent and”.(36) Heading to Schedule 1, page 26 (line 1), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(37) Schedule 1, page 26 (before line 3), before Part 1, insert:Part 1A—Definitions1A Definitions In this Schedule, unless the contrary intention appears:agency means ASIO, ASIS or DSD.agency head means: (a) the Director-General of Security; or (b) the Director-General of ASIS; or (c) the Director of DSD.operationally sensitive information means information: (a) about sources of information, other operational assistance or operational methods available to ASIO, ASIS or DSD; or (b) about particular operations that have been, are being or are proposed to be undertaken by ASIO, ASIS or DSD; or (c) provided by, or by an agency of, a foreign government where that government does not consent to the public disclosure of the information.responsible Minister, in relation to the review of a matter, means the Minister responsible for the agency concerned in relation to that matter.(38) Schedule 1, page 26 (line 10), omit the note.(39) Schedule 1, page 26 (line 18), omit “14”, substitute “5”.(40) Schedule 1, page 26 (lines 24 to 27), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute: (a) an agency head; or (b) a staff member or agent of an agency; or(41) Schedule 1, page 27 (lines 8 to 10), omit subclause (6). (42) Schedule 1, page 27 (line 15), omit the heading to clause 3, substitute:3 Provision of information to Committee by ASIO, ASIS and DSD(43) Schedule 1, page 27 (lines 17 and 18), omit “the Director-General of Security or the Director-General of ASIS”, substitute “an agency head”.(44) Schedule 1, page 27 (line 22), omit “Director-General”, substitute “agency head”.(45) Schedule 1, page 27 (line 23), omit “14”, substitute “5”.(46) Schedule 1, page 27 (line 24), omit “Director-General”, substitute “agency head”.(47) Schedule 1, page 27 (line 29), omit “Director-General”, substitute “agency head”.(48) Schedule 1, page 27 (line 30), omit “Director-General”, substitute “agency head”.(49) Schedule 1, page 28 (line 2), omit “Director-General”, substitute “agency head”.(50) Schedule 1, page 28 (line 4), omit “Director-General”, substitute “agency head”.(51) Schedule 1, page 28 (line 5), omit “Director-General”, substitute “agency head”.(52) Schedule 1, page 28 (lines 6 to 8), omit subclause (6).(53) Schedule 1, page 28 (lines 15 and 16), omit “either the Minister responsible for ASIO or the Minister responsible for ASIS”, substitute “a Minister responsible for an agency”.(54) Schedule 1, page 28 (lines 18 and 19), omit “the Director-General of Security or the Director-General of ASIS”, substitute “an agency head”.(55) Schedule 1, page 30 (line 14) to page 31 (line 14), omit subclauses 6(2) to (5), substitute: (2) If the evidence is taken, or the document is produced, in a review conducted in private, the Committee must not disclose or publish, or authorise the disclosure or publication of the evidence or the contents of the document without the written authority of: (a) if the person who gave the evidence or produced the document is a staff member of an agency—the agency head; or (b) in any other case—the person who gave the evidence or produced the document. (3) Subclause (2) does not apply: (a) if the evidence, or the contents of the document, have already been lawfully disclosed or published; or (b) in relation to a matter of which the Committee has become aware otherwise than because of the giving of any evidence before, or the production of any document to, the Committee. (4) The Committee must not disclose or publish, or authorise the disclosure or publication of, the evidence, or the contents of the document, if the disclosure or publication would disclose a matter that the Committee is not, under clause 7, permitted to disclose in a report to a House of the Parliament. (5) The Committee may obtain the advice of the responsible Minister or responsible Ministers concerned as to whether the disclosure or publication might disclose a matter of that kind.(56) Schedule 1, page 31 (lines 24 and 25), omit “or agent of ASIO or ASIS”, substitute “of ASIO or ASIS or an agent of ASIO, ASIS or DSD”.(57) Schedule 1, page 31 (line 32), omit “either ASIO or ASIS”, substitute “an agency”.(58) Schedule 1, page 32 (line 1), omit the note.(59) Schedule 1, page 32 (line 2), omit “The Director-General of Security and the Director-General of ASIS”, substitute “An agency head”.(60) Schedule 1, page 32 (lines 4 and 5), omit “their respective agencies”, substitute “his or her agency”.(61) Schedule 1, page 32 (line 6), after “responsible Minister”, insert “or responsible Ministers concerned”.(62) Schedule 1, page 32 (line 10), omit “Parliament if the responsible Minister”, substitute “Parliament if a responsible Minister concerned”.(63) Schedule 1, page 33 (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute: (a) the person discloses or publishes any evidence taken by, or the contents of any document produced to, the Committee in a review conducted in private; and(64) Schedule 1, page 33 (line 12), omit “member—the Director-General”, substitute “member of an agency—the agency head”.(65) Schedule 1, page 33 (line 31), omit “ASIS and ASIO”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”. (66) Schedule 1, page 33 (line 33), omit “ASIS and ASIO”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(67) Schedule 1, page 34 (lines 13 and 14), omit “the Director-General”, substitute “an agency head”.(68) Schedule 1, page 39 (lines 4 and 5), omit “the Director-General of Security and the Director-General of ASIS”, substitute “each of the agency heads”.(69) Schedule 1, page 40 (line 5), omit “and the Minister responsible for ASIS”, substitute “, the Minister responsible for ASIS and the Minister responsible for DSD”.(70) Schedule 1, page 40 (lines 16 and 17), omit “the Director-General of Security and the Director-General of ASIS”, substitute “all of the agency heads”.These amendments form the government's response to the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services on the Intelligence Services Bill 2001 which was presented to parliament on 27 August. The committee, which I have already referred to in my remarks, was ably chaired by the member for Fadden and assisted by the member for Kingsford-Smith as the deputy chair. It did produce a constructive and helpful report after considering the bill in detail.The committee held public hearings over three days and took submissions from interested parties and members of the public. Those hearings included the taking of detailed evidence in public from the heads of ASIS, ASIO and DSD and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. This was a significant step in terms of opening aspects of the agencies to scrutiny. The committee quite properly reviewed the bill as setting a framework for the operation of these important agencies well into future. I commend the committee's report and record my appreciation to the committee and the secretariat for their work and to all those who participated in the hearings and giving of evidence.The resumption of consideration of this historic bill comes at a most critical time given the horrific events of the past week. The bill is of particular importance to the parliament. The Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services made 18 recommendations in its report. The government is pleased to accept the majority of the committee's recommendations without change whatsoever. The government will accept recommendations Nos 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11,12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 as proposed. It will accept recommendation No. 1 but strengthen it, and accept recommendations Nos 2, 5, 7, 14 and 17 in principle but with some slight differences in approach which have been discussed with the opposition. The government does not support recommendation 10 made by the committee, and I think the member for Kingsford-Smith referred to this yesterday in his remarks. Recommendation 10 would have provided access to operationally sensitive information in the form of past operations, and amendments in relation to this recommendation will not be introduced—and I understand the opposition is happy with that.These amendments address three critical issues in particular. The first is limited immunities for ASIS and DSD detailed in clause 14 of the bill. The committee focused on this provision in great detail. In its consideration it discovered that, as originally drafted, the provision went further than intended. Recommendations 6 and 8 of the committee report, which the government fully accepts, represent amendment items 14 and 15. These amendments result in provisions that are sufficient for the agencies in the conduct of their functions but also provide strong protection for the rights of Australians at home in Australia.The second critical issue was activities focused on Australians overseas. The occasions when the intelligence agencies may need to focus on the activities of Australians overseas are rare. Nevertheless, to ensure that these occasions are properly limited, a strict authorisation process is proposed. This response is to committee recommendations 2 and 7 and is represented as amendment items 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The committee recommended that the test for whether a minister may authorise a particular activity in relation to an Australian person or organisation be centred on prejudice to national security. The amendments proposed by the government list, and therefore limit, those occasions when a minister may authorise an activity specifically focused on an Australian person. While not defining `national security'—this term has not been defined in Australian legislation, despite its use in numerous acts and regulations—the government amendments have gone further by limiting the circumstances in which an Australian may be a specific focus and by identifying these in the legislation. These amendments, which accept the thrust of the committee's recommendations, provide both assurance about the limits on the agencies' powers and confidence that issues relevant to national security will be properly dealt with. (Extension of time granted)The third critical matter addressed by the committee was the inclusion of DSD within the oversight responsibilities of the parliamentary joint committee which was originally proposed to oversee the administration and the expenditure of ASIO and ASIS. The government has considered recommendation 11 carefully. On balance, it agrees that there is merit in DSD being included under the responsibilities of the committee. The inclusion of DSD under the parliamentary committee accounts for a large number of amendments being proposed—items 1, 20 to 25, 28 to 34, 36, 40, 42 to 44, 46 to 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59 to 62 and 64 to 70.I will now comment briefly on the other recommendations accepted by the government. Recommendation 1 proposed that note 2 under clause 6 be amended so that the minister is obliged to advise the parliamentary joint committee of the nature of any other activities to be carried out under subclause 6(1)(e). The government agrees with the thrust of the recommendation but considers that this should be strengthened and given legislative effect. Amendment item 6 represents the government's response. Recommendation 3 proposed that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security report in his annual report on the operation of subclause 7(d) of the Intelligence Services Bill. The government agrees with the recommendation.Recommendation 4 proposed that the Attorney-General be consulted by the responsible minister when making rules relating to the communication and retention of information concerning Australian persons. The government accepts this recommendation and has proposed amendment items 16 and 17. Recommendation 5 proposed that protocols be developed for the operation of immunities—clause 14 of the Intelligence Services Bill and division 476.5 of the Cybercrime Bill. The committee said that these should be put in writing and approved by responsible ministers and the Attorney-General, and should be provided as soon as possible to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The parliamentary joint committee should be briefed by the Inspector-General on the protocols and any subsequent changes to the protocols.The committee also recommended that the immunity provisions in the bills should not come into effect until the Inspector-General had received the protocols and had briefed the parliamentary joint committee. While agreeing to the other elements of this recommendation, the government considers the agencies, particularly at this time, should be able to fulfil all their functions as soon as possible once the legislation is in place—and I am sure members agree with that. The responsible ministers will provide the protocols to the parliamentary joint committee as soon as possible, but the operation of the limited immunities should not be delayed until this can occur.Recommendation 9 proposed that a new subclause be added to require the parliamentary joint committee to be briefed by the Inspector-General on the privacy rules and any changes to them. The government accepts this recommendation, which is amendment item 18. I also note that the proposed parliamentary joint committee will have access to these rules and will be able to provide comment. Recommendation 12 dealt with the parliamentary committee's ability to request the responsible minister to refer a matter in relation to the activities of ASIO and ASIS to the committee for review. The government accepts the recommendation, which is shown as amendment items 26 and 27. Recommendation 13 proposed that schedule 1, subclauses 6 and 9, be amended to ensure that the requirement on the parliamentary committee to receive written authority to publish evidence should only be in relation to evidence taken in private. The government accepts this recommendation and has proposed amendment item 55 in response.Recommendation 14 concerned the committee's ability to publish evidence under schedule 1, subclause 6(3). The committee considered that this provision provided for more restrictive procedures in relation to the operation of the parliamentary joint committee than is the case for the current ASIO committee. Rather than use the words proposed by the committee, the government has adopted the thrust of the provisions in the current ASIO Act to meet these concerns— and this is represented in amendment item 55. Recommendation 15 proposed that schedule 1, subclauses 2(2) and 3(2), be amended to ensure that a notice to appear before the committee must not be for a date less than five days after the day on which the notice is given to the person. The government accepts this recommendation, and amendment items 39 and 45 refer.Recommendation 16 proposed the deletion of two provisions dealing with notices to appear or produce documents to the parliamentary committee being provided to the responsible minister. (Extension of time granted) The government accepts this recommendation and has proposed amendment items 41 and 52. Recommendation 17 proposed that a number of terms used in the bill be defined. The government has agreed to define the terms `paramilitary', `police functions' and `serious crime'. The government has decided not to define the terms `intelligence', `national security' and `Australian organisations'. In relation to the term `intelligence', I note that `intelligence information' is defined in the bill. As I have already mentioned, the government does not see benefit in defining `national security'. The term `Australian organisations' is not defined, but honourable members should note that the definition of `permanent resident' is the same as that in the ASIO Act 1979 and includes the definition of a `body corporate'. The terms `foreign power' and `security' are also defined as part of other amendments made in the bill. Recommendation 18 proposed that arrangements for the briefing of the Leader of the Opposition about ASIS be the same as those relating to ASIO. The government accepts this recommendation and has proposed amendment item 19.Beyond addressing the recommendations contained in the report of the committee, the government has proposed two additional amendments: items 12 and 13. These require that the agencies' functions do not include undertaking any activity for the purpose of furthering the interests of an Australian political party or other Australian political organisation, and they impose special responsibilities on the Director-General of ASIS and the Director of DSD to ensure that their agencies are kept free from any influences or consideration not relevant to their functions. These amendments provide further reassurance to the parliament and the public in regard to the activities of our intelligence agencies. In moving these amendments to the bill, the government has largely embraced the approach recommended by the committee in its report. This historic bill, incorporating the amendments proposed, represents a major enhancement in the accountability of the intelligence and security agencies. It also further strengthens the role of the agencies by detailing their functions and responsibilities in legislation. I commend the amendments to the House.11:17:0030953Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—The opposition commends the government for introducing these amendments and commends them to the House.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.30953Bill (on motion by Mr Downer)—by leave—read a third time.Bills30954R135130954Consideration resumed from 27 June, on motion by Mr Downer:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.30954Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:19:0030954Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments Nos 1 to 7:(1) Heading to Schedule 1, page 3 (line 4), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 10), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 14), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 17), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (table row), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.(7) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (lines 6 and 7), omit “ASIO and ASIS”, substitute “ASIO, ASIS and DSD”.These amendments to the Intelligence Services (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 are necessary, following the government's acceptance of the majority of the recommendations made in the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services, which was presented to parliament on 27 August. All the amendments result from the inclusion of the Defence Signals Directorate under the parliamentary joint committee that is now proposed to examine the administration and expenditure of ASIO, ASIS and DSD. I commend the amendments to the House.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.30954Bill (on motion by Mr Downer)—by leave—read a third time.Bills30954R1413BillsR1414BillsR1412Bills30954Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.11:22:0030954Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00— The opposition will support these migration legislation measures contained in the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001 and related bills. We have no problems with the way the original bill has been reintroduced. The measures are in accordance with our bipartisan approach to matters of this nature. I will not go into the details of the bill because I think they will be self-explanatory. Some of my colleagues listed to speak in this debate further down the track will no doubt talk about some of the specific provisions, particularly in relation to the Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001. I want to talk generally about some of the issues involved in people-smuggling and some of the issues involved in the way this government has approached this undeniable problem. I want to talk generally about immigration issues related to the protection of our borders. It is very important when we talk about these matters, when we talk about the integrity of our borders, when we talk about people who come here on an unauthorised basis, that we do so in a way that both governments, of whatever political persuasion, and oppositions do their best to think about the nation and the security of the nation and ensure that, wherever possible, these matters are looked at in a bipartisan way. The sovereignty of the country is very important. We naturally need to be vigilant in hard times such as this. We know, of course, about what happened in the United States only last week. People become far more aware of the matters involved in illegal immigration and the integrity of border issues when they see the sorts of unspeakable horrors which occurred in the United States. As the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs full well knows, when it comes to supporting the government in an attempt to combat people-smuggling there have been a number of bills introduced over the last couple of years which in the main have received bipartisan support. I was going through a list of them before, but there are too many to mention today. I noticed one relating to strip search powers for immigration detainees. One bill introduced a raft of measures for immigration detainees such as new offences for inciting riots, increased offences for escapes from centres and new offences for the manufacture of weapons. All these were passed on a bipartisan basis. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Electronic Transactions and Methods of Notification) Bill 2001 was passed on this basis. Strength of character provisions have also been passed. On and on it goes, even to the point where one of the bills, known as the HREOC bill, was designed to stop lawyers from passing information on to newly arrived asylum seekers. All of that was passed. The only piece of legislation relating to border protection issues that was not passed was legislation introduced into this House some 2½ weeks ago and which one of these bills now seeks to replace. At the time the opposition took what was, I believe, a very principled view, a view which any self-respecting political party not only in this country but anywhere in the Western world should have taken. It was a bill that was hurriedly introduced. It was probably, although I have no evidence, cobbled together in the Prime Minister's office and thrown into the hands of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs with not too much consultation with the excellent people in the immigration department. I think you can see the difference in the bill that the minister presented to the parliament yesterday. It has obviously been drafted properly. Obviously a lot of matters have been taken into consideration. It is a bill that can easily be supported. Although the opposition has suffered a great deal of, if you like, political hurt out there in the electorate from not supporting that bill, we do feel that we stand here today completely vindicated for what we did at that time. I talked about this on radio this morning—I mention it to the minister because he will get the transcript of it shortly anyway. I will tell you it was on the Howard Sattler program; that makes it easier and probably will cost the public a little less for you to get the transcript. I said that the bill that was introduced a couple of weeks ago would have made the likes of Slobodan Milosevic happy. Some of the powers given in that were such bad law that it could not possibly have been supported. We say that our position on the original border protection bill has been completely vindicated. We said that the original bill was flawed, draconian and unacceptable. A fortnight later, thankfully, the government appears to agree. The new package of legislation proposed by the government yesterday resembles the original bill in name only. The concerns that were expressed by the Labor Party caucus in our resolution of Thursday, 30 August have been met by the new package. This is, I believe, a credit to the Labor caucus. Knowing full well that there were political ramifications, we still said that we had to wake up in the morning and look at ourselves in the mirror. The fact is that, by taking that stance, we have ensured that, without compromising what the government was trying to do, we now have a bill which is acceptable and takes into consideration what we said were problems. The Labor Party took a lot of heat and pain over the decision to knock back the original bill, but we have forced the government to come up with a more workable and acceptable package. The original bill sought to operate in spite of any other law. That is no longer there. The original bill bestowed open-ended immunities from the civil and criminal law. That is no longer there. The original bill posed no impediment to somebody wanting to tow an unsafe vessel out to sea. That is no longer there. What we do not have yet is a long-term solution to the problem of people-smuggling illegal immigration. I want to talk about that later. There is a difference between the opposition and the government. The difference is that we in the Labor Party, in the opposition, want to find a solution for the long term when it comes to people-smuggling issues. John Howard and this government want to find a solution for the third term—namely, their third term. The regime about to be put in place by this new package of immigration bills will not deal with the problem at the source. As I will develop shortly, we will continue to focus on the need for further diplomatic efforts in Indonesia so that there is a proper and decent deterrent to those dangerous sea voyages, in the form of Indonesian agreement to accept the return of boat people for proper processing. We want also to continue pushing our idea for a national coastguard. As I have stated previously, Labor has always supported the government in an attempt to combat people-smuggling, and I have mentioned some of the bills that we have supported in the past. But we have not just provided passive support; we have suggested clear, strong policies in this area. In particular I want to talk about the opposition's coastguard policy, which the government continually tries to degrade by saying that it will not work. An Australian coastguard will be charged with the enforcement of Commonwealth law in Australian waters. That will include people-smuggling, quarantine, illegal fishing, customs and drug-smuggling. Coastwatch functions and resources will include all surveillance and response operations to enforce Commonwealth law in Australian waters, the collection and coordination of intelligence, search and rescue functions, and antipollution and environmental protection functions.Australia needs a coordinated approach to address the difficulties that we face with unlawful boat landings, drugs, fisheries, pearling and quarantine related issues. An Australian coastguard will draw together the coastal surveillance resources, programs and activities that are currently undertaken by Coastwatch, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, the Australian Federal Police and the Royal Australian Navy patrol boats. It will have primary responsibility for the maintenance and enforcement of Commonwealth laws in Australian waters. The coastguard will have a full range of law enforcement powers so that it can act as a maritime police force—as some people call it, a cop on the beat. The role will extend beyond monitoring the coastline; it will be in charge of detection surveillance and law enforcement with regard to people-smuggling and other illegal activities. We need a national coastguard. We simply cannot afford to send a significant part of our navy to Ashmore Reef and the Christmas Island section to stop boats coming in from overseas. Apart from the fact that it will bankrupt the country if our only real solution to the problem is deploying a significant section of our Navy, the boats are still getting through. To my knowledge, at least two boats have already `run the blockade'. One has turned up at Ashmore Reef, with some 216 people who were transferred to the Tampa, and one has ended up at Cocos (Keeling) Islands. There might be more. It is impossible to detect all such boats. I am not saying that coastguards can do that, but at least they are equipped for that sort of work. They are not vessels that have hundreds of recruits or Navy personnel, at enormous cost. Some cost estimates are in excess of $100 million. When will the Navy be called back? I suspect that it will be after the election, because it will be kept there for political purposes. There is not much doubt about that. There has to be a way to stop people-smuggling. To its credit, at least the government is trying to do something, but a lot of its measures such as passing domestic laws have not seemed to work.In 1999 the government introduced temporary protection visas. I remember the minister making a big deal at the time, saying, `This is the measure that is going to stop people coming from overseas.' The opposition supported that legislation, but we commented at the time that we did not think that it would solve the problem. Over the past 10 years, about half, if not more, of the unauthorised boat arrivals in this country have been since we brought in the temporary protection visa legislation. In other words, it has not proven to be the deterrent that the minister would have liked us all to think it would be. In fact, it has caused a lot of other problems. There are now people on temporary protection visas around this country who are being supported in many respects by charities and by the states. As a result, there is resentment of refugees, which unfortunately has led to some circles of unrest within the community. That is the consequence of turning immigration issues into political footballs. In the next five to 10 years, when people consider this period in our history they will look back at what has happened in the last couple of months and they will find that for purely political purposes the government was prepared to risk the cohesion of our multicultural society simply because what they were saying might be popular in the electorate for short periods. Success in stemming the flow of unauthorised arrivals has been far greater when a regional and international approach has been taken. Over a period, the government, supported by the opposition, has arranged memorandums of understanding with foreign governments. The minister has visited China and other places, there has been increased cooperation between authorities and there have been fewer arrivals from targeted countries. I mention, for instance, the Fujian province in China. To his credit, the minister—I have told him this before and I have said it publicly—because he was able to go to the source, stopped the snakeheads sending people over here. Hardly anybody has come from that area in the year since that happened. We commend the minister on that. We believe that it is the only way that the government can do it. The proof of what has happened is Australia's appalling relations with our closest neighbour, Indonesia. Indonesia is the staging post for many people smugglers. Cooperation with Indonesia is crucial. Unfortunately, the Howard government is unable to build upon the relationship.I want to quote from a speech given by the Leader of the Opposition which did not get a lot of coverage in the newspapers. For some reason, good policy and good speeches normally do not get a good run in the newspapers. They always seem to look for the more dramatic episodes and statements. This was a speech made by Mr Beazley to the Asia-Australia Institute, University of New South Wales, on 6 September 2001—almost a couple of weeks ago and not long after the Tampa incident. He said:The events of last week, and the whole question of illegal people movement, illustrates one eternal truth about Australia's future: we can have no security or certainty as a nation without building sound international relationships, and this cannot be done unless we have a national government focused on this task ... Above all, we need these strategies to be directed by a national government focused constantly on the task, not just whenever a media opportunity arises ... We are not shut off from the world. We are engaged whether we like it or not. Stopping the boats will not be achieved by hitting the domestic airwaves, playing the political angles for domestic applause.A return to an orderly immigration regime can only be achieved by building cooperative international networks. This means working with other nations in a consistent and long-term fashion to secure Australia's place in the world.Tonight I want to outline how a Labor Government would do that, and in particular how we would work to engage with our region.He then went on to enumerate some of the things a Labor Party in government would do in terms of this problem. He said:Most importantly, there needs to be a relationship built on mutual trust and respect that will develop over time between our leaders.Today, this is best exemplified by the vexed issue of illegal people movement.In the light of our experience with the MV Tampa—and this was just after the Tampa had arrived—we need—as a nation—to do some serious thinking and planning about how we deal with this question in a way that actually tries to solve the problem. Australia is a good-hearted country, but we cannot afford to be an easy target for the people-smugglers—who are the real villains in this issue, not the illegal immigrants.We must not allow our immigration policy to be subverted by unchecked illegal arrivals. We must protect our borders.Labor believes we cannot be a soft touch, but that means having a smart touch in gaining international cooperation.It means having a cop on the beat 52 weeks a year in the form of a Coast Guard, not just for 3 weeks when you decide it's a problem all of a sudden. It means recognising you can't protect your borders without working with your neighbours.This was said two weeks ago and it is quite prophetic. He said:Australia won't fix this problem without fixing the relationship with Indonesia. We won't fix this problem without a year-round dedicated Coast Guard. Only one political party is promising to do these things.Let me set out my position in detail. Labor supported the Government's original position that the passengers on the MV Tampa should go to Indonesia, having been rescued in an Indonesian search and rescue zone. We offered the government bipartisanship because Australia's response conformed with the law and with our international obligations.We parted company with the Government over the border protection legislation it hurriedly tried to introduce last week. This is because it was bad law, may well have been unconstitutional, and sought to override every other piece of Australian law. In any case, the Prime Minister said later he didn't really need the bill.Labor offered Mr Howard our cooperation in finding a solution, including support for any specific legislation that might be required in relation to the MV Tampa—but our offer was refused.Mr Howard mocked an ALP Caucus resolution stating that a safe haven would need to be found for the passengers if they were to be turned away from Australia. Then he spent last weekend trying to comply with it.If it turns out that the Commonwealth's actions are found to be legally wanting in the next few days—and this is before the decision from the Federal Court—Australia will rue the day the PM refused Labor's offer to work with him on legislation specific to the MV Tampa situation.What last week showed is that Australia cannot solve the general problem of illegal people movement on its own, and any attempt to solve it on our own is doomed to failure.We cannot deal with every illegal arrival in the way we have dealt with the MV Tampa—for one thing, we simply couldn't afford it. In the end MV Tampa wasn't simply turned around and its passengers sent back to sea. An international solution had to be pulled together.The issue of uncontrolled migration has not arisen over the past week—it has been a growing global problem for at least five years.Around the world there are up to 23 million displaced persons. In Australia, 13,600 have arrived illegally by boat in ten years—11,000 since 1996. We have seen a 244 per cent increase in illegal entrants into Australia in just three years—driven entirely by a surge in illegal entries by boat.The Leader of the Opposition went on to say:Effective measures to combat people-smuggling require cooperation with neighbouring countries that are serving as transit routes for illegal people movement to Australia. People-smuggling poses a significant national security problem.The Prime Minister cannot even get President Megawati to answer his phone calls. In his speech, Mr Beazley said:A Labor Government will pursue the issue of people-smuggling with the highest levels of the Indonesian Government. We will do so in the context of a wholehearted commitment to build a mutually beneficial relationship with the new Indonesia.Labor will seek a comprehensive agreement with Indonesia to extend bilateral cooperation against people-smuggling. This will be accompanied by increased technical support for Indonesian law enforcement authorities to disrupt people-smuggling operations and additional assistance to Indonesia for maritime surveillance.He went on to say:Efforts to combat people-smuggling must be pursued on a regional basis. A Labor Government will appoint a Special Australian Representative to promote regional action on people-smuggling issues. The appointment of a senior Australian diplomat to this full-time role will provide a powerful focus for Australia's effort to improve regional cooperation.A Labor Government will put the issue of people-smuggling firmly on the agenda in Australia's regional security dialogues—bilaterally and at the ASEAN Regional Forum. The ARF has in recent years expanded the scope of its dialogue to cover transnational crime issues including drug trafficking, arms smuggling and piracy. Greater attention must be given to people-smuggling and refugee issues across the region. As a major initiative, the Special Representative will explore the potential for convening an Asia-Pacific Summit focused on the question of combating people smuggling.A regional Summit involving Heads of Government, Foreign Ministers, and Ministers responsible for Immigration and Law Enforcement, together with UNHCR, other UN agencies and relevant experts would provide a valuable forum to develop a comprehensive framework for cooperation. Australia should be prepared to fund such a conference and related meetings of technical experts in 2002-2003.I want to say something shortly to my friend the honourable member for Fisher, who is sitting at the table—and he is my friend, although sometimes he can be pretty silly— about putting this issue into such a context that all it does is create fear and anxiety amongst the Australian public. I want to talk about that in a moment. I have quoted extensively from Mr Beazley's speech because it shows that, rather than trying to make political capital out of this, Mr Beazley is saying, `We want to find a solution.' We do not want to have the situation where the Australian Navy, or a significant section of it, are up there just at the time that we start to beat the drum before an election. The reality is that most of these people have arrived during this government's time in office. In other words, it has been their watch. They have tried all of these things and they have failed. I accept it is a difficult proposition; I understand that. But they are the government, it is their watch and they have failed. When this government fail, which they do quite often on a lot of issues, they tend to find scapegoats, and of course at the moment the scapegoats are everybody but themselves.Whilst we understand that there is no easy solution to the problem, we know that the rhetoric that is used should not be alarmist. It should not be used for political purposes to incite possible unrest, particularly in a society like ours which is made up of over 200 different nationalities. Apart from indigenous Australians, all of us if we go back three, four or perhaps five generations are from people that came from overseas; all of us are. The last thing that this country needs is government leaders, or anybody, going around the place trying to incite some sort of racial unrest. Unfortunately, whether it is unintended or not, the fact is that that is happening.0V5Slipper, Peter, MP6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will fix up the member for Fisher in a moment. I was particularly disappointed when I saw in an AAP report the Minister for Defence, Mr Reith, the member for Flinders—who of course will be leaving this parliament in the next couple of weeks and will not be coming back—trying to make a connection between some of the so-called boat arrivals and terrorists. The AAP report, dated 18 September, was headed `Govt continues linking refugees to terrorists'. It said:Defence Minister Peter Reith first made the relationship between boat people coming to Australia and terrorists last week in the wake of the attack on the United States.He is quoted as saying:There is an undeniable linkage between illegals and terrorists and it is absolutely vital in my view to ensure that we don't have illegals entering Australia inappropriately because given the fact that some of those people come from country that is centre of terror, I would be particularly concerned if those people were allowed to enter Australia.Of course there is a possibility that that could be the case, but I ask the House to consider what happened in the United States last week. The terrorists came in either legally or using false passports, and they were actually taught how to fly in America. They were not people who turned up in leaky boats and who paid $15,000 to people smugglers. Terrorists usually come in good suits, and they sit in seat 2A in the front of the plane. They are well financed; bin Laden or somebody gives them money. They are not even checked for security. How ridiculous is it to suggest that these people come in on boats? People who come in on boats end up in detention, and we give them security checks as thoroughly as we can. We check who they are. Terrorists are not going to come over here and spend time in detention. It is a nonsense. That suggestion was made to incite unrest in the community and to make linkages that possibly do not exist. I said this before, but thank God nobody takes any notice of the honourable member for Fisher, who is sitting at the table and whom I count as a personal friend. Thank God that this is a person who, when he makes speeches from time to time and talks absolute rubbish, nobody takes any notice of, because, if they did take notice of him, the man ought to be ashamed of himself. I know the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, does not do that. He does a lot of stupid things, but he is quite smart about how he does them. He does not go out and do what the member for Fisher is doing. I say to the member for Fisher: I know that deep down you do understand what you are doing. I say to you: desist. There might not be a lot of people from ethnic backgrounds in your electorate, and there are not in mine either, apart from the fact that most of them are from Anglo-Saxon backgrounds—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—There are in mine.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—Yes; there are in yours, and there are in a lot of people's electorates. The last thing we need is to have this awful situation of people throwing petrol bombs at mosques. The people who suffer are Australians. Maybe the honourable member for Fisher does not do it intentionally; I will give him the benefit of a very strong doubt. But I say to you: do not do it again. You are a better man than that—at least I think you are a better man than that. There might be some venal political gain for you in doing that, but all it does is incite unrest. Apart from the member for Flinders, you seem to be the only one who is continually saying things like this. I ask you to desist.I want to say on behalf of the opposition that we support these bills in the spirit of bipartisanship, because we are concerned about the effects of people-smuggling and about the integrity of our borders. We have certainly proven in the past five years since we have been in opposition that we are as concerned and as hard on these illegal immigration problems as is the government. Apart from that one bill which was just unbelievably bad law, we have supported the government in almost every instance. We will continue to do so. We support the bills, but we ask the government to be a little bit more sensitive to the fact that this is a multicultural country and not to use these issues simply for venal political point scoring.11:52:0030960Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise today somewhat disappointed by the member for Bowman's contribution to the debate on the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001. It is interesting that, when these debates are held, it is only the Labor Party saying that politics surround this very difficult and vexed issue of illegal migration. It is almost a substitute for engaging in a debate on the substance of the subject, almost an alternative to being tested and challenged on ideas about a problem that is of concern to governments right around the globe. The pathetic and demeaning way in which the member for Bowman, the shadow immigration spokesperson, and those in the Labor Party try to present the government's agenda here as somehow being one borne out of political expediency is offensive. It is a revolting misrepresentation of the sincere and genuine efforts of a government trying to tackle an enormously complicated problem that governments around the world have been trying to grapple with. It is a problem that is not going to go away, and it requires thoughtful, insightful coordinated action to try to stem the flow of illegal migration.While Minister Ruddock—the minister at the table; he is probably the most honourable individual I have met in public life—toils away at this extraordinarily complicated issue, we get a poor excuse for a policy alternative. The member for Bowman has added absolutely zero to the debate and, ridiculously, he talks about the Labor Party's principled position. Principles are about moral rules and about fundamental truths that guide your actions. That is what principles are about.In the Financial Review today, there is a story about Labor's backdown. Labor have agreed not to oppose the government. They have no alternative plan; they have decided to just get out of the road of the government's genuine efforts to do something about this problem. One senior frontbencher from the ALP is apparently concerned about a dramatic slump in support for the Labor Party in the wake of their opposition to the government on this issue. The political motive rests with the ALP, as reflected in the Financial Review today. A senior frontbencher said: People had to get to the point where we were cheesed off being wedged—and we'll fix it when we are in government.That is the clearest statement that Labor is cooperating for the sake of political expediency, and it is published in today's media. When one is running around thinking about political motivations for these issues, look at the conduct and the rhetoric of the ALP and its inability to come up with any alternative plan other than to have Kim Beazley paddle out in an inflatable rubber duckie to stick a Coastguard sticker on the side of a vessel that has an Australian Navy sticker on it. That is all Labor can come up with. Alternatively, the opposition will spend $2 billion replicating the Coastwatch, coastal surveillance and Navy protection arrangements that are in our border protection systems. All the Labor Party can come up with is a new sticker on the side of our boats to say that it is now a coastguard, without confronting the issue of the tools the coastal protection authorities will need to tackle and to manage this extremely complicated issue. That is all the Labor Party have offered.It is a bit like the Roadrunner cartoons: every time Wiley Coyote tries to come up with a plan a big boulder lands on him. His legs are going, his back is arching and he is just about to get going when—whoomph!— the boulder lands on him. That is the Beazley way of handling this issue—he gets wound up and excited and is on the verge of doing something, and then—whoomph!—realisation. Labor is so out of touch and so disconnected from the policy debates of today.If you listen to Labor, they are going to do some serious thinking and planning. That is novel; they have been in opposition for five years. Why not do some of that now? They are talking about being pally with the Indonesians so that we can send illegal arrivals such as those on the MV Tampa back to Indonesia. The Indonesians did not want them, and the people on the Tampa did not want to go there. It is a little problem, isn't it? It is one of those Wiley Coyote problems. The Beazley plan falls over.Labor are going to appoint a public servant to jawbone countries to take back illegal migrants. Senior government ministers who command the respect of foreign governments are working with those foreign governments to achieve better outcomes in an extremely complicated issue. What is the other Labor Party solution? To put illegal immigration on the agenda. Where have they been? My brother lives in the Netherlands. He rang me and said, `There's a general mood in Europe that, thank goodness, someone is trying to do something about illegal migration.' It is an issue that concerns countries right around the globe. Jack Straw, the Home Secretary in the United Kingdom, started talking about it last year. Countries are grappling with extremely complicated issues. Australia is being seen as a guiding light of action, of proactivity and of positive intervention at a national government level.The Beazley plan is, `Let's get everyone together for a chat.' Where have the Labor Party been? Minister Ruddock has already funded the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to organise an international conference in October. It is happening. This is action. The government is doing constructive work. Contrast that with the `Acme' solutions of the Labor Party: they look good, they are bandied around and Labor sound like they are interested, but they take us nowhere.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—They don't even look good.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—That is probably right; they don't even look good. Most people can see right through what is going on here. While the factions within the Labor Party haemorrhage over this issue, it is only the Howard government that has a clear plan. The contrast is the Labor alternative of new stickers on the sides of our boats and calling them coastguards. It is a pathetic response to an international issue on which Minister Ruddock and the Howard government are leading the way. So what are we talking about today? This is a package of bills designed to strengthen measures available to our nation to preserve our own sovereignty. It is about safeguarding the integrity of our borders. It is about providing the border protection authorities with the tools they need to do their jobs effectively. It is about putting beyond any legal doubt the lawfulness of the reasonable and measured actions the government took to handle the MV Tampa and subsequent events. It is also about removing the incentive for people to choose illegal migration, people-smuggling, as a preferred pathway to gain entry to this country.Let me put it another way, and I sure the minister will not mind it if I recount some of the conversations he and I have had: there is a vibrant, highly regarded and very constructive Afghan community in my electorate on the Frankston-Mornington Peninsula area. Many of them have relatives in northern towns in Pakistan, in Peshawar and Islamabad. They come to see me and say, `Bruce, why is it that we can't get our relatives to gain a refugee visa?' They go to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and they visit the Red Cross in northern Pakistan. My local community is frustrated that their relatives cannot gain entry. That frustration is often borne out of the simple fact that there are 23 million displaced refugee seeking individuals under the supervision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. There is a handful of countries around the world that offer a haven for those people—for 23 million people seeking somewhere to resettle, seeking a refuge. To qualify for one of those positions, your circumstances need to be more devastating and more compelling and the infringements on your personal dignity and the persecution you suffer have to somehow lift your circumstances above those of 23 million other people who are seeking a refugee visa. That is a great frustration.I said to Minister Ruddock during one of our backbench committee meetings on immigration, `Philip, do you know what worries me? It is that the best advice I can give my local constituents is to save up their money and have their relatives arrive illegally. I don't want to give my constituents that advice.' I do not want to say that, somehow, they are infinitely advantaged, infinitely better off than people in refugee camps if they can cobble together the cash, pay a people smuggler $16,000 to $19,000 each and arrive on our shores illegally and that their prospects of being granted a refugee visa through the court system will be infinitely better than if the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the dude who looks after this complicated problem, looks at their case and says, `I'm sorry, there are others whose circumstances are more compelling.'What we are about today is decency in our humanity. People ask, `How can you restrain those people seeking to arrive here illegally?' My answer to that is that we do that with some heaviness in our heart, but our heart, our national spirit, makes 12,000 opportunities available for people in the most desperate circumstances to start a new life in this country. Shouldn't those 12,000 places go to the people who deserve them the most? Shouldn't the level of persecution that those people are subjected to be the greatest, because we want to do the most good with the opportunities we make available in a country that, on a per capita basis, is only outperformed by Canada in creating a refuge for those people? Shouldn't those places be given to those who need it most? Shouldn't they, as there are examples in my local community, go to the Afghan woman living in Afghanistan under the fundamentalist Taliban regime, where women are not allowed to work and their daughters are not allowed to go to school and where they have children whom they cannot feed—they pick up scraps of bread and the like? We saw it on a television program the other night: the women cobble together food to feed their kids, because in that part of the world women are not allowed to work. Surely we should be opening our hearts to those people. Surely if we have places available they should go to those people. Those places should go to the people in Sierra Leone who have stood up for democracy and now need to stay in those UNHCR camps for their own protection, because they get killed if they leave. Surely a place should go to those people, in advance of someone who can cobble together $100,000 and get their family here through illegal people smugglers. Surely your right to get access to those 12,000 places should not depend on the size of your bank balance. People say, `How can you be so inhumane?' Give me a break! What about the southern Sudan? You have people living in camps in northern Kenya who have been driven out by the Islamic fundamentalist regime in southern Sudan. They flee and they get locked up in Kakuma for their own survival, because if they hop out of that camp they get taken out.What about in other parts of the world such as the Balkans where you have a Bosnian Muslim married to a Serbian and, because of the ethnic cleansing that has gone on over there, they cannot live anywhere because the ethnic divide in their communities gives them nowhere to call home? Surely they have to be preferred refugees to our country over someone who decides that they were displaced years ago through horrendous events in the Middle East or in Afghanistan, has settled and created their own business, accumulated wealth and has decided it is time to leave and pursue a better life in Australia. They have tried to get recognised as a refugee but, basically, it is about their economic circumstances. Their right to live a dignified and peaceful life is there, but they would perhaps rather be living in Australia. I can understand that: this is the greatest country on earth; of course they would want to come here. But we have 12,000 places; let us make sure they go to the 12,000 most deserving people who are suffering horrendous levels of persecution; not the people who can cash up their assets and pay a people smuggler. If they are coming out of Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq they can arrive in Malaysia without a visa, because no-one checks in Malaysia. As the Indonesians flee Indonesia to go to Kuala Lumpur, the boats are backfilled with people who have come over from Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran into Malaysia. They then end up in Indonesia and get on a boat and come down here. These are people who have cashed up their assets; they have chosen to sell. They have freely accumulated that wealth. How persecuted can you be when you accumulate that level of wealth? There are people fleeing Afghanistan now who are paying $10 to cross the border into Pakistan. That is everything they own. Compare that with people paying $16,000 to $19,000 a head to get into this illegal people-smuggling racket.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Queue jumpers.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Yes, queue jumpers. Give me a break: there are 23 million individuals looking for sanctuary and we have 12,000 places. We invest several hundred million dollars a year into making sure that these people settle well and also to process the paperwork, the claims, the appeals, the further appeals, and the legal processes— while immigration lawyers get fat pockets as they extend the period within which people who are assessed not to be refugees try their luck through our legal system. That situation contrasts with the individuals who have the wealth to pay for passage. They are free enough to leave at a time of their own choosing, free enough to realise their assets and sell everything they own, to notify family that they are leaving, to get on an aircraft of their choice—whether it is business or economy class I do not know, but they can choose an airline of their choice—and fly to Malaysia or somewhere else in our region. They are so persecuted that they can do that any time they choose. They are so persecuted that they are able to accumulate wealth. They are so persecuted that they are able to organise their affairs, get their family together, and pursue illegal immigration channels. They are so persecuted that they arrive in a transit country and meet up with people smugglers. They are so persecuted that they then travel to a destination where they meet up with somebody else. They are free to move, free to make those choices, free to exercise the pursuit of what they think is a better life. They are so persecuted that they are able to do all of that. They are so persecuted that they can get on a boat and try to land here illegally. That is how persecuted they are. They can do all those things of their own free will, unimpeded, and pay for it. Contrast that with people living in northern Kenya, people in the Balkans, people in the great lakes area of Africa, or people who are trying to eke out a basic living in parts of Afghanistan, where being a woman is a passport to being denied the opportunity to raise their kids. Their husbands may have died in the freedom-fighting efforts against the Soviet occupation. There are a million reasons. There are people in my community who are like that, and I have been able to assist them into Australia because they have no way of maintaining their basic dignity.This legislation is about making sure that those 12,000 places go to the people who deserve them most. It is about making sure that our humanity goes to the most deserving. It is about making sure that our borders will not be challenged by organised crime syndicates which trade in people and on the opportunities our nation presents, and make a profit out of it—bypassing our lawful migration systems and challenging our border protection arrangements. Individuals are coached on what to do and say when they arrive. They dispose of their identification so that it becomes our task as a nation to find out who they are, whether they are of good character, and whether they are able to involve themselves in our health system without creating risks to our public health. Then we have to determine whether they are genuine refugees. There is little doubt why some of the people on the second vessel which was intercepted by the Manoora were unhappy. Some of those people had tried their chances in Indonesia and were told they were not refugees. They got on a boat, and then our people said, `We know you. You have tried this before. You are still not a refugee.' They were understandably unhappy, because they felt they had paid for passage to a new life in this country and that they were being denied what they had paid for. The pity is that they paid people smugglers; the pity is that new life was the liberty, freedom, peace and prosperity in our country. The bigger pity, though, is that they were seeking to take the place of people who were more deserving, people who were more desperate, and people whose persecution is so horrendous that they cannot even leave the protection of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. This is a day when Australia is saying, `This matters to us. We want to make sure our programs are humane and fair and that the generosity of this great country goes to those most deserving.' When the sun comes up over the lands of Australia, we know that our big hearts are going to those who need it most. I commend the bills to the House. 12:12:0030964McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I rise to speak in this cognate debate on the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001 and the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001. We in this place are all politicians, of course, but first and foremost we must be legislators. On Wednesday, 29 August this year, the government introduced into the House the Border Protection Bill 2001, after giving the opposition 40 minutes notice. That bill was ill conceived, absurd in its operation, and we could not support it. In particular, the legislation backfired because it would have applied to Australian citizens on board Australian pleasure vessels as much as it would have applied to illegal immigrants on board foreign fishing vessels. It would have given officers of the Commonwealth absolute discretion to use coercive force and to exercise powers, without accountability—powers that exceeded those of a soldier in the heat of battle, a soldier called out in a civil emergency or a terrorist attack, or even a police officer pursuing a murder suspect. It gave extraordinarily wide powers to extraordinarily junior officers. I will go through those provisions shortly and point out how absurd the legislation was and why it needed to be changed. Fortunately, the government has come to its senses with the package of bills that it has proposed today, but I think it is necessary, as a result of the debate that has taken place, to spell out just why the Border Protection Bill 2001 was so absurd.Before going through the bill, I would like to draw people's attention to an article written in the Bulletin of 11 September 2001 by Laurie Oakes, a respected political commentator. He described the background to the legislation in these terms: The legislation had been thrown together in an afternoon, and the government wanted it rushed through both Houses that evening. In a remarkable display of blind (some would say irresponsible) obedience to the executive, Coalition MPs gave it the thumbs up without seeing either the bill itself or an explanatory memorandum. And what did they approve? They approved legislation that did not have a stated purpose. It contained powers to expel a ship from Australian territorial waters and, in so expelling a ship, to expel those persons on the ship from Australian territorial waters, but it did not give the purpose for that expulsion. For instance, it did not talk in terms of a potential or actual breach or anticipated breach of the Customs Act or the Migration Act; it simply gave extremely broad powers to expel ships with people on them. How was `ship' defined in the legislation? It was defined as:... any vessel used in navigation, other than air navigation, and includes a barge, lighter or any other floating vessel.What is `any other floating vessel'? That could of course be an Australian pleasure craft. A yacht, a ski boat, a windsurfer or, indeed, a sea kayak could be included in that concept of floating vessel. Who were the people contemplated by this legislation? Clause 6 gave power for a Commonwealth officer, or a person assisting an officer, to return to a ship `a person' who was on board the ship. Of course, `person' could mean an Australian citizen, a citizen of the United States, Canada, Great Britain or from anywhere in the world—`a person'; a human being. So that legislation backfired big time. It hit Australian citizens as much as it hit illegal immigrants on board foreign vessels. That is a tremendous backfire in your own territory. For that reason alone, no responsible opposition could have passed that legislation. Let us look at the powers that were given to the government. I know the government will say, `We never intended to use these powers against Australians.' But, coming back to my first point, we as legislators must pass legislation that has regard to not only the government of the day—and the opposition of the day, for that matter—but also the fact that there will be governments of different persuasions in time yet this legislation would have remained on the statute books. In other words, you have to get your legislation right. It is interpreted by the courts on its face, and it would exist into the future. It had to be rejected, and any sensible and rational analysis such as Laurie Oakes undertook would prove that to be the case. Clause 4 of the bill says an officer may, `in his or her absolute discretion', give directions for a ship and people on it to be removed. Moreover, clause 4(2) provided that that direction `must not be called into question, or challenged, in any proceedings in any court in Australia.' Bearing in mind that this legislation, as I have said, applied as much to Australians and Australian vessels, that officer, who was defined in section 3 as being any employee of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—not someone who had appropriate training, but any employee of the department—had the power to exercise these extraordinarily broad discretions with complete legal immunity. Indeed, clause 7 of the bill protected such an officer, who had the power to use coercive force, from all forms of civil or criminal accountability. Clause 10 specifically said that the bill—which I again emphasise impacted as much on Australian citizens on board Australian vessels as anyone else—`has effect in spite of any other law.'It was completely absurd for any responsible parliament in this tradition of the Westminster system to even contemplate passing that legislation. I know that it evoked tremendous debate in the community. All I can say is that those who were spearheading the debate did not take the time to read the bill or even the explanatory memorandum before participating in that debate, because if they had looked at those provisions they would have seen that the bill was quite irresponsible and absurd in its operation and potential operation. Indeed, it was quite reckless of the government to introduce such a bill, which I again emphasise would have applied as much to Australian citizens as to any illegal immigrants. They are the reasons that the opposition rejected that bill, but we rejected the bill in the context where, in all other respects, the opposition has offered bipartisan support to the government to address this issue of illegal immigration. There is no doubt that this is a big issue, but this government has had 5½ years to commence addressing this issue. As I understand the figures, over the past 10 years about 13,000 people have illegally entered Australia by way of boats. I understand that in the last five years of the Labor government there were about 2,000 people. They were unquestionably a problem to be dealt with, but under this government there have been about 11,000 people. So, if you like, this government has had 11,000 warnings that the illegal people-smuggling trade is on the increase, but it has waited until three months before an election to respond. And how did it respond? It responded with absurd and ridiculous legislation on 29 August. Fortunately, the government has taken on board criticisms that we have made and criticisms that informed commentators have made. So I am pleased to be in a position to indicate that we can support the current package of legislation, the Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001 and also the legislation relating to the excision from the migration zone of certain islands and territories of Australia.The reason we can accept the amendments, particularly those contained in the new border protection bill, is that it is an entirely different piece of legislation. It does not operate on the basis of enforcement powers being triggered by a direction from the Prime Minister or a minister, and it is in the context of specific legal regimes that already exist in, firstly, the Customs Act and, secondly, the Migration Act. It actually proposes amendments to those two acts. Clearly, the enforcement powers—that is, to remove vessels or people—are in the context of preventing a customs offence, on the one hand, or a migration offence, on the other hand. This is not simply a power for the sake of power, but the exercise of power for a purpose.There is also a third stream—indeed, it is the first stream in the new bill—which is to validate action which has already been taken in respect of the Tampa. We have consistently offered to support the government with legislation to address the situation of the people on the Tampa, and it is reasonable for the government to include in that validation section events that have occurred in respect of other vessels that have arrived since 27 August, most noticeably the Aceng. Importantly, the first part of this bill refers specifically to those vessels or any other vessel reasonably suspected of carrying people seeking to breach the Migration Act. Again, we have a vessel identified—so it is not legislation directed at Australian citizens, which the former bill most certainly was. The identification of that specific purpose in that context means that officers who will exercise these powers will be trained officers either in the customs or migration field or, if necessary, police officers or defence officers. They will be trained, they will know what they are doing and they will be operating in the context of an existing framework.In summary, our first reason for supporting the current legislation is that it has those specific purposes within existing legal frameworks; it is not a power for power's sake at large. The second point is that it clearly will not apply to Australian citizens, as the earlier bill did. Importantly, as I read out before, the earlier bill attempted to completely override the rule of law in Australia; it would have applied notwithstanding any other legislation. This bill as proposed by the government now is acceptable, one of the reasons being that it specifically acknowledges the role of the High Court, under section 75 of our Constitution, to review administrative action. There is a specific clause noting that fact in each of the divisions, in the three parts that I have mentioned—the validation provision and the enforcement provisions in the customs section and the migration section.The third reason we can support the bill is that the government has taken on board our concerns regarding the exercise of force. We must recognise that when parliament authorises the use of coercive force it must do so in a responsible and prescribed way, not at large, not with absolute discretion. The use of force in the bill we are considering today is consistent with similar pieces of legislation where the use of force is authorised subject to the requirements that trained officers must undertake their duties in good faith and that any force used must be determined to be both necessary and reasonable to undertake their duties. That is a safeguard again in the context that it is specifically acknowledged that their actions are subject to review. The final reason that we are in a position to support the bill is that it specifically requires an officer, before returning someone to a vessel and expelling that vessel, to have regard for the safety of that person. That was not the case under the former proposed legislation. There was no requirement to have regard to the safety of the person before they were expelled. Effectively, under the former legislation a vessel, no matter how unseaworthy it was, could have been dragged out to sea and allowed to sink, with the loss of all life, and those officers would have had complete immunity. These new provisions prevent that and are sensible; the government have taken on board our concerns. The other point I want to make in this debate is to dispel any suggestion that, had we agreed to pass that fundamentally flawed and absurd piece of legislation on 29 August this year, it would have had effect in any way, shape or form on the legal proceedings considered in the Federal Court regarding the status of those people now known as the Tampa boat people. The reason it would not have had effect is that, even if a ministerial direction had been given under the Border Protection Bill of 29 August, clearly the Federal Court's decision at first instance related to the boarding by the SAS troops in the period before any such direction could have been issued. Also, specifically, the Federal Court at first instance determined that there was detention upon the Manoora after it left Australian waters, a situation completely unaddressed by the previous bill. Of course the whole methodology adopted by the government in respect of the Tampa issue was to remove persons from the Tampa and put them on the Australian naval vessel the Manoora before transporting them to Nauru.The Border Protection Bill 2001 of 29 August did not provide for that possibility at all. It provided for the removal of a vessel, namely the Tampa—not the people off the vessel onto another vessel. In summary, in no way, shape or form would that bill have prevented the Federal Court proceedings. Indeed, I think the government by implication specifically acknowledges that issue in that the amendments to the Customs Act and the Migration Act that are being proposed in this legislation will specifically enable officers of the Commonwealth to remove either vessels or persons not on those vessels, that is, separately from those vessels, so it would facilitate what occurred with respect to moving people off the Tampa onto another vessel. I think by so enacting there has been an acknowledgment that the former bill was deficient in that respect. It was quite mischievous, indeed misleading and counterproductive to a rational debate, for the government, members of the government, or anyone else for that matter, to suggest that the Labor Party's defence of the rule of law on 29 August in any way, shape or form contributed to or enabled that litigation to take place.The final issue which I should address but will substantially leave to my colleagues is the excision bill—that is, the bill excising from the migration zone Cocos Island, Christmas Island, Ashmore Reef and some other territories prescribed by regulation. We are prepared to support and indeed we acknowledge that, if persons who are in distress can be taken out of the sea and brought to dry land for processing, it may actually facilitate more humane treatment of those persons, rather than putting them on board a naval craft such as the Manoora and transporting them to other locations. Even if they are to be transported via Cocos Island, Christmas Island or another location as designated, clearly it is easier to give them health checks and the like if they are on dry land before so transporting them. We are prepared to acknowledge that that argument exists. We are also prepared to acknowledge the legitimacy of giving a different class of visa status so that these people who arrive via people smugglers do not have the opportunity of jumping the queue. In summary, we have offered bipartisan support all the way through in dealing with illegal immigration. It is a shame the government has not taken up our offer earlier. (Time expired)12:32:0030968Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001 and related bills that are before the House. While Australians may argue about the federal government's prime role, the most important role that the government undertakes, there can be no doubt that the maintenance of Australia's sovereignty would be one of those at the top of the list. It is certainly a major concern to the Australians that I speak with in my electorate. The maintenance of Australia's sovereignty includes our right to determine who will come here and when. For those who say that Australia lacks compassion, allow me to put the figures before the House. Australia has a proud record on immigration. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—One of the most humanitarian countries in the world.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Indeed. The member for Fisher is quite right, and I will get to that in a moment. Since 1945, almost 5.7 million people have come to Australia from other countries, with almost 600,000 of those under refugee and other humanitarian programs. In fact, Australia on a per capita basis is second only to Canada in its generosity to refugees. Today nearly one in four of Australia's nearly 20 million people was born overseas. The provisions contained in this legislation are overwhelmingly in Australia's national interests. It is one of the great and enduring responsibilities of any government to protect the integrity of its national borders—and our borders are under threat. In 1998-99 there were 921 unauthorised arrivals, and in 2000-01 there were 4,141 unauthorised arrivals. In the last full calendar month of this year there were 1,212 unauthorised arrivals.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—How many?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—There were 1,212 in one month: more than in the whole year of 1998-99. The reality is that Australia's borders are under great stress and pressure. According to media reports, there are 5,000 potentially unauthorised arrivals waiting to come to Australia from Indonesia. So this is historic legislation which will be welcomed by the vast majority of Australians, particularly those in my electorate who have consistently voiced their anger to me over the defeat of similar legislation in the Senate by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. Later in my address I will get to the concerns of citizens in my electorate.First I would like to deal with the Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001, which is particularly relevant, validating as it does the recent actions of the government and officers of the Commonwealth, including members of the Australian Defence Force, in relation to vessels carrying illegal immigrants and those on board those vessels. It validates all of the actions taken by the government since 27 August 2001, which is the date on which Australia first took action in relation to the MV Tampa. It also provides additional statutory authority for future actions in relation to incursions into Australian waters by unauthorised vessels and any persons aboard any such vessels. This means that apprehended vessels, and those aboard, must not necessarily be brought to Australia, and it covers operations similar to that currently being carried out by the HMAS Manoora. This is necessary to prevent rulings similar to that of Justice Tony North being brought down in the future. This will provide certainty to my constituents in Dawson who, since the Justice North ruling, have constantly asked a quite reasonable question. That night I had a meeting with constituents on an unrelated matter. My phone started ringing at eight o'clock and it rang and rang. Some of the calls were from people 300 kilometres away from Mackay. The message was the same: who is governing Australia—the elected government or an unelected judge? People were furious that decisions that rightly belong to an elected government that is totally accountable to the Australian people were overridden by one judge. That question from my citizens in Dawson has now clearly been given an answer. Although the Labor Party undoubtedly portrays the original legislation as flawed— and I will deal with that shortly—and sees this as some sort of backdown, nothing could be further from the truth. The scope of the bill has been broadened. Changes to the original bill were necessary because of changed circumstances, not because of the indecision of the Labor Party. The fact is that this bill covers everything that the original bill sought to do, plus a range of other measures. The bill is still necessary, just as the previous bill was necessary, to protect Australia's borders and Australia's sovereignty. I want to refer to Mr Beazley's original response in the second reading debate on the original border protection bill. One of the points that he made struck me greatly. He said, referring to Australia and the government: ... and we believe this to be the case—[it] already has sufficient law to cover the position associated with it.Subsequent events have shown that in fact that was a totally erroneous conclusion, as were so many others. The shadow Attorney-General has said that the original bill was deficient. The only deficiency is in the lack of leadership shown by the Labor Party and the Democrats in this debate that is absolutely riveting for all Australians. The fact is that the government has spent the past two weeks in the Federal Court, arguing about the destination of those who were aboard the MV Tampa, and this highlights the precise reasons why it is necessary that the government introduce the border protection bill. This new bill will cover the Tampa and any other vessels, together with those on board who seek to make unlawful entry into Australia. It also covers those on the Aceng, plus those who have arrived at the Ashmore and Cartier Islands and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.I note that one of the Labor Party's arguments was that Australians on Australian vessels could be subject to the original bill. While technically that may be correct—and I notice that the shadow Attorney-General said that it would depend on the political colours of the government—the fact of the matter is that no government is suddenly going to decide that some charter vessel with Australian citizens having a happy sail should be towed out of Australian waters. The suggestion that any officer of the Commonwealth or any member of the defence forces would undertake such an action is an insult to our defence forces and to the very high standards of Australian Commonwealth officers. To suggest that a vessel that is perhaps sinking or damaged might be towed out of Australian waters is a further insult to those who work either in our defence forces or as officers of other departments. It was a convenient excuse that the Labor Party used but, of course, it did not fool the Australian people. They are most astute and shrewd and they saw the reason: it was simply lack of leadership.Returning to the bill, we need to confirm the authority for the actions taken by our defence forces in moving people from the waters surrounding Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands to Nauru. The government is confident that any actions taken under the authority of this bill will fulfil our international obligations. I will speak briefly about the bill dealing with the excision of some Australian territories from the Australian migration zone. The bill is to ensure that any intending illegal immigrant who arrives in an excised area after 2 p.m. on 8 September 2001 will not be able to make an application for an Australian visa if detained by Australian authorities. It would also enable an authorised officer, including a member of the Australian Defence Force, to take an offshore entry person, a would-be illegal immigrant, from Australia to another country. This would, for example, enable a person to be moved from Christmas Island to Nauru for the purpose of refugee assessment. The bill also, importantly, prevents any legal proceeding against the Commonwealth or any person acting on behalf of the Commonwealth. This bar on legal proceedings would have effect notwithstanding anything else in the Migration Act or any other law.The new and stricter visa regime contained in the bill will deter further movement from, or the bypassing of, other safe countries. Most importantly, the bill will crack down on people smugglers and make their predatory profession far less attractive. The truth is that people smugglers do not care what happens to the people who get on their boats, they do not care what happens to the boats themselves; they only care about the money. For those who say that we should be compassionate and aware of our international obligations, it is quite right to assert that Australia should do that. But those who watched the Four Corners documentary a week or so ago—and it was an excellent production—would have seen the situation in Taliban Afghanistan, with mothers who cannot work and provide food for their children and women who are not allowed an education. It is a desperate situation for many. Those, such as those women and children, who leave Afghanistan and go into refugee camps in Pakistan and elsewhere and who are genuine refugees who fear for their lives and are persecuted have no money to pay people smugglers and have no other options. Their only option is to wait and wait and wait, while others who do have the money— and the amounts being bandied about are anywhere from $A12,000 to $A30,000 or $A50,000—can pay people smugglers. People who have access to such funds are not those who are destitute and without resources. They jump ahead of genuine refugees who wait patiently for their opportunity to come. The people smugglers, as I have said, care about none of that and are determined to continue their exploitative business. While we are working, quite properly, with other governments to stop this trade, we need to send the strongest message possible to these people that they will pay the price if they are caught. The legislation provides for mandatory sentencing arrangements for people convicted of people-smuggling offences. Where five or more people are smuggled into Australia, the perpetrators can receive a sentence of up to 20 years. First offenders will be sentenced to at least five years; repeat offenders could get at least eight years imprisonment. The message is quite clear: if you engage in people-smuggling and you get caught and convicted, you will go to jail for a very long time—not as with some of the penalties that we have seen imposed by courts recently. This, of course, does not apply to minors.In summary, this is an important legislative package for both the government and the Australian people, who will welcome its passage through the parliament. It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the Prime Minister on his leadership in this matter— leadership that is, regrettably, totally absent in the ranks of the opposition.In the time left to me, I would like to move to others who perhaps have been less than helpful in this national debate. I refer to an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled `Stumbling on a path of inhumanity'. It is by Malcolm Fraser, a previous Prime Minister of Australia. I have great regard for previous prime ministers, regardless of which party they have come from. They have served our nation and they are deserving of our respect and regard— particularly Mr Fraser, who heads Care Australia. He is obviously spending his time in retirement in the very worthy activity of community service. However, I have to say that those who have been Prime Minister of Australia have an obligation to give a more insightful, thoughtful overview of national issues. I will pick up perhaps some of the references that Mr Fraser made in his article. He said:When policy falls heavily on the poor, the destitute, those seeking to flee hunger, brutality and tyranny, then that policy is wrong. It is inhumane.He went on to say:The destitute have been made pawns in a harsh political contest.The truth is that those who are poor, destitute and seeking to flee from persecution are in fact those who languish in refugee camps around the world; they are those who have no money for people smugglers and have no option but to wait. The truth is that Mr Fraser, in opposing many of the government's sensible and fair-minded measures, is in fact ignoring those he seeks to assist. He went on to say:Turning 430 destitute people away from our shores cannot be regarded as an act of Christian charity—referring to those on the MV Tampa. The truth is that those people are not destitute. They have been able to pay people smugglers. What would be an act of Christian charity would be to ensure that refugee places in Australia are there for those who most desperately need them—not for those who can most cleverly exploit the lack of laws in Australia, as has been the case to date—and to ensure that only those who are deserving are able to access such places. In what is a very long article, Mr Fraser went on to say: We should ensure sufficient places are made available in recipient countries so that genuine refugees are not kept in camps for many years without hope.That is certainly a very laudable sentiment, and he is absolutely right. But, if there are 23 million refugees worldwide, the possibility of the recipient countries—and there are only a limited number of countries that have so far agreed to take refugees—being able to take all 23 million refugees is, frankly, impossible, much as we would wish it otherwise.I am very disappointed with that article written by Mr Fraser. It ignores much of the information that the current government has made available to the Australian people and it does not add to a balanced debate in Australia; it is not in our long-term interests nor in the interests of genuine refugees. I hope that ex-Prime Minister Fraser, compassionate as he is, will perhaps give more thought to the conflicting arguments in this debate and argue in our national interest and that of genuine refugees.In the time left to me, I will turn to the media. They actually were stumped during this debate that the Australian people did not share their views. In fact, never have I seen the gulf between the self-proclaimed pseudo-intellectuals in the media and the fair dinkum Aussie so stark. Christopher Pearson put it very well in the Australian Financial Review when he said, referring to an article by the Australian's Paul Kelly:Instead of being “an inept saga of crisis management” and scrambling by John Howard—as asserted by Paul Kelly—... this was a deft exercise of influence and a defining moment in domestic politics.He probably did not realise how prophetic his words would be as time went by. Just in the last two days I have distributed a petition calling on the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats to allow the passage of this bill through both houses of parliament, and the number of people who have signed it is extraordinary. I have signatures from Kirwan, Brandon, Ayr, Longreach, Home Hill, Mackay, Slade Point, Bowen, and Winton— which is far west of where I am and, I think, in the electorate of Capricornia. The signatures are flooding in. There is no doubt that this issue has sparked great concern across Australia and great regard for the government and particularly for the Prime Minister's leadership on this issue. I will quote from one letter that is symptomatic of those received by newspapers in my electorate. It is headed `Labor takes weak stance' and has been written by Mr P. Gibbins of Mackay. It states:So Kim Beazley and his Labor comrades didn't have the 'ticker' to vote for the federal government's legislation permitting the forced removal of ships from Australian waters. Why am I not surprised?The ALP have showed they are prepared to put the interests of people smugglers and illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of Australian taxpayers. Labor has again demonstrated that they are hopelessly out of touch with ordinary Australians and only interested in listening to noisy minorities.(Time expired)12:52:0030971Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Australia requires a sense of national unity and a respect for its fellow citizens if we are going to come through the very difficult periods without greater division than we have had hitherto. I think we ought to step back and reflect on the origins of this border protection legislation. The shadow Attorney-General has clearly set out the reasons the opposition believes the legislation introduced by the government a fortnight ago was made in haste and contained provisions which would have shamed this parliament forever had it been passed. He made the point that our first duty was as legislators rather than as politicians. I go further. I say that our first duty is as Australians. In that task we have defined those elements which bind us together in common as Australians. I was particularly disappointed by the comments of the member for Dawson, which were quite on the edge of this debate, regarding former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. She chided him for his comments about the way this parliament is dealing with these issues and asked him to spend more time arguing in the national interest and in favour of genuine refugees. The implication was that the former Prime Minister and those who have concerns or qualms about the way in which this government has addressed this issue are not genuine Australians, are not real Australians, are un-Australian. I regard that as profoundly disturbing. I find it profoundly disturbing because we are already seeing seeds of the kind of internal breakdown that we so eloquently spoke against just the other day in the wake of the tragedy in the United States. We as parliamentarians came together to say that we need not only to condemn those acts and to bind ourselves to common action with those who have been injured in their quest for a just but moderated solution but also to reinforce those elements which bind us together as Australians. I recounted in that debate the instance when I was in a taxi with a man who was wearing a turban. He happened to be a Sikh, not a Muslim. Because of his appearance, a group of youths in a car swerved towards him and abused him, simply because they perceived him to be Islamic. From those small wounds that are to date quite minor because our society is stronger than those who would wrench it apart would wish, great tears can emerge. I contrast the way this legislation was introduced into this parliament and how it was dealt with by this Prime Minister with the way President Bush has dealt with a far greater crisis afflicting his nation. When we were faced with an instance that the Prime Minister regarded as a serious incident that required the common approach of this parliament, he gave the opposition 40 minutes notice of a piece of legislation that was so unsatisfactorily drafted that it has now been revised and entirely changed by the government itself. He sought our support to have that legislation introduced and dealt with in both houses on a single day of sitting of this parliament. He then set about a process of demonising as being outside the mainstream of Australian opinion those who drew proper criticism of it. Contrast that to President Bush. President Bush recognised that at a time of national crisis Americans required bringing together. He had a significant task, a far greater crisis than anything facing Australia. But he reached out to those forces in political opposition to him and explained to them the common task that he sought their cooperation in pursuing. There were no briefings from the Australian Prime Minister to that effect in relation to the instance that I am speaking of today. When President Bush was confronted by these instances, he recognised that it required an international solution and he started to build an international coalition in order to prosecute that moderate but effective defence of freedom that he has committed himself to. There was no such process from the Australian Prime Minister. Indeed, we had the Prime Minister on talkback radio, playing to the galleries within the Australian domestic community, promoting the kinds of tensions that as yet are small tears in our social fabric. But he did not pick up the phone to speak to President Megawati Sukarnoputri and did not do anything that could have effectively searched for a say of resolving this without the kind of intemperate debate that has characterised this to date. He then brought into this parliament legislation that in similar circumstances he, had he been Leader of the Opposition, would have castigated in the same terms. Let me not be insensible to the political realities that the member for Dawson and the member for Dunkley have adverted to. When nations feel under threat, they do act sometimes in circumstances that they later regret. I believe that in the long-term history of the Australian Liberal Party the actions of the Prime Minister in introducing that legislation will be seen as a matter of their regret. When we were faced with that legislation and the circumstances in which it was presented, we knew that to oppose it in this parliament would be to our short-term and possibly long-term political cost. We knew that. We believed it was put forward with that intention, because of the manner and circumstances in which it was presented. Had the government sought our cooperation as it did with the legislation that is now before the House, and had the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs seen fit to provide an extensive briefing to the leadership of the opposition, to take us through it and explain the manner in which it dealt with the issues, and how in practice it addressed the concerns of the opposition which we had raised previously, had there been a genuine attempt at bipartisanship, we could have resolved this a fortnight ago. We could have had this legislation a fortnight ago. We made that plain to the Prime Minister on the day. Caucus affirmed that common purpose the next morning and set out the terms on which we would support legislation. Those terms indicated that we were committed to finding a humane and legal solution for the situation of the people aboard the Tampa but that we would not support the coalition bill because it purported to override all other laws without qualification, including international maritime laws and Australian criminal and civil laws; created an unnecessary and unreviewable absolute discretion for Australian officials in removing vessels from Australian territorial waters, irrespective of the seaworthiness of those vessels or the health and safety of those on board; gave no guidance as to when, how and why such a decision was to be made; provided no rational basis for the assessment of what `reasonable means' and `reasonable force' are in the removal of a vessel; and was so broad it would potentially allow the exclusion of Australian citizens on Australian vessels without any avenue of parliamentary, administrative or judicial challenge or review. But we also indicated that Labor would support legislation that would accommodate a proper response and that dealt with these circumstances.We remained open to that and we now concede to the legislation that comes before us, not because we have changed our position but because the government has. The government now has put forward a set of proposals which we could have supported a fortnight ago had our support been sought in a genuine and bipartisan way. That is not to say that we think that this package of legislation is the best way of dealing with this. It is still a matter of some haste. In the ordinary course, legislation making such profound changes to the migration laws or the laws affecting significant areas of public debate in Australia are given to parliamentary committees for examination. There is opportunity for public comment. There is a serious assessment of the national interest. None of those things are available to us in these circumstances. We might say of this legislation, drawing the distinction we made in relation to the law relating to the previous legislation, that it now comes within the reasonable range of proposals which an Australian government might make. But there are other measures that could have been adopted, other ways through it, and some commentators make that point very validly.I not only want to speak in this debate of the reasons that we now support this legislation; I also want to reflect on those many millions of Australians—certainly they are a minority, but they include the former Prime Minister of Australia—who are deeply concerned about the way in which this debate has been conducted. I want to reach out to those people who feel that there has been a want of compassion and concern not only by the government but also by the opposition in its support for this legislation. I say to those people that there are some issues in public life where I suppose what you might call the Socratic solution has to be taken: you have to swallow the hemlock in order to make a moral point for the future, and your society is improved because of that ultimate sacrifice. That was the circumstance in which the Australian Labor Party found itself a fortnight ago. We could not pass this legislation, notwithstanding the political consequences which we knowingly faced. But, of course, the problem with a Socratic solution is that you are dead, and we should not wilfully take a Socratic solution if the possibility of life and better outcomes is available to us. We are practising politicians, not suicide bombers. Our responsibility is to the Australians of the future. We believe that there can be a better way of seeing our way through some of these issues, and we have put constructive proposals to the government in relation to many of these issues. We have, for example, drawn attention to the circumstances in detention centres and called for judicial review. We note the concerns of the UNHCR in relation to the facilities in Nauru and their concern that that may create a precedent for UNHCR direct involvement in the use and processing of offshore refugees in the case of developed nations. We note we have a significantly improved proposal for coastal security—the Australian Coastguard. We note that the Australian government claims that 99 per cent of illegal arrivals seeking entry to Australia are detected by boat, but we are sceptical of that. Of course, it is incapable of proof one way or the other. How can one prove or disprove the assertion that 99 per cent of persons are detected? That is quite incapable of proof or disproof. How could you prove what you cannot know because of the nature of the circumstance?What we do know is that most people who currently come to Australia actually have in the past sought to be detected. They have sought to find an Australian vessel, because they would then be taken to a point where they would be processed within the Australian domestic regime. Now the rules will change. Now they will seek to evade our coastal patrols and to reach the Australian mainland, because they have a far better processing option. And, in that course, we do need to have more effective and best practice coastal surveillance. We also have better solutions than the entire removal of all judicial supervision of administrative action. We believe in a simple, one-tier straightforward practical application of judicial review which avoids the complications, costs and the very doubtful constitutionality of the government's proposals. We have solutions in the international field, which we believe we can far better implement, with Indonesia and other countries, and we recognise that this is a question not only of source countries but also the need to find cooperative arrangements to deal with those people who are assessed as not having refugee status. About a third of people currently in Australian detention facilities are people who have been screened out as not having legitimate claims, but we cannot find cooperative solutions to return them to their homelands. These require the same kind of international and cooperative actions. So for those people who are concerned that there is no voice speaking for those who are dispossessed and needy in our community, do not be afraid; the Australian Labor Party has not let that torch burn low. But we do face a situation where the government no longer holds to a piece of legislation which was so intolerable that no political party could approve it. We now go forward committed to a process which is backed broadly on a bipartisan track with the Labor Party making constructive suggestions and commitments to the Australian community about how some of these issues should be better dealt with.Let me conclude with this: there have been some unfortunate things said in the wake of this debate. I will comment on only two of the most unfortunate things. Firstly, the parliamentary secretary, Mr Slipper, made a remark suggesting that—and I think the defence minister made remarks in a similar vein—amongst the people who are coming on these boats are probably Afghani terrorists. As I understand it, the briefings provided to the opposition leader give no succour to that claim and I think it simply inflames community division at a time when we need healing. Secondly, I refer to the comment by the member for Dunkley. Whilst I accept his point that there are issues of priority, he put, I think, a hypothetical question suggesting there was no plausible answer other than to say that he was correct. He said how persecuted can you be if you have accumulated that amount of wealth; in other words, the amount of wealth to pay for your travel to Australia? Any member of the Australian Jewish community would provide an answer to him. There were many people of great wealth in the Nazi state who fled that persecution, some who sought refuge on boats and paid their fares. Anybody who has seen the film the Voyage of the Damned and read the book knows the circumstances of those people who went, under the Nazi terror, from country to country—where no country would admit them—and knows their fate through those circumstances. To suggest that you cannot be persecuted if you have the wealth to pay for your flight is wrong. There is an element of truth in the point that there may be priorities and shades of deserving between those who are waiting. But the simple argument about a queue is one which is entirely self-made. When Labor was in government and we saw the Tiananmen Square example and we admitted many thousands of Chinese who might have faced torture and repression had they been returned to China, we did not sum that against some notional queue and say that we would provide no succour for the rest waiting in camps. We said that we still had that obligation. We adjusted our program so that we could continue our compassion to those people who were in greatest need. However, we also addressed the need of those who might have faced persecution in their homelands—the students, were they returned. Much of this is according to our will and how we address these issues—how we plan them and address them. This is not an easy situation. These are not easy debates. As I started out saying, the Australian community does not share a single view as to how these issues ought best be resolved. There is a majority opinion, just as in Athens at the time of its great testing when Socrates took the hemlock, when the Athenians were at the walls, there was little tolerance for those who took an alternative view to the majority view within that city.But in those times of great testing great resolve is required. For societies that are able to hold themselves together and work together, that resolve pays off in terms of their long-term survival, their unity and their strength, and from that grows real security. Real security also requires security not just against external threats but against the insecurity of unemployment, against the insecurity of those who would seek to obtain health care but cannot, against the insecurity of those who seek education in the public system and find it wanting. Those are all great challenges for us as Australians.Let us not trivialise this debate and descend into a situation in which we seek to divide Australians against Australians and use the language of polarisation and division. Let us go forward to recognise that great political parties in this country do have responsibilities. They must exercise them even under great pressure. In this instance we welcome the fact that ultimately the government has chosen to accommodate the concerns that the opposition has expressed. (Time expired)13:12:0030975Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I might start off by addressing some of the issues that were raised by the honourable member for Denison. I think he claimed that we should take a compassionate view. It would seem to me he was implying that the only side of politics that compassion resided upon was on the left of the Speaker at present. I believe that all Australians have compassion and they will deal with that according to what they believe. What we are dealing with here is a decision that was taken by the Australian Labor Party just a fortnight ago in which they made a mistake. Now they are trying to come back from that position and argue their position on this particular bill. The Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001 does not vary from the bill that was put forward a fortnight ago. They have understood that they made a huge mistake, and the Australian people made it very clear that they did not support them. Instead of now saying, `We made a mistake,' they are trying to justify through some legal argument the view that this is a different bill.The situation is very clear indeed. The member for Barton was arguing about figures over successive years which show the number of boat people coming to Australia has increased. We all know that is because people have worked out—and the smugglers have worked out—that if they get onto Australian shores they have a better chance of staying in Australia than if they went through the United Nations. That is why people-smuggling has increased and that is why something had to be done. The Australian people were not impressed with the fact that these people could bypass the system. Australia does accept refugees; Australia accepts 8,000 refugees a year. RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—Twelve thousand.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—Thank you for correcting me. That is correct: Australia accepts 12,000 refugees a year. But the fact is that those refugees come through the right channels. Those opposite talk about having compassion. Let us talk about compassion for the people who are missing out: the people who are in dreadful refugee camps with no money and with no possibility of getting through the process for entry to this country. Yet we allow people to come in on boats as refugees. A fortnight ago the Labor Party said, `That's fine. You can do that, because we are not going to support the government.' The Prime Minister made the government's position abundantly clear. I note that the Leader of the Opposition is not speaking in this debate. I dare say that it would be difficult for him to do so given the speech he delivered a fortnight ago. I refer the House to that speech, where the opposition leader said:I also said today in my remarks that we do not face in these circumstances a national catastrophe; we face a serious problem.I wonder what is different today. If anything, the position is less testing than it was a fortnight ago. Yes, refugees were taken on board the Tampa and there was a challenge in the court. But the full bench has now rejected that. The refugees, the boat people, are at Nauru. Yet now the Labor Party support the bill because supposedly, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, `we have a national catastrophe'. I cannot accept that particular argument. The real reason here—and I accept that it is politics—is that the Australian people have given the Australian Labor Party a message that they expect the Labor Party to support the government on these issues, because the Australian people are not happy with the present situation where people are queue jumping to come into Australia and are using Australian resources to argue their case as refugees.Let us look at the figures that have been widely circulated by the minister. They are clear: only 30 per cent of those refugees who land on Australian soil can prove that they are refugees. We detain these people in centres because we cannot identify who they are. We do not know who they are because they destroy their identification papers when they get into Australian waters. We have to detain them. If ever there was a reason to detain them, we need only look at the situation of the detainees who escaped in Sydney. I think there were some 24 and we have found only one. If these people were allowed out into the general community, we would never find any of them. Yet members of the Australian Labor Party have in this chamber condemned the government for the fact that people are held in detention centres. No-one wants to hold them there, but if they did the right thing by going through the right processes and applying as refugees then obviously they would have a better chance of coming to and staying in Australia.One of the problems Australia has in this situation is that Indonesia will not sign an agreement. We have agreements with other countries to deal with refugees who are using these processes, but Indonesia at this stage refuses to enter into any agreement. The member for Denison said that the Prime Minister could easily have got on the phone to President Megawati. The Prime Minister tried, but President Megawati did not return his call. There is an old saying in the bush that you can lead a horse to water but that you can't make it drink. This situation clearly applies at the present time. You cannot deal with someone who does not want to deal with you. The reasons Indonesia will not sign an agreement are obscure, but in the fullness of time we will probably find out the reasons. I suppose we should have sent previous Prime Minister Keating: he had a close relationship with Indonesia and we might have got somewhere! I make it clear that one of the problems the government have is that we cannot get an agreement with Indonesia to address this problem.I have heard members of the Labor Party claim on several occasions that 136 boats have come into Australian waters in recent years but that it was only the 137th on which the government decided to take action because it was politically opportune to do so. I will explain that situation clearly. Even the Leader of the Opposition admitted this in his speech, although I will not quote him. The reason this situation was different was that this boat was floundering in international waters. A distress call went out and the Tampa went to rescue them in international waters. Under international law, the rescuing boat is to go to the nearest port, which the captain immediately attempted to do—the nearest port was in Indonesia—but these people hijacked the ship. They hijacked the ship and turned it around to Christmas Island. That is the difference, and it is a big difference. If we allow that to happen, we will have people hijacking ships time and time again. Some of the people who have been taken to Nauru are presently saying that they will not even disembark. These people are not cooperative. As refugees, they are trying to dictate to Australia what they want. I am sorry, but that is not the way the world works. People looking for refuge in a country should accept the rules of that country. Obviously we will look after them if they are genuine refugees.The member for Barton—a fortnight ago the Leader of the Opposition also spoke about this—said that the legislation the government introduced would in fact allow boats to be towed out to sea to sink. That is an outrageous claim. I have just explained the law of the sea, and everyone abides by the law of the sea. In fact, Australia has abided by it in many ways in recent times with people who have been yachting around the world. It has cost the country substantially, but we have abided by the law to go out and rescue people in distress. To come in here and say that a government of either persuasion would tow a boat out to sea and allow it to sink is outrageous, and I am sure that in the cold, hard light of day people will see that that is exactly what it is. The member for Barton also said that the law would exclude Australians as well. It seems that some of the arguments being used now by the opposition are legal arguments. They are what one might expect lawyers to raise in a court of law. But when we use a bit of commonsense, we realise that that is not the way it is applied. I think commonsense does apply in these issues. Obviously, the boats to be intercepted would be boats seen as carrying illegal immigrants. That would be the application of the law. The Prime Minister took the process one step further. He said to the opposition, `We need this legislation because we believe there may be an appeal in the courts by the lawyers.' Of course, that was absolutely accurate. One could almost have predicted that. He said, `We need this legislation and in fact we are prepared to put a sunset clause on it. If it does not work in the way we believe, after six months, and if you win the election, you can revisit this legislation and put it in a form that you might think is better.' But the Labor Party did not accept that argument either. It went down the track of denying the government the right to stop people coming into our territorial waters and infringing our sovereignty. That is exactly what the argument is about: the right of a nation to protect its sovereignty. I am sure that the member for Cunningham would understand very clearly that there are many Australians out there—I know that they have put it very, very clearly to me—who believe we should have that right. Australia cannot accept unlimited numbers of people into this country. We have to have a regulated immigration policy. We have accepted people from all over the world for a long time—from before the Second World War in particular—but we have to have a regulated immigration policy. We cannot have an open door policy, because this country cannot sustain or afford a great influx of immigrants into this country. It would affect the standard of living of everyone, including the immigrants.During his speech the member for Denison spoke about Tiananmen Square. We saw the Labor Party reaction to that. There was no evidence to suggest that people would be tortured back in China, but there was a reaction to say that all students could stay in Australia. Fifty thousand students were allowed to stay in Australia, and with family build-up that figure became 200,000. That was a policy of the Labor Party. 8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—That's not right.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—As the member for Denison said, those people were over and above the numbers allowed in by Immigration. The Australian people are saying, `We are a bit careful about this at the present time. We are a bit wary.' The member for Denison also was saying that some of the statements that have been made about illegal immigrants are a little over the top, because it has been said that some terrorists might be among the people coming into this country. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition has been briefed, but I have heard the minister say on a few occasions now that some of the illegal immigrants to this country have been proven to be criminals. These people are trying to get into this country. They have no identification. They are trying to force their way through. And we have no right to say no? I believe that is what the Labor Party was saying a fortnight ago—that we do not have the right to say no to these people; we must let them come to Australia, because our laws are easier than the laws under the United Nations. The people are saying very clearly that they do not agree that that is the situation.I was interested to read an article by Laurie Oakes, who has become an apologist for the Labor Party in many ways in a few articles I have read in recent times. He tries to say that the situation in relation to this particular bill is not the reason that the Labor Party has fallen so dramatically in the polls. Laurie Oakes' Power Play column in the Bulletin of 25 September 2001 states:The ALP was on 55% and the Coalition on 45%, suggesting that, while Labor suffered serious political damage over the Tampa issue, it had started to recover very quickly, making up three points in a week before the dreadful events in the US sent it spiralling down again. This suggests that the asylum-seekers issue may not have knocked Labor out of the race, despite the emotions it aroused.It just goes to show what happens when you live in Canberra and do not get out into the real world. That particular statement is so out of touch with reality that it is unbelievable.I have never had an issue in my political career—and that spans 18 years now—which has made so many people come up to me in the street, without any urging whatsoever, and say, `Don't back away.' Member for Cunningham, many of them were very strong supporters of the Labor Party. I know my local area very well. This is an issue that transcends politics. It is an issue that people are very concerned about. It is a disgrace that the Labor Party had that lack of judgment a fortnight ago to refuse to support the government on an issue of national importance. It refused to support the government, and now it is trying to argue its way back by saying, `This is a bit different.' The member for Cunningham's own leader said:I also said today in my remarks that we do not face in these circumstances a national catastrophe.What has changed? A fortnight later, the situation has eased. But all of a sudden the Labor Party is going to support every piece of legislation in the parliament because we now have a national catastrophe. The national catastrophe is that the Labor Party is on 35 per cent of the vote. That is the national catastrophe. And, of course, all of a sudden we have seen this change of heart.I would hate to be the Leader of the Opposition. He must have two speech writers, and it must depend on which faction wins in caucus. A fortnight ago, the left faction won so the Leader of the Opposition came in and gave a great speech about how never, in the history of Australia, will the Labor Party support a bill such as this. Obviously, the other speech writer is sick, because the Leader of the Opposition is not in the chamber today to give the other speech—the speech which supports the right wing of the party. The right wing of the party has come to the fore because of the polls. And, of course, the Leader of the Opposition will have to come up with another speech. It is a terrible position to be in, because he does not quite know which speech he is going to give—whether it is going to be the left speech or the right speech.Obviously, he has been caught out on this one. I think that the Australian people have been watching very, very closely. It is a little bit like one of those beach balls in the wind: it depends on whether it is the southerly blowing or the northerly blowing as to which end of the beach it rolls. I think that is a little bit like the Leader of the Opposition at the present time: which way the wind blows is which way he rolls. That is what the Australian people have found. They are watching him very, very closely, because we have an election in the next few weeks. The Australian people want strength. I do not think that just the Australian people want that; I think people around the world admire someone who is prepared to stand up and be strong and support and defend their country. I believe that the Prime Minister has done that. There have been some very, very difficult decisions to be made in the past few weeks—some very difficult decisions—and he has stood up and he has been counted. That is what the Australian people are reacting to. In terms of the Labor Party, we do not quite know what policy they might come up with. They do not give us any policies—they do not have any policies. Where are they? We do not see them. We do not hear them. The Labor Party also changes them every fortnight, so we have to look to see what they are today. All of a sudden the Labor Party has changed. It has a different position, because the polls have told them that something different is occurring out there. So they have to have a different position. That is what is happening at the present time. The people are judging that, and they are certainly judging the Leader of the Opposition. They are saying to themselves, `We have a difficult situation. We are under attack from people coming by boat.' There is no doubt about that. We are in a difficult situation, because the world has a financial problem on its hands. Who are the best financial managers in Australia? No doubt the coalition by far, and the people know that.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—Look at Ansett. Look at HIH. You killed them.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—We might talk about Ansett and we might talk about the fact that it is a New Zealand company. We might also talk about the fact—10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)— We might stick to the bill that we are debating as well.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—Mr Deputy Speaker, I would be very pleased to debate this any time you like, but at the present time I would have to say that the people of Australia are judging the Labor Party and they are judging them harshly. The reason they are judging them harshly is that they do not have any leadership; they do not have any national spirit; they do not want to support the country. (Time expired)13:34:0030979Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—As we know—and I will make some comments about the abysmal contribution by the member for Page in a short while—the pieces of legislation that we are debating today are the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001, the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions Bill) 2001 and the Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001. The two bills that I want to pay particular reference to in the substance of my contribution will be the first two, the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001 and the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions Bill) 2001. Before I do that, I want to make some observations about the contribution by the member for Page. I notice that he scuttled out of the chamber very rapidly after he finished his speech. He said that somehow or other the Labor Party had changed its position substantially on the issue of the border protection legislation over the past fortnight. I am not sure what bill the member for Page has been reading, or whether or not he had the opportunity to read the legislation that was offered up for us to reject at the last sittings of the federal parliament, or whether he has even bothered to contemplate the detail of the bill that is before us today. Instead of trying to take cheap shots at the Leader of the Opposition, had the member for Page bothered to analyse the two pieces of legislation he would have learned that there is a substantial difference between that which was offered to this chamber a fortnight or so ago and that which we are debating this afternoon. We need to understand that that initial piece of legislation was opposed by the Labor Party for very good reasons. The Leader of the Opposition had the unanimous support of the Labor caucus in his opposition to that legislation, because it would have been bad law and it would not have served the purpose that the government was intent on producing. From our point of view, it was absolutely insupportable. Any reasonable analysis of the legislation would have members understand that fact.Of course, the legislation was given the title `Border protection'. What has gone out into the ether is that the Labor Party, for some reason or other, has opposed border protection legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth, as can be seen by the support we are giving this piece of legislation today. The difference is what needs to be understood. The initial piece of legislation was panicky and its consequences had not been properly thought through. It sought to override all Australian laws without qualification. All other Australian laws would have been overridden by this piece of legislation, without qualification. It created unnecessary, unreviewable and absolute discretion irrespective of the safety of people. It lacked guidance as to when and how decisions would made to remove vessels or persons. It allowed people to be returned to unseaworthy vessels and without the identification of safe havens. It was so broad that it would have applied to Australian citizens and Australian vessels.There are no circumstances under which the Labor Party, thinking about the good of the Australian nation, would have contemplated supporting that piece of legislation. It was dropped on us at the last minute. The Prime Minister no doubt expected us to support it, because he thought wrongly that we had the same unprincipled approach to these matters that he has exhibited, and we rightly rejected it. In this new piece of legislation the government has acknowledged the concerns of the Labor Party and that our original opposition to the bill was in fact correct. The new legislation specifically acknowledges the role of the High Court under the Constitution in respect of actions taken under the laws. It permits the use of force in detaining vessels only when it is necessary and reasonable to do so and when the officers concerned act in good faith. It specifically prohibits the return of a person to a vessel if it is unsafe to do so. It provides that all action must be taken within the existing legal frameworks and constraints in the migration and customs acts. In addition—and this is the part of the legislative package that I want to concentrate on today—it excises a number of Australian territories from the migration zone for purposes related to unauthorised arrivals. Specifically, it refers to Christmas Island, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and other external territories prescribed by regulation, and any island prescribed by regulation that forms part of a state or territory. The reason I want to concentrate on this element of the legislation is that I am the federal member for the Northern Territory. The federal seat of the Northern Territory includes both Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. It is with some reluctance that I support this aspect of the legislation. That reluctance comes primarily from the fact that there has been absolutely no consultation whatsoever with the communities of Christmas Island or the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.For the benefit of the chamber, I say it is true that Christmas Island is a long way away from the mainland. It is very close to Java. Indeed, the flight time from Christmas Island to Jakarta on a jet is about an hour and 20 minutes. If you travel a further hour and a half south-west into the Indian Ocean, you will come to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. What do we know about these two places, apart from the fact that they are territories of this Commonwealth? We know that they have small populations. We know that in the case of Cocos there are only roughly 600 people. This is a coral atoll with a number of islands. One of the two principal islands is Home Island, on which approximately 470 or 480 people live. These people were indentured labourers of the Clunies-Ross family when the Clunies-Ross family were producing copra, which comes from coconut. Cocos (Keeling) Islands was a mandated territory from the United Nations which transferred to Australia in the early eighties. The other island is an administrative island—these places are very small in area— where about 140 people live, primarily administrative staff and other employees on the island committee. That is where the major school is situated. It was a quarantine station and is very sensitive ecologically. There is very little infrastructure, but very proud Australians live in this community, as with Christmas Island. As a lot of us know, Christmas Island is another place which had a sad history of exploitation of Asian labour, where over almost a century the British Phosphate Commission exploited indentured labour from Singapore and Malaya. It was a community that became part of Australia in 1958 when it was transferred from the United Kingdom. Again, it has a current population of around 1,800 people of whom 60 per cent or thereabouts are of Chinese origin, 21 per cent are of Malay origin and 19 per cent are Anglo-Australian. What we need to comprehend about these two communities is that they are very isolated. They do not have major infrastructure and they have been treated continually with contempt by this government over a range of issues, this being but the last of them. Although the Tampa was moored off Christmas Island and the community of Christmas Island demonstrated their support for those poor souls on the Tampa, they were keen to facilitate their departure off the vessel and to accommodate them on the island and they have indicated their preparedness, despite hardship, to accommodate people to assist in the processing of people who are seeking entry into Australia on these vessels.We all understand the necessity to control the inflow of illegal immigrants. Of that there is no question. We all comprehend the necessity to work out a negotiated arrangement with our friends in Indonesia about how we might address at least part of the source of the problem as it emanates from the Indonesian community. Yet we know that Australian diplomacy in this area—at least over the past 18 months—has been an abysmal failure. We have seen a continuing flow of people coming through the Indonesian islands and on to Australia either through Ashmore and Cartier or directly down to the north-west of Western Australia and even into Darwin or currently through Christmas Island. More recently, a group of people from Sri Lanka came through the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Now we are confronted with a problem because of the inadequacy of the Australian government's performance in the area. We are confronted with a problem which the Australian community wants us to resolve. What we have done here is say to a particular group of Australians, `You will wear a particular responsibility in relation to these issues. We won't bother talking to you about it. We won't bother sitting down with you and saying that we have a problem we would like you to help us resolve.' What do they hear about it? They hear about it in the media. They hear in press statements from various government ministers that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands will be excised and Christmas Island will be excised. When I communicated with the people of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands after these matters were portrayed in the media and asked them for their reaction, they said, `What the hell is going on? Why hasn't anyone bothered to come and talk to us? Why is it that we're expected to be treated differently from other Australians?'Prior to yesterday I was fearful, as were the people on Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, about what this legislation might entail. I was fearful, as they were, as to what it would mean for Australians living in these two communities. At least in this regard my fear has been dealt with by the way in which the legislation has been drafted. Despite the fact that those people were not consulted and despite the fact that they have major concerns about the impact of the legislation in their communities, their rights as Australian citizens will not be directly affected in terms of the Migration Act as a result of this legislation, because the legislation refers to those people who are unauthorised and who arrive at those communities as offshore entry persons. After this decision was taken, I spoke in our caucus room about this matter. At my request, the Leader of the Opposition wrote a letter to Mr Ruddock, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. In that letter he said, among other things:The Member for the Northern Territory, Warren Snowdon, whose electorate includes the Indian Ocean Territories of Christmas and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands has been in regular contact with members of both communities over recent days. Community members on both islands have raised a number of concerns. I write to pass on these concerns and seek assurance that they will be addressed. 1. The communities are dismayed that there has been no attempt to properly inform or consult them about the nature, purpose and detail of the proposed. This consultation needs to have regard to the fact that for many of the citizens and permanent residents of these communities English is a second language.That is certainly the case. The letter goes on:2. There is concern that there appears to have been no assessment of the impact that the proposed legislation will have on these island communities. Residents of both communities want to know what exactly will the legislation mean for them.They are still yet to find out. It continues:3. There is a desire to know how many of those who would be defined as an “offshore entry person” it is anticipated will be located on the islands and for how long.They do not know that either. It goes on:The communities would like to know in detail what the Commonwealth now proposes to do when unauthorised arrivals arrive in an excised area.They do not know that either. It continues:4. The communities are anxious that their island life be preserved and not be put at risk by the legislation you propose. This is especially the case of residents on Home Island in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. A unique Australian community with its Kampong lifestyle. 5. The communities want assurance that as Australian citizens their rights will not be affected by the legislation being proposed.At least we know that that last point has been addressed and that those rights will not be impinged upon. However, we need to understand that these residents have requested to be consulted. They have requested that the minister, Mr Ruddock, visit them to undertake these consultations. Indeed, in public meetings held last week they asked for the legislation to be delayed until those consultations had taken place.I understand that that is not going to happen. I say this to the government: it is on your shoulders to go and talk to these communities. You then have the responsibility to tell the Australian community and the Australian parliament exactly what you propose to do in relation to unauthorised entrants who come to Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Is it a fact that you intend to create detention facilities in both communities? If so, what do you intend to do and how many people do you intend to accommodate? How much money do you expect it would cost? What infrastructure will you be putting in place? Do you understand the lack of infrastructure that currently exists in these two island communities? Are you aware of the need for better communications infrastructure to service the needs of, I anticipate, some thousands of people over a period of time? What impact socially, economically and environmentally would an influx of large numbers of people have on these island communities? None of these matters has been confronted. None of these matters has been answered. The Labor Party supports this legislation. We understand the need to address the failures of this government in terms of dealing with immigration matters. We understand the need to ensure that people who desire to come here as queue jumpers should not be allowed to do so. But we must deal with Australians fairly. What is going to be next? Will it be Melville Island off the Northern Territory's coast? Perhaps it will be the Abrolhos Islands. Perhaps it will be Groote Eylandt in the Gulf of Carpentaria. What will be next as people who seek to come to Australia jump the queue and make their way in unseaworthy vessels to destinations which are part of the Australian community? Will it eventually be the case that we will be defining the migration zone as only the Australian mainland and Tasmania? I need to know the answer to those questions, and the Australian community has a right to know the answer to those questions. What the communities of the Christmas and Cocos islands need to know today is how they are going to be properly dealt with. The Christmas Island community have said that they were prepared to contemplate a processing centre on their community, but they also said that they did not want a detention centre. If what is being proposed now is that they will have a processing centre, how long will people be expected to remain under these new arrangements on their community? How many people will there be? There is a responsibility upon the government to come clean. It should come clean with the people of the Christmas and Cocos islands and have them understand what obligations the government is putting upon them. It should have them understand what the government is prepared properly to do and what it is proposing to budget for in terms of improving infrastructure on their island communities to accommodate what we are now doing in terms of policy as a result of this legislation in this parliament. We have a responsibility as a nation to say to these Australians, `We are having proper regard to your needs and concerns. We will consult. We will make sure that the concerns which you have properly expressed will be properly addressed.' To date it has not happened. There is a responsibility on the government, and particularly on the minister, to make sure that it happens now. 13:53:0030983Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—It is with some pride that I rise to speak on the Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001 and the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001 and the consequential provisions bill supporting it. I support these bills, as do the vast majority of my constituents in the electorate of Forrest in the south-west of Western Australia. It is a matter of record that I supported the Border Protection Bill in its first form, and it is of some regret to me that the Labor Party could not stand with the government and support that legislation. I have been overwhelmed by the support of the people of the south-west, who have emphatically told me they support the government's principled decision and the Border Protection Bill 2001, along with other legislation that the Labor Party had refused to support. I thought it was particularly important that the parliament stand together so that we could in a united, firm and swift way send a message to the people smugglers that Australia would not be a soft touch. As a nation we have a sovereign right to protect our nation's borders. Not only do we have a right; as a parliament we have a duty to protect our borders. We are also charged with the responsibility of protecting Australian citizens. This has been brought home forcefully, regretfully, by recent events in the United States. The reason we detain illegal immigrants is so that we can establish identity and check health, character and security issues. These processes are carried out in association with Australian and overseas intelligence agencies. People are not released into the Australian community if they are a security concern. It is a fact that in Australia we currently have in detention 11 people who have failed to clear the security test or have been screened out because of concerns about their previous activities in relation to crimes against humanity and worse. Australia cannot afford to throw open the doors and allow in anyone without proper checks or process. By the same token, we also cannot allow people smugglers who profit from Australia's generosity to hijack our immigration program. South-west residents have no bones to pick with those who undergo proper process to come to Australia and seek our protection via proper channels. We cannot abide by people bypassing other countries where they would be safe—countries such as Malaysia or Indonesia—to come to Australia by boat, presumably because they think they will get a better outcome here.It is abhorrent to constituents that an illegal immigrant can bypass the legitimate queue, that they can purchase a ticket to Malaysia through Indonesia with their identity papers intact, pay boat people some $10,000 and board a boat, and just because they land on Ashmore Reef, Cocos (Keeling) Islands or Christmas Island with no proof of identity have a much better than even chance of gaining entry to Australia. I want to take the opportunity to put on record my admiration for the excellent work the Navy and Customs are doing in patrolling our borders. I want every man and woman aboard our vessels to know that the south-west communities of Western Australia support them 100 per cent. It has been well publicised that the Navy has intercepted a number of unauthorised vessels in the last week. I wonder whether these boats, loaded with queue jumpers and economic refugees, would have set sail at all if the Labor Party had not sacrificed Australia's national interest. Would we, for example, be seeing these unprecedented numbers if the Labor Party had accepted the view of the government and that of the majority of hardworking decent Australians and supported the government's numerous attempts to try to protect our borders?These bills also excise Ashmore Reef and the islands of Christmas and Cocos from Australia's migration zone. There is no doubt that, because of these islands' close proximity to Indonesia, the organised crime gangs— people smugglers—took the easy way out and only ferried their passengers there, safe in the knowledge that it was far enough for the illegals to make a refugee claim while the people smugglers pocketed the money. Excising these islands from the migration zone will mean that people smugglers will have to use more resources, better boats and better equipment to carry their illegal queue-jumping cargo all the way to the Australian mainland. It will mean that people smugglers will no longer be able to make the relatively easy, cost-effective 350-kilometre journey to Christmas Island but will be required to travel an extra 1,000 kilometres to make it to the Australian mainland. This, hopefully, will take the pressure off Christmas Islanders who, every time another boatload is arriving, have to race down to the local store to buy up on food, because it is not easy to get supplies on Christmas Island. Every time a boatload arrives at Christmas Island, residents lose the use of their recreational centre. And given that some illegal immigrants have, in the past, tested positive to typhoid and tuberculosis, among other diseases, it does introduce to the community some elements of risk. This is a positive and practical initiative which, combined with other measures, should make a difference. It also sends a very strong message to the international criminal gangs that Australia means business.As I said at the beginning, it is with some pride that I support these bills. These bills are a product of a government and a minister who are prepared to make the tough decisions and take a tough stand to protect Australia's interests and our borders when that is called for. In these uncertain times, I am proud to be a member of a government that is prepared to stand up for Australia and Australians.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted.Questions Without Notice309843098414:00:0030984Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you seen the Qantas plan, which was announced today, to deal with the Ansett crisis by bringing into Australia foreign planes with foreign crews? Isn't it a fact that 16,000 Ansett workers remain ready, willing and able to get Australian planes into the air to deal with this crisis? Prime Minister, why won't you insist upon an Australian solution to this crisis: Australian planes flown by Australian crews?84GWilkie, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan! The Prime Minister has the call, and he will be heard in silence.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am not being assisted by members on my right, and neither is the Prime Minister.30984Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I learned of this proposal from Qantas last night.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—And what did you say?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect! The Prime Minister has the call.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—This is outrageous! 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I learned of this proposal last night, and within an hour of learning of it I told both the chairman and the managing director of Qantas that it was unacceptable to the government that foreign aircraft and crews should be brought in while there were Australian aircraft and Australian crews ready and willing. I say immediately to the Leader of the Opposition that, having learned of it, I actually did something about it on behalf of the Australian people. I did more: I had a lengthy discussion with the chairman and the managing director of Qantas. In the course of that discussion, the chief executive of Qantas indicated to me that there were three things that were having an effect on a speedy conclusion of the wet leasing arrangements that Qantas wanted to negotiate with the liquidator. The first of those related to airline insurance, which has obviously been complicated by the tragic events in the United States. I indicated to the chief executive of Qantas that, subject to establishing that the exposure to the Commonwealth and therefore the taxpayer would not be unacceptably high, the government itself might be willing to assist on an interim basis in relation to insurance. At the present time, officers of my department and of the Department of Transport and Regional Services are investigating internationally the arrangements which are being made by the British government and the United States government in relation to insurance arrangements concerning their airlines. Clearly, I cannot expose, and the government will not expose, the Australian taxpayer to an unacceptable risk, but that matter is continuing to be investigated. The second matter that was raised with me by the chief executive of Qantas is that one of the difficulties being encountered by the administrator was that some of the union interests were indicating that the Ansett crews were not willing to accept Qantas working conditions.Honourable members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I can only repeat what I was told by the managing director of Qantas. Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It is quite evident that there are members on my left who do not believe that I will impose the standing orders as I should. The member for Prospect has already been warned. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I was informed by the managing director of Qantas that that was the second difficulty. The third difficulty related to the question of arrangements being made between the administrator and the lessors of the aircraft. I was informed just before question time commenced that the administrator and Qantas were working to resolve these difficulties as speedily as possible. It is my hope that, if they can be resolved, it will be possible for those wet lease arrangements to be put into effect within the shortest possible time.We do not want additional foreign aircraft and crews brought into this country while there are aircraft and crews ready and willing to operate. I have made that very clear to Qantas, although Qantas felt that the time delay involved in the wet leasing arrangements being concluded with the administrator meant that bringing in the foreign aircraft was a better short-term solution. I am disturbed at the delay in these wet leasing arrangements, and I would ask the administrator, the unions, Qantas and everybody involved, if they are serious about finding a solution rather than scoring political points, to actually cooperate and find a solution. We are prepared to cooperate, provided there is not an unacceptable insurance exposure. I make that clear. I am not prepared to expose the Australian taxpayer to an unacceptable risk in relation to insurance. We are in the process of finding out what the British and the United States governments are doing, but so far, far from the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that we are in some way indifferent to foreign aircraft being brought in while there are Australian aircraft and Australian crews available to work, the opposite is the case, and I have made that perfectly clear to Qantas.3098614:07:0030986Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister provide advice to Australians planning to travel to the Middle East and to South-West Asia? What action is the Australian government taking to protect the welfare of Australians who are in that part of the world, particularly in Pakistan and Afghanistan?30986Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Hume for his question and for the concern he shows for the welfare of Australians who might be travelling, or who are intending to travel. Clearly, at this extraordinarily difficult time in the international community, it is especially important that my department and I inform Australian travellers of the potential risks to them wherever they may be thinking of going or wherever they are. In order to make sure that we have the best available information, not only are we drawing on the resources of our own embassies, high commissions and consulates around the world, we are also working very closely with our traditional consular partner countries, the United States, Britain, Canada and New Zealand. In the light of the events in the United States on 11 September, the government urges all Australians contemplating travel to the Middle East or to South-West and Central Asia to review their travel plans. If they do decide to proceed with travel, they should be extremely careful in doing so. Travellers should avoid any large public gatherings or demonstrations and keep themselves well informed of developments that might in one way or another affect their safety. Anybody who is thinking of travelling to Afghanistan or Pakistan at this time should immediately postpone their travel. Moreover, notwithstanding encouraging developments between Israel and the Palestinians in recent days, people travelling more broadly in the Middle East should be aware that tensions in that region remain very high following the attacks on the United States.Last week we advised all Australians in Afghanistan to depart the country, and I am pleased to report that all those known to us were able to do so as part of a United Nations evacuation operation. However, I remind the House that we have two Australians, Peter Bunch and Diana Thomas, who remain in prison in Afghanistan along with colleagues from the United States and Germany. We remain very concerned about their welfare. They are subject to a trial in the Taliban supreme court. As I understand it, that trial is not complete. We are doing everything we can to keep in touch with them through a locally engaged consular agent employed in Kabul by the American, German and Australian governments. Obviously, in our case, we are focusing very much on the welfare of those two Australians. We have received assurance that both those Australians continue to be treated well.In answer to the honourable member's question, let me say that yesterday I instructed my department to urge all Australians in Pakistan to consider leaving the country. The high commission in Pakistan is circulating this advice to the Australian community through its system of consular wardens.In conclusion, I thank the honourable member for his question and I remind all Australians that this is a very tense and very difficult time internationally, and to be especially careful if they are in, or considering visiting, anywhere in South-West Asia or in the Middle East.Distinguished Visitors3098610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon, the Northern Territory Chief Minister, the Hon. Clare Martin, and the Northern Territory Minister for Industries and Business, the Hon. Paul Henderson. Opposition members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I remind members on my left of the courtesies normally extended to the chair while I am on my feet. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.Honourable members—Hear, hear! Questions Without Notice309873098714:12:0030987Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. I refer to your statement that the Ansett collapse was just `a little blip' for the Australian tourism industry and that the tourism industry was running around like Henny Penny complaining that the sky is falling in. Minister, do you seriously believe that the cancellation of 3,500 beds in Victoria in just one day is a little blip? Why won't you stop the denial, face your responsibilities and follow Steve Bracks's lead by acting now to address the growing tourism crisis?83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—When are you going back to New Zealand, Jackie?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler!Government members interjecting—83ZIrwin, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler is warned! CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs Gallus—Throw her out.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—We never said anything racist.DK6Hockey, Joe, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hindmarsh, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation and the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation are all warned! Had the member for Fowler not been provoked as she was, she would have been obliged to excuse herself from the House.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I ask that the member withdraw the comment.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat, and I will deal with the matter. I did not hear the comment made by the member for Fowler—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If those on my right would exercise just a little courtesy to the chair, I might be able to finish my statement. I did not hear the comment made by the member for Fowler. I would expect her, as obliged by the standing orders for members, to withdraw the comment if it was offensive.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Mr Speaker, you were correct: I was provoked. I apologise to the House.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Fowler.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order under standing order 144 on the question. This style of question which the Leader of the Opposition commenced engaging in yesterday clearly contains debate and clearly contains argument, and it should be ruled out of order.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the question was a very orthodox question. The compelling part of it was that it quoted the minister. I understand that people might find that derisory or offensive, but it is perfectly within the standing orders.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will not advance an argument. He will address the point of order.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—The leader has quoted the minister twice. They are outrageous remarks, but they are legitimate quotations.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The member for Menzies makes a valid point of order. However, this is not a new experience for this House in the last week or even in my speakership. The experience of argument in questions has applied for some time. I will allow the question to stand.30987Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—I have waited three years for this: a question on tourism from the ALP.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The same courtesy that I expect to be extended to the member for Fowler, I expect to be extended to the minister.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—Since I have been the minister for tourism, we have seen an incredible time in the tourism industry. We have seen record growth. Last year we saw an excellent year for international tourism.7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume her seat. The member for Prospect will excuse herself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A. The member for Prospect then left the chamber.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—In one week we have had an airline crash into the World Trade Centre, killing nearly 5,000 people and affecting people's confidence in flying, and we have seen a domestic airline put in the hands of an administrator.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition!GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—This is a challenge, and the only thing that the ALP can do is run around like Henny Penny saying, `The sky is falling in.' That was my quote. The ALP has nothing to contribute to this debate, except to say, `The sky is falling in. It is a catastrophe; it is cataclysmic, it is devastation.'BV5Adams, Dick, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons is warned!GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—The tourism industry in Australia is strong; we have strong entrepreneurial people. We came through the Asian crisis, and why? Because this government delivers good economic fundamentals. We just delivered to the Australian people $12 billion worth of tax cuts. We have record low interest rates, which is putting cash in the hip-pockets of Australians. Where are they going to travel? They are going to travel in Australia, except the ALP wants them to stay at home: `There will no flights; you can't afford it; stay home.' In fact, it indulges in a bit of Kiwi bashing, as well—our one bright hope; our leading market. We receive 700,000 tourists a year from New Zealand, and you do not want them to come. That New Zealand market is more important now than ever, and we certainly want them coming here on Air New Zealand or on any airline we can get. Let's get them here; let's get that tourist dollar spent here in Australia. This is not a laughing matter, but it is a laughing matter for the ALP.84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Bass!GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—They sit there and laugh. That is their only response. This government in the meantime gets aircraft back in the sky. We have capacity back; we are servicing scheduled routes. Things are happening, and we can come through this with a bit of bipartisan support, with a bit of talking things up. The fundamentals are there. We just need a lot of confidence out there. We need to be saying that Australia is a safe place, that it is a great place to invest and that it is a great time to take a holiday.Opposition members—More!83XGibbons, Steve, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Bendigo!3098814:22:0030988Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is to the Minister for Defence. I refer to upcoming Defence events, among them in particular the Amberley Air Show in the electorate of Blair. What is the impact on these events of recent decisions regarding the operational readiness of the Australian defence forces?30988Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I thank the member for Blair and place on the record my appreciation of the very strong representative work that he does on behalf of the Defence establishments within his electorate. He is a very strong advocate for Defence in this place, and that is very important for the people within his constituency. Obviously the Australian Defence Force has been looking at its various commitments in the times ahead. I am asked what impact any examination of commitments has brought about. I can advise the House that late yesterday I had advice from the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Barrie. That advice was in regard to both the Royal Australian Air Force's 80th anniversary Amberley air show and the centenary naval review.I advise the House that, on the advice of the CDF, the government has decided to cancel both of those events. The Amberley air show was to be held at RAAF Amberley in Ipswich, Queensland, from Friday. The centenary naval review was to be held on and around Sydney Harbour from Tuesday, 2 October to Monday, 8 October. Obviously substantial support for the RAAF air show was to be provided by the US military; in fact, their provision of support was to be a centrepiece of that air show. The government has advice that that military support is no longer available, and that is a principal reason for the Amberley cancellation. In respect of the centenary naval review, that decision has been taken by the CDF. That advice has been provided by him in the light of the RAN's involvement in existing operations and the potential for other operations in the future. Needless to say, we do have major naval commitments in the north of Australia to assist other federal agencies with the government's initiatives for intercepting illegal immigrants. I should advise the House that, in making these decisions, there has been no change in the government's publicly stated assessment of the security situation in Australia. It is also important to say that these decisions in respect of Amberley are not related in any way to CHOGM, which as members will know will proceed.I do say to the member who asked the question that the we are obviously disappointed that we are not able to proceed, and we appreciate that this will have an effect on those wishing to go to both. I think many members of the House were particularly looking forward to the naval review, which was to be a great event. We are disappointed that the events will not be proceeding, and we appreciate the impact that that may have on local businesses that were looking forward to those great occasions. When all is said and done, and when all the circumstances are taken into account, we believe that it is right and proper to give precedence to operational requirements over ceremonial matters. I have taken the advice of the CDF. That decision about those two events is obviously effective immediately.3098914:26:0030989Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Minister, I also refer to your statement today that the Ansett collapse was just a little blip for the Australian tourism industry. Minister, did you also say the following:What we're out there doing is saying “the flights are there, the availability is there, the seats are there, don't cancel anything”.Minister, are you aware that, according to the Queensland Travel Centre, there is just one seat left to Cairns over the whole of the school holiday period that will commence at the end of this month? Given that the flights are not there, the availability is not there and the seats are not there, why won't you stop the denial, face your responsibilities and act now to address the growing tourism crisis?30989Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—The Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services have been working overtime to get solutions to the private enterprise collapse of one company in the tourism industry. We are looking at cabotage rights for foreign carriers, we are looking at wet leasing in order to get flights happening, we are looking at Qantas and Virgin ramping up their availability of flights, and we are looking at direct financial assistance to operators to get back the capacity that was there with Ansett. We have been working bloody hard at this, and nothing has stopped our resolve to get that capacity back there. All we hear from the opposition are pretty lame contributions to the debate. There is no bipartisanship on what is a national issue—no bipartisan stance on it at all—but simply Henny Penny.3098914:28:0030989Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Minister, the insidious industry of people-smuggling is a growing worldwide problem. Minister, would you inform the House about international measures Australia is taking to send a strong signal to people smugglers that we will not condone their actions? Do people smugglers portray events in Australia in a way that suits their purposes?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am sure the minister is aware of the obligations he has under the standing orders not to anticipate debate on legislation. 30990Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Let me say that, in relation to the issues that the honourable member has raised, it is important that we send a very clear signal to those people who are involved in trafficking unlawful entrants to Australia. The fact is that they are criminals. They are trading in human beings and it is important to send a very clear red light to those who are involved in that activity. It is important that our message is clear and unambiguous. Let me make that very clear: it is important that it is unambiguous. I say that because we know the people smugglers are very conscientiously following debates here. When there was a single judge decision in relation to the Tampa, it was portrayed as a green light to them and the people they were seeking to traffic to Australia.We have implemented a range of measures. I tabled a paper yesterday that outlined fully the way in which the government is working with other countries to minimise the outflows from other areas in which people might leave. We have been organising to assist very strongly the UNHCR in bringing together countries, hopefully as early as October but certainly not as late as next year or the year after, to focus on some of the problems that are being faced in areas like Afghanistan. We are working with countries en route to disrupt the smugglers' operations and to intercept their clients while they might be travelling towards Australia. It is important to see those efforts that we have been taking internationally together with the domestic matters that we will be debating at another time. But it is important that the message that we send is not ambiguous. Part of the problem is that ambiguity does arise for a number of reasons. It arises when people see legislation that might deal with particular issues opposed, and even when they see it later supported.Opposition members interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Let me make it very clear that we welcome the belated support from Labor to a bipartisan approach on this matter. But, at the moment, what is being said is that it is being supported because `we think it is now weaker'. That is the message.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer you to the standing order concerning anticipation of debate. This is classically the debate that is being undertaken by members on this side of the House during the debate that is currently under way around the legislation that is before us, a debate on which one of their backbenchers could not even speak for another two minutes to get us to question time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is not making a point of order.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Yes, I am.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business in his latter remarks bore no relevance to the point of order. The minister understands the obligation not to anticipate debate. I was listening closely to his answer. I concede that I thought he was sailing closer to the wind than would normally be tolerated, but he had not in my view anticipated debate or I would have interrupted him.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I will just go on to say that there have been mixed messages in relation to this matter, and it comes from the approach that was taken in relation to judicial review, not a matter that is being debated in this House. The fact is that, in relation to the measures that we introduced three years ago, there has been continuous opposition, but at this point when it becomes important they say, `We are now prepared to look at the judicial review bill, with amendments.' We will debate that issue in another place because the amendments, of course, would again undermine the purpose of that legislation. But what I am most concerned about are some comments that were made today in the Financial Review. The Financial Review quotes one senior Labor frontbencher on this issue as saying:People had got to the point where we were cheesed off with being wedged—and we'll fix it when we are in government.What does that mean? It means that there will never be a difference of view on immigration issues.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—We won't play wedge politics; that's what it means—like you do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is defying the chair. 0J4Mr RUDDOCK—No. What it means is that `we will fix that when we are government'. What the Labor Party have to make very clear is that they do not mean what I read it to mean—that is, that they intend, if they were in government, to undermine the messages and the measures that we have put in place. That is what they are seeking to say: `Just wait, when we get into government we will be unwinding these measures.' That is the message that is involved. That is what is being said when you go out briefing the press in that way.3099114:36:0030991Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Minister, I refer to your statement that the Ansett crisis is `just a little blip' and that the problems are only `coming from commentators' and they are just `anecdotal'. Minister, is that still your view, or do you now acknowledge the real crisis facing the Australian tourism industry? If so, what will be the impact on that industry of the new tax you have proposed to impose upon it, the only initiative so far flagged by this government in relation to this matter?30991Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—All I can take from that question is that somehow the ALP opposes the payments to the Ansett workers. Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister is entitled to be heard in silence, as are all other members.84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—This government has secured entitlements for workers in situations such as what has happened with Ansett—which is a lot more than was done in the 13 years under Labor. How many companies did we see go to the wall in the late eighties and early nineties, and how many of them were paid their entitlements? We have been working strong and hard—5I4McMullan, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business clearly does not believe that the Speaker has authority. He is now warned!GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—We have 70 to 80 leaders from the tourism industry at our annual summit here in Canberra, and they have heard from many ministers on this side. We are engaged in debate and we are setting up a working party to start quantifying—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order and it goes to relevance. My question is: what is the impact of this new tax on the tourism industry? She won't answer it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister is being entirely relevant, and she will continue.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—This working party will be working with me on a daily basis over the next few weeks and will report directly to the Prime Minister. And I know one thing: that working party will not be coming to the government and saying, `We want higher interest rates,' they will not be saying, `We want inflation,' and they will not be saying, `We want a government budget that is so badly blown out'—as it was in 1996—`that we have horrific bank interest rates.' We are at a time when we need good, solid, steady governance and guidance through an issue. May I remind the opposition that, at the moment, the Australian Tourist Commission is at record levels of funding when the states around the country—for all their rhetoric about how much money they will put on the table—have cut funding to tourism marketing by $10 million.3099114:40:0030991Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer provide the House with an update on the state of the world economy following the tragic events in the United States last week? 30991Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Mallee for his question. I can report to the House that, after closing for four days, the New York Stock Exchange has now reopened for two full days of trading. After an initial fall—the largest points fall in one day's trading—the US equities markets appear to have stabilised, with the New York Stock Exchange remaining firm in its second day of trading overnight. Notwithstanding that, it is at its lowest level for some years. The Australian stock market had anticipated falls on Wall Street. It staged a recovery after Wall Street trading and has stabilised over the course of today to around seven per cent below the level it was when the tragic terrorist events took place in New York. In addition to interest rate cuts by central banks which took place two nights ago, overnight interest rates were cut by the Bank of England and by banks in New Zealand, Hong Kong, Korea and Denmark. All of those central banks have acknowledged that this is in part to restore confidence to financial markets as a consequence of the terrorist attacks and the dislocation in New York. As I said yesterday to the House, the world economy is in a very weak state. We have a synchronised downturn in the three centres of world growth: the United States, Japan and Europe. Interest rates in Australia have not been adjusted in response to the events in New York. At its recent board meeting, the Reserve Bank had already eased policy by 25 points. As I indicated yesterday, indicators in Australia have been stronger than in the United States, Europe and Japan. Our second quarter showed a growth of 0.9 per cent, the United States showed essentially no growth in its second quarter, Japan had a contraction of 0.8 per cent, Germany showed no growth, and Canada showed no growth. In our region, Singapore has shown in the last two quarters contractions of 2.8 per cent in each of those quarters—a very significant contraction; and it is similar in Taiwan and those South-East Asian economies which are exposed principally to US exports, particularly in the ICT area.Strength in the Australian domestic economy has given us some insulation against the world downturn. I acknowledge that the member for Mallee's electorate is principally an export electorate, and I can pay tribute to Australia's exporters who, notwithstanding the global downturn, have kept Australian exports strong. This has no doubt been aided by a flexible exchange rate and the competitive state of the Australian dollar. But it has most certainly been aided by taking taxes off exports—something that could only be done as a consequence of tax reform. If we had not had tax reform, if Labor's tax policy were still in place, Labor would be taxing all of the exporters of Australia in the current downturn. One can think how exposed we would have been.Can I also say, because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition gets rather voluble on these sorts of issues: where would Australia be if our budget were still haemorrhaging with $10 billion deficits at a time like now? Yet the drive by this government to put the budget back into surplus was opposed every step of the way by the Australian Labor Party, which not only created the budget problem in Australia but fought to prevent its correction.I would not say that the world economy is out of the woods. We have no experience of a terrorist attack of this dimension and no experience to turn to to look at the outcome it will have in relation to the world economy. The world economy was already weak before this occurred. I can say that the steps that have been taken to strengthen the Australian economy are steps which will put us in much better stead than otherwise would have been the case: a sound budget position; a strengthened debt position, where we have now repaid $60 billion of Labor's debt; low interest rates; an inflation targeting policy; and a new taxation system which has given Australia's exporters a go in world markets and has given them the strength that they need to be able to compete on an equal basis with foreigners who have had that advantage for a very long period of time.3099214:45:0030992Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the fact that the Western world is condemning the Taliban regime in Afghanistan for harbouring Osama bin Laden and for their outrageous treatment of the Afghani people and to the fact that the Australian parliament has unanimously indicated support for any US action against the Taliban. Under these circumstances, why does the Prime Minister continue to show no sympathy to Afghani refugees who have escaped from the barbarity of this very same regime, despite the fact that Australia receives less than one-hundredth of one per cent of the four million Afghani refugees worldwide and that 93 per cent of Afghanis who do arrive in Australia are found to be genuine refugees by our own tribunals? 30993Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the member for Calwell, if my memory serves me correctly, the motion that we passed did not specifically refer to a target group. But clearly there is a lot of evidence of the harbouring of Osama bin Laden by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. There are certainly very strong indications to that effect, and there is a pretty well documented association of bin Laden with terrorist activities, even apart from the latest and most atrocious of terrorist activities for 100 years and certainly within the living experience of anybody in this building today.The honourable member makes a number of assertions which I do not automatically accept. It is true that some people who seek to come to Australia illegally are Afghani. It is also true that many of them are not Afghani. There is some evidence available already that many people on the Tampa were not Afghani. In fact, there is evidence available that a significant number of them were citizens of Pakistan. In any event, what the government is seeking to establish in relation to immigration in this country is a uniform and fair assessment procedure. As the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has pointed out on many occasions, the reality is that the procedures that have thus far applied in Australia have resulted in an infinitely greater number of people being adjudged as entitled to refugee status than is the situation when the principles applied by the UNHCR are adopted. We seek to have a fair and balanced process whereby all of those who are entitled to be considered for the refugee places made available by Australia are judged according to the same standard and not judged according to a softer standard if you can get to Australia illegally but judged by a different standard if you have to go through the UNHCR. That seems to me, and I am pleased to note that at last it also seems to the Labor Party—Government members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Maybe until after the election. It seems to be an approach that the Labor Party themselves, for the time being— at least perhaps for this week—regard as being appropriate. We have sought to have a fair and relatively uniform and balanced approach in relation to refugees.I also take this opportunity to say to the honourable member that this country, on my understanding, on a per capita basis takes more refugees than any country in the world except Canada. Let me say that again: more refugees on a per capita basis than any country in the world except Canada. We are one of eight or nine countries that are willing to take refugees. We have a very long and proud record of taking refugees. I can only say to the honourable member that his interest in this matter is understood—QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. The Prime Minister was asked what he intends to do about Afghani refugees and about sympathy for the very same people—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was clearly being relevant to the question asked.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I do understand the concern of the honourable member in this matter. He has had a longstanding interest in these issues, and I respect the strength of feelings that he genuinely holds on these issues. I do not seek in any way to denigrate him; rather I seek to point out that what we want to do is to apply equally a set of procedures in assessment of people who want refugee status in this country. We do not want a situation where people who come here illegally can be treated more leniently than people who wait their turn. In essence, that is the principle that we have sought to uphold, and we certainly want to apply that as fairly and as humanely as possible to genuine refugees from Afghanistan and genuine refugees from other places.The other point I would make is that the honourable member for Calwell should understand that there is evidence that some people who seek to come here illegally have previously applied for refugee status and their applications have been rejected. That is the reason that they seek to come here illegally. I ask the honourable member to accept that not everybody who seeks to be an illegal immigrant to this country is automatically somebody who can qualify for refugee status. We want to have a fair, balanced and evenly applied assessment procedure, and the legislation—which I am pleased that at long last the Labor Party has indicated that it is going to accept for the time being—will in fact enable that to be facilitated. Distinguished Visitors3099410000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the National Assembly of Vietnam. I was pleased to receive the delegation in my office earlier today. On behalf of the House, I extend to them a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice309943099414:53:0030994St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the current situation regarding regional airline routes previously serviced by Ansett? Would the minister also advise what is being done to move those passengers that are still stranded?30994Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for New England for his question.Opposition members—More services are being brought on, and the government scheme is contributing.4K4Mr ANDERSON—More services are being brought on, and the government scheme is contributing.Opposition members—I advised the House yesterday that 23—4K4Mr ANDERSON—I advised the House yesterday that 23 of the 34—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman is warned!4K4Mr ANDERSON—Someone must be giving him reading lessons. I advised yesterday that 23 of the 34 destinations previously served by Ansett alone—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind all members that this is question time. All members seek to get information from ministers as a result of asking questions. The chair, at least, would like to have an answer to this question. The chair, representing a regional electorate, even has a vested interest in the question, and expects the courtesy that should be extended to all ministers to be extended to the minister. If necessary, I will simply issue a general warning. I have not done so, but I will happily do so if so provoked.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the Deputy Prime Minister's response.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will resume his seat.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I advised the House yesterday that, of the 34 centres around Australia that had previously been serviced exclusively by Ansett or its subsidiaries that no longer had services, 23 were receiving air services under contingency arrangements.Opposition members—Today there are another two coming on stream—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Today there are another two coming on stream: Aerotropics—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker, really! I will do a press conference afterwards.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will continue or I will take action as necessary. Has the minister concluded his answer?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Yes.3099414:56:0030994Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall saying on 2 February 2000 in relation to the workers of your brother's company, National Textiles:I think if I were in their shoes I would feel that I was entitled to every last cent of that redundancy. Will you confirm that, under your Ansett entitlements plan, employees will not recover every last cent of their redundancy payments? Why should Ansett employees feel any less entitled to every last cent of their redundancy payments than were the National Textile workers?HK6Lindsay, Peter, MP84CThompson, Cameron, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Herbert clearly does not want to hear from the Prime Minister, nor does the member for Blair.30995Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will check exactly what I said on that date, but I will go to the second part of the Leader of the Opposition's question. As I recollect it, in the case of National Textiles the federal government put in $2 million for workers' entitlements and the New South Wales government put in $2 million. As a consequence of that, you had the result to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. If any of the state governments of Australia believe that the rest of the redundancy money that individual Ansett employees are entitled to under their industrial arrangements should also be paid, I invite them to put the money on the table to pay them.3099514:58:0030995Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister inform the House what steps the government is taking to protect the entitlements of employees of companies which have gone bust? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies and what would the impact of these policies mean for small businesses and Australian working families?30995Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for McEwen for her question. I am very pleased to have a chance to reiterate that this government is standing shoulder to shoulder with Ansett workers in their hour of need. The government's view is that those workers are owed 100 per cent of their entitlements by Ansett-Air New Zealand. Ansett-Air New Zealand should pay those workers every last cent that they are owed. But, if Ansett-Air New Zealand cannot pay or will not pay, this government guarantees their entitlements. It guarantees 100 per cent of statutory and community standard entitlements. We will pay 100 per cent of unpaid wages, 100 per cent of annual leave, 100 per cent of long service leave, 100 per cent of pay in lieu of notice and 100 per cent of redundancy up to the community standard. On the administrator's estimates, this means that the federal government is standing behind Ansett employees to the tune of nearly $400 million. We are standing behind Ansett employees to the tune, on average, of more than $20,000 for every single employee. The government will extend, broadly speaking, the same protections to all employees who lose entitlements as a result of insolvency.I have been asked about alternative policies. On this subject, as so often on others, the opposition has more angles than Pythagoras, and none of them are acute. Last Thursday the Leader of the Opposition said:We would rather see the workers paid out of the sale proceeds from Sydney airport.The day before no less a person than the member for Batman said:We should put off the sale of Sydney airport. At the very least, there is a serious disagreement inside Labor's house of lords. Last Friday in Martin Place the Leader of the Opposition said:There is a solution. The solution is this: John Howard and this Federal Government agrees to underwrite the administrator—To make the point more vivid, he repeated it. He said:We say this: John Howard you put in place a piece of legislation or an administrative decision which for the next few weeks underwrites the operation of this airline—Just yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said:Nobody has argued that they should prop up or underwrite Ansett.Nobody has argued that except the Leader of the Opposition, the self-proclaimed nobody of the Australian parliament! On Monday, the Leader of the Opposition, blustering away on Radio 2UE, said of the Ansett collapse: This would never have happened under us.Tell that to the workers of Compass! There he was saying:This would never have happened under us.Mike Carlton said:Oh, come on. How would you stop the airline going broke?Listen to this from the Leader of the Opposition:Because we would have intervened and we would have been sitting down at a roundtable jawboning a solution.The Leader of the Opposition has been doing too much jawboning and not enough backboning. We know he has got a jawbone, but he has not got a backbone. That is precisely the problem with the Leader of the Opposition.Opposition members interjecting—83LGillard, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lalor!3099615:04:0030996Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question without notice is to the Prime Minister and refers to the assertions just made by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Prime Minister, are you aware that George Kerry, a customer service team leader who has worked for Ansett for the last 29 years, is presently owed accrued legal entitlements of over $100,000? Isn't it a fact that under your new Ansett package the most Mr Kerry will be able to recover is just over $20,000, just 20 per cent of his legal entitlements, whereas under the Stan Howard scheme he would have received the full 100 per cent? Prime Minister, why shouldn't Ansett employees be angry about your cynical claim to have covered 100 per cent of their entitlements when you have actually left them massively out of pocket?Honourable members interjecting— 84CThompson, Cameron, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Blair!30996Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not know the details of that gentleman, but let us, for the purposes of the question, accept what the member for Brisbane is saying. I accept it for the purposes of the question. I would imagine—and I will stand corrected on this on further examination—that a significant part of the amount is made up of an above community standard redundancy.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—What community standard?ZD4Mr HOWARD—He said, `What community standard?' I would have thought that the industrial relations spokesman for the opposition, somebody who himself has been a unionist— Opposition members interjecting— ZD4Mr HOWARD—If the member for Brisbane wants me to simply take it on notice—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Corio!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I will make some investigation about the details of this particular gentleman's claims. But can I just go back to the kernel of what the minister for employment said: we are guaranteeing all unpaid annual leave, we are guaranteeing all unpaid salary, all salary in lieu of notice and all long service leave, and we are also guaranteeing redundancies of up to eight weeks, which is the community standard. I recognise that there will be some redundancies that will not be met under that arrangement. I recognise that, and I recognised that from the very day—last Friday—when I announced the willingness of the government to assist the Ansett workers.We take the view that if federal taxpayers' money is being put up that is a reasonable approach to take, having in mind our responsibilities to taxpayers. I would remind the member for Brisbane that, in relation to the other company he quoted, the payment made by the federal government was matched by the state government. That is the constant that the member for Brisbane and the Leader of the Opposition completely ignore. I would say again that, if members of the Australian Labor Party believe that the additional redundancies of the Ansett workers should be met by the taxpayers of Australia, I would encourage them to talk to the Premier of New South Wales and I would encourage them to talk particularly to the Premier of Victoria, because Ansett is a company which has been centred in Melbourne, and it is my understanding that, when certain approvals were given some time ago in relation to the foreign ownership exchanges in Ansett, one of the conditions of those approvals was that the company should remain centred in Australia and, effectively, therefore centred in Melbourne. So, if anybody from Victoria on the other side in this House is complaining about the inadequacy of what the government is doing— 83TRudd, Kevin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Griffith.ZD4Mr HOWARD—then I would invite them to have something to say to the Premier of Victoria and to the Premier of New South Wales and, indeed, to all of the other premiers of Australia who may think the scheme is inadequate. I also remind the member for Brisbane that, once payments have been made by the Commonwealth government, we will stand in the shoes of the individual employees and we will seek recovery from Air New Zealand. Of course, everything that we propose to do is without prejudice to the right of individual employees to recover directly from Air New Zealand the difference between what they may claim to be entitled to in relation to their full entitlements and what we have paid. Nothing will stop them from doing that, or us from standing in their shoes and doing that. When you take everything into account, what we are doing is putting $400 million on the table. I might add that the industrial friends of the member for Brisbane would not even allow my minister to tell the Ansett workers that yesterday. They would not even allow it. They are so interested in the Ansett workers—ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Take the leader of the ACTU, who will probably have preselection for a safe Labor seat in the election after next, to join the other former presidents of the ACTU: do you know what she said? She said, `Of course the minister can't speak; this is a political rally.' That is what she had to say. It was a political rally. They did not care about the Ansett workers. They were not interested. The only two people I know of who went to that gathering trying to bring some good news to the workers were the workers' friend, the Minister for Employment Services, and the friend of the tourism industry, the member for Cook. Where is he?CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—He is out meeting the tourism industry.ZD4Mr HOWARD—He is meeting with the tourism industry. I simply say to the member for Brisbane—848Secker, Patrick, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind the member for Barker that the Prime Minister is currently being denied the opportunity to be heard by interjections on my right.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I say in conclusion to the honourable member for Brisbane that, in all of the circumstances, what the federal government has done is to provide a very generous, decent, fair response to the plight of the Ansett workers and that it would be a very good idea if some state Labor governments emulated the example of the New South Wales Labor government in the National Textiles case and matched the payment made by the federal government.3099715:12:0030997Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House of what action can be taken by consumers who have bought Ansett airline tickets with their credit cards?30997Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Pearce, who is very concerned about the welfare of consumers in her electorate, as are a number of other members who, in all cases, have put politics aside to work out the best way to help consumers who may have purchased Ansett airline tickets with their credit cards. Obviously, consumers who have purchased tickets with their credit cards and have not been able to get a flight are legally protected. I have been in contact with the banking Ombudsman, Mr Colin Neave, and I have spoken with the chief executives of the National Australia Bank, Westpac, ANZ and the Commonwealth Bank. All the parties concerned have undertaken to be as helpful as they legally can to those affected by the collapse of Ansett. In short, consumers are entitled to a full refund after one of the following events has occurred: firstly, the time of the pre-paid flight has passed and Ansett has failed to deliver the service; or, secondly, the administrator of Ansett admits that Ansett cannot legally deliver a flight and therefore it will not be able to perform its end of the contract. Under those circumstances, consumers will receive a charge-back—that is, a full refund—to their credit card for the purchase price of their ticket. The difficulty for consumers who are expecting a full refund at the moment and have forward bookings for flights is that, in legal terms, Ansett is still alive. That means there is still a legal possibility that anyone who has bought an airline ticket for a future flight may still receive the service from Ansett. This creates certain obligations. Consumers and their banks have an obligation to pay for something they have already purchased and, in return, Ansett has an obligation to deliver the flight. However, when and if Ansett goes into liquidation and the liquidator is unwilling to provide a refund, the situation changes, and the banks have to give full credit to consumers who have purchased airline tickets with their credit cards.As the situation now stands, if Ansett customers have bought airline tickets with a credit card and the travel date has passed and they did not receive a flight from Ansett, they should contact their bank or their credit card provider and make sure that they are being refunded in full. Consumers obviously must be aware of the terms and conditions of their credit cards. But, if consumers have any concerns about the use of their credit card in the purchase of Ansett airline tickets, they should contact either their credit card provider or the banking industry Ombudsman, who has set up a hotline—and that is 1800 337444. In the meantime, the government will work with the banks and, obviously, with the banking Ombudsman to ensure that anyone who has purchased an Ansett airline ticket, has not received a flight and has used their credit card is appropriately protected.3099815:17:0030998Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, having had the opportunity to check, will you now confirm your statement yesterday that the Ansett entitlements scheme will only apply to employees of Ansett and its wholly owned subsidiaries? Doesn't this mean that it will not extend to Gate Gourmet, a catering company contracted to Ansett that is not one of its subsidiaries but which has now closed down? What arrangements have you made to assist the 800 employees of Gate Gourmet who will now be out of a job, including Peter Campbell, an employee with 20 years service?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan knows—84GMr WILKIE—Will you guarantee protection of 100 hundred per cent—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan!84GMr WILKIE—of his legal entitlements— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan!84GMr WILKIE—that are presently worth about $72,000?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan! The member for Swan must be aware that, if the chair draws his attention, he is obliged to at least cease speaking and listen to the chair. The standing orders clearly provide that a name should only be included in a question when necessary to add to the general understanding of that question. In that instance, the question was clearly understood without the individual being named.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a question that is clearly making the point—it is the same question that you allowed from the member for Brisbane—that this individual's circumstances—I am aware of the standing orders, Mr Speaker—and particular situation are what make the question pertinent. It is the particular circumstances of this person. Not only is it clearly within the standing orders but also it is consistent with the last question you allowed and with hundreds of others which every Speaker has allowed.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I understand that he wants to make the point that the individual is aware of the fact that he would be named. The Manager of Opposition Business will nonetheless resume his seat. I am well aware that the Manager of Opposition Business is familiar with the standing orders from cover to cover. But others listening may not be aware of the fact that standing order 144 says: Questions should not contain—(a) statements of facts or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated;I had no doubt that this could be authenticated. I deemed it was not strictly necessary to render the question intelligible. It has been allowed from time to time, and I have allowed it from time to time. It just seemed appropriate in this instance to indicate that the member for Swan's question stood on its merit without the individual being named. I have allowed the question to stand. I see no reason for the present level of indignation. I call the Prime Minister.30999Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the member for Swan, my recollection of what I said yesterday is that it was confined to wholly owned subsidiaries of Ansett. The company you mention is not in that category and therefore the employees of that company, if that company goes into liquidation, will not get the benefit of the Ansett scheme. They will of course get the benefit of the government's scheme, which is 1,000 per cent more generous than the Labor scheme.3099915:20:0030999Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Can the minister inform the House of progress in the implementation of the employer support payments scheme, which provides payments to employers of reservists when they release an employee for additional training?30999Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Forrest for his question and acknowledge his background in small business. Many people on this side of the House do have a very strong background in small business and certainly have a great deal of interest in the operation of this government's initiative to protect the reservists' jobs when they go on deployment as well as to support the employers who release those employee reservists to go away on deployment or for training.Yesterday marked a milestone in that defence reserve policy when here in this parliament we were able to acknowledge the first recipient of a payment under the defence reserve support payment. Yesterday here in the parliament, the Director of South Eastern Trucks and Ag from Warragul in Victoria, Phillip Reeves, was present to share in this very important and, I believe, historic moment. South Eastern Trucks and Ag is the first company in Australia to benefit from the Commonwealth government's employer support payment. It acknowledges that, during deployment and training of a reservist, there may be hardships faced by an employer. It is important that we acknowledge that through this payment.Corporal John Bailey, an employee of South Eastern Trucks and Ag for 28 years, has been deployed to East Timor. He is the supervisor of the Force Logistics Squadron in Dili. During the ceremony yesterday we were able to view a video of Corporal Bailey at work with the Force Logistics Squadron in Dili. I think we all feel a great sense of pride in Defence Force personnel whether they are reservists on full-time deployment or full-time Defence Force personnel. Corporal Bailey knows that, as a result of this legislation which is an initiative of this government, his job will be protected and when he comes home after deployment in East Timor he will return to South Eastern Trucks and Ag. Phillip Reeves, the director of the company, and his company see the great benefit in being able to release the reservist for deployment and that the skills that they take from the civilian workplace into defence deployment are something they value. They feel that they are also making a contribution to the Defence Force of Australia and, in this case, to the operations in East Timor.We also had here yesterday Corporal Bailey's very proud family—his wife, Jenny, and son, Matthew. They watched with obvious pride as the video of Corporal Bailey working in East Timor was shown. I take this opportunity to thank the Defence Force families whether they are families of reservists, such as Jenny Bailey and the family of Corporal Bailey, or the many families of full-time service personnel who wait many long days and months for their loved ones to come back. The government acknowledges the great role that our reservists play in the capability of our Defence Force in Australia today. They represent some 42 per cent of the total force today. This allows the Defence Force, from time to time, to meet surge capacity with skills that are not always available in large numbers in the permanent force. I think we all have a great sense of pride in the operations of the Defence Force in East Timor and Bougainville and in operation gold during the Olympic Games last year. Under this historic legislation, for the very first time in this country or any country around the world when our Defence Force reservists are deployed or have additional training to be deployed they know their jobs will be protected and their employers will receive a compensation payment for up to 78 weeks of continuous service in the Australian Defence Force. In the first couple of months of operation of this scheme, I am happy to advise the parliament that this government has paid out some $500,000. It demonstrates that the scheme is working well, produces real benefits and confirms the partnership between the government, the Australian Defence Force and reservists alike right across this country. ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations3100015:26:0031000Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I have been misrepresented by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who claimed in answer to a question that I had suggested that the government should underwrite Ansett Airlines. I have never suggested that at any stage. I referred to supporting the administrator. I understand that if he had been underwritten to the tune of some $100 million he could have kept the show on the road and a decent outcome— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has indicated where he has been misrepresented and will resume his seat.83REdwards, Graham, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the member for Cowan that exactly the same courtesies as everybody else expects to have extended to them should be extended by him. Documents310003100010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 11 of 2001-2002 entitled Performance audit—Administration of the Federation Fund Programme.Ordered the report be printed.Documents3100031000Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report for the year ended 30 June 2001—Section 61 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. (20 July 2001/23 July 2001)Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance310003100010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brisbane proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the government to adequately protect workers' entitlements, both generally and in the case of Ansett Airlines.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—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I recognise the member for Brisbane, I remind all members that the warnings issued during question time do not automatically lapse at the end of question time.15:30:0031001Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—What we have seen for the last few months is policy on the run over workers' entitlements, but that is not new. That is the approach that the government have adopted since they were confronted with the Oakdale miners dispute. We have had the Stan policy—the special Stan policy for National Textiles. That is the Stan-alone policy; no-one else gets into that one. That is where the Commonwealth put in not just their normal general-fund payment but a special top-up payment—an extra payment out of a different bucket of money that has never, ever to this day been accessed by a single worker anywhere in Australia other than the workers at National Textiles. The government then brought in a general policy that was a safety net, but it has been so inadequate that it has become patently obvious even to the government that it is a complete and utter failure. The Prime Minister's admission after the special cabinet meeting last Friday that they had to change the system was a belated recognition of what we have been saying for the last two years and what every Australian worker has understood: that the government's general scheme was totally inadequate and failed to provide anywhere near the sort of protection that workers were entitled to. Now we have mark III, which is the special Ansett arrangements, and we are about to get mark IV, which is the special general scheme for everybody: `It's a bit like Ansett, but it's not really the Ansett scheme; it's something different.'Ansett workers, like all workers, want secure jobs. They want to be able to do the things for which they are highly trained and very professional. That is what they want. If they cannot have job security—if it is going to be ripped away from them—they want to have income security. They at least want to know that their entitlements that have been put aside for them—for many of them, their life savings—are actually going to be there and that the money that is owed to them will be paid to them. But they know, because they have seen it happen to other workers, and at Ansett they are seeing it at first-hand, that for too many workers that has not been possible. The Liberal response to that is to put in place a rambling set of policies on the run—four policies in two years, all of them designed to give back a little bit of what was all yours to start with. The government seem to think that if they give back a little bit of what was yours to begin with, that is good enough and you can walk away from it.We need to correct a few things on the record today. During question time, the Prime Minister asserted that the offer had been made to get the Ansett pilots back into the air, but the unions would not allow them to fly on Qantas wages. That was totally untrue—it was a lie. That is not the facts.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— The member for Brisbane will withdraw that remark.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I withdraw it. The Ansett Pilots Association has categorically rejected any suggestion that it has been approached by Qantas offering any contracts to fly. The APA has not had discussions with Qantas about anything in the last couple of weeks. The Ansett Pilots Association is completely unaware of any approach to any Ansett pilot by Qantas offering contracts to fly. Qantas has not approached the ACTU regarding contracts for Ansett pilots and crews. Nobody has approached the Ansett Pilots Association suggesting that Qantas is willing to offer contracts to fly. Yet just an hour ago, the Prime Minister stood here in this parliament and asserted absolutely the opposite to that set of facts.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—It was untrue.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—It was untrue, it was misleading and it was unfair to those pilots and crew at Ansett who have enough problems to face today without having the Prime Minister of the country stand in this place and blackguard and misrepresent them in the way in which he has. UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—Mean and tricky.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—The statements made today, as my colleague has said, were mean and tricky. The pilots and crew of Ansett do not deserve to be treated like that by anybody. They certainly do not deserve to be treated like that by the Prime Minister of Australia. In question time today I referred to one employee who is owed $100,000 and is going to get $20,000 out of it. He had worked at Ansett for 29 years. That is longer than the Prime Minister has been in parliament, and heaven knows he has been here too long. That fellow has worked at Ansett for 29 years. Under the enhanced scheme, not the old scheme that they now accept is no good but the brand spanking new scheme with stars and bells on it, he is going to get $20,000 out of the $100,000 that is owed to him. The government and the minister at the table say that workers should be happy with that and walk away with smiles on their faces.Let me refer to a couple of others who are in a similar boat. Peter Campbell has worked at Ansett for 20 years—another long-term employee. Under the government's scheme, the new scheme that was heralded from the special cabinet meeting last week, he will get just over $27,000 out of a debt of $72,000. There is a third case. These are just a few; there are many more, because, to its credit, the workers at Ansett in the main are long-term employees. They joined the company with a career option in mind. They have stayed with the company, they have stayed in the industry, they have been loyal, hardworking, professional people, and for their trouble they have been penalised. Joe Gagliano has been with the company for 17 years. He is owed $71,000 and he will get back about $29,000 if the government give him all that they say he is due.The government shroud this in a fiction. They talk about statutory entitlements as though it were an immaculate idea that there are statutory rights and that is it. Prime Minister, what they are entitled to is their legal rights, not some fiction that you create and call a statutory entitlement. They are entitled to their legal rights. They are entitled to the money that is in their awards and agreements. That is what they are entitled to—not a little bit of it, and not some formula that you concoct because you know that you are in trouble on this issue in the electorate. I might say that it took you two years, screaming all the way, after a series of collapses, to eventually get to the point where 16,000 workers lost their jobs in one day and it took all of that before this government were willing to accept what every worker in Australia had been saying about these matters, and they said that they had to change it. However, at the end of all that, the workers are left with about 20 or 30 per cent of their entitlements. Under their scheme, the longer you work with a company, the more disadvantaged you are. That is the kernel of their scheme. That is the reward you get as a long-term employee with the dedication and contribution of the people like the three I mentioned, and so many others, at Ansett.We saw the minister doing a doorstop yesterday to talk about his new scheme. It is instructive that the minister chooses to do these things by press release and doorstop. It is too much to expect him to come into the House and provide a ministerial statement which we might actually scrutinise and debate, let alone a bill or a piece of legislation to underpin all this. Let me remind members of this House what happened when this government were dragged, kicking and screaming, during the Oakdale miners dispute to do something about this issue—and that was one of the victories that the Minister for Finance and Administration had over the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who thought the workers should get nothing. At that time, we saw the Treasurer weighing in, as it were, on the side of the Labor Party's argument in that debate.During the Oakdale miners dispute, the Treasurer advocated that there should be a scheme to which employers are required to make a contribution to cover these entitlements and that the taxpayer should not have to pick up the whole bill. According to a press report at the time referring to the government's so-called proposed safety net: The Prime Minister has backed the scheme, but Mr Costello said last week that he supported employers being held responsible in the event of insolvency leaving employees in limbo.The government should have taken Peter Costello's advice last year. Had they taken the Treasurer's advice, they might have picked up Labor's plan, because two years ago we actually gave them the prescription to resolve this with a national scheme. They still baulked at bringing in a properly functioning national scheme to guarantee 100 per cent of workers' entitlements and of course they now intend to require the taxpayer to pick up all the bill to pay for the mismanagement of the corporate world.At the doorstop the minister did yesterday because he could not bring in a bill, he was like his predecessor in 1999 when the government said that they were to have legislation in place before January 2000. Two years after Peter Reith, the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, made that commitment in August 1999, we still do not have one piece of paper before parliament. At no point in two years have they put one piece of paper before parliament to deal with employee entitlements. Two years after they made that promise we still do not have it. That minister and the current minister at the table have managed to put 1,300 pages of legislation into this parliament on industrial relations to take things away from workers. They can reduce people's rights—there were 1,300 pages of that—but not one page, not one line and not one word on a piece of paper in this parliament to discuss, much less underpin, their employee entitlement scheme.It was little wonder that the self-defined L-plate minister at the table stood before a press conference yesterday to talk about the new scheme. He said:We have indicated that we will extend the general scheme to mirror in broad terms the kind of protection that we are now offering Ansett employees. We have indicated that we will pick up 100 per cent of employee entitlements.That sounds pretty good, but he then went on, in that mean, sneaky way that has become the trademark of this government, to say, `As guaranteed by the expanded scheme.' The people who heard him say `100 per cent employee entitlements' might have thought that they were going to get it all, but they are not. They are going to get 100 per cent of this magical formula that the cabinet has put in place, which is actually 20 per cent of the money they are owed. You will get 100 per cent of the formula, and the formula is 20 per cent of the dollars you are entitled to. That is the scheme, and if that is not mean and tricky I do not know what is.The journalists were a bit bewildered by this. The journalists kept ringing me up yesterday afternoon trying to make sense of the gobbledegook the minister went on with, because they sure as hell did not know what he was talking about. The minister went on to say, `However, that doesn't mean that all workers would get their full entitlements.' Immediately after saying that they are going to get 100 per cent, when he was quizzed he said, `But they won't get all their entitlements if their employer goes into liquidation.' He said:We are not putting any cap on Ansett employees' entitlements except for redundancy, but in terms of the general scheme, well, we might have to put some caps on.He starts out saying that they are going to get 100 per cent and then he says, `It's only going to be 100 per cent of our formula,' and then, to make it clear, he says, `Well, you won't get all your money,' and then he says, `And we might put some caps on, but we haven't figured out what they are.' This might be described as policy on the run, as a minister flip-flopping or as a government on the back foot as they try to make some sense of a quagmire in which they have placed themselves.There was another interesting comment on the wire yesterday from the other culprit in all this: the transport minister and Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson. He was asked whether the levy would be adequate to meet the cost and his answer was, `Yes, as we have defined the entitlements.' In other words, `We'll have enough money there to give them what we think they should get, not what they are actually legally owed.' There is an alternative to this quagmire and mess, and it is Labor's national scheme that we have had before the government. We even gave the former minister a written submission to his inquiry in 1999 setting out in detail how it could be done. They have missed the boat and have missed their opportunity. They have missed the boat even to deal with the easy part of corporate restructures. This morning, the Leader of the Opposition sought to bring on his private member's bill which would have enabled the courts to deal with that problem. It is rather galling to see the Prime Minister and others talk about chasing Air New Zealand when they defeated legislation in this parliament to do just that. However, we know why that happened. It is because the government's heart is not in it and the Prime Minister's heart is not in it. We know that the Prime Minister during the Oakdale miners dispute went on the Alan Jones program and repeatedly defended the rights of companies to use this worker fund for themselves—to use it as if it was some sort of unsecured, interest-free loan the workers had just handed over. It is not. At the election in a couple of months time people in Australia will know that there are only two ways to protect workers' entitlements in this country: you put Stan Howard on the board as chairman of directors, or you put Kim Beazley in the Lodge as Prime Minister, which is exactly what they will do.15:45:0031004Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Let me say at the outset that what has happened at Ansett is tragic. What has happened at Ansett is an economic tragedy for every one of the 16,000 people employed there. Not for a second would I or anyone in the government deny that this is a terrible thing and that it will have a very serious cost for all of the people caught up in it. The Prime Minister knows that. If he could not have grasped that, he certainly would have received that message loud and clear from the two different meetings that he has had with Ansett employees. I have certainly got that message loud and clear from Ansett employees. There is not a human being who is not moved by the plight of these employees who have given long and loyal service to a company which has been appallingly mismanaged. The thought of the executives of Ansett and Air New Zealand receiving very large bonuses at a time when they were flying this great airline into the ground is nothing short of obscene. This is an economic tragedy. The question is: what should people do about it? This government is standing shoulder to shoulder with Ansett employees in their time of need. We believe that Ansett employees should be paid every last cent that is owed them, but that money should be paid by their employer. That money should be paid by the employer who has entered into the agreements with them under which the money should be paid. If the money is not paid, if the company cannot or will not pay the money, this government will stand behind those workers and guarantee their entitlements to an extent that is absolutely unprecedented in Australia's history. That is what the government is doing. By contrast, the opposition is trying to use this terrible human tragedy as a stick with which to beat the government. Have we heard any comment from members opposite over the last couple of days condemning Ansett and Air New Zealand's management? Has there been any suggestion that perhaps the government might at least deserve a little bit of credit for going a very long way down the road of protecting entitlements? Of course not. Members opposite are trying to pretend that the real villain here is not the extraordinarily incompetent management, the management that was basically on long service leave itself for quite some time, and they are trying to pretend that, in some bizarre way, the real villains in all of this are the federal government—the Prime Minister, the minister for transport and me. It just will not wash with the Australian public. The Australian public are much more intelligent than members opposite give our citizens credit for. They can see that Labor is desperately trying to turn an economic tragedy into a political opportunity. If you are going to play low politics on a matter like this, at the very least you need a consistent line. What has emerged out of this, from the statements of members opposite, is that, if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. Again, the Leader of the Opposition got very upset, claiming that he had been misrepresented. Let me quote him word for word. In Martin Place just last Friday he said:There is a solution. The solution is this: John Howard and this Federal Government agrees to underwrite the administrator ...He went on to say:We say this: John Howard you put in place a piece of legislation or an administrative decision which for the next few weeks underwrites the operation of this airline ...Then he said just yesterday, `Nobody has argued that they should prop up or underwrite Ansett.' How on earth can he say these things and expect to be taken seriously? How on earth can he stand up and deny that he ever said these things and still maintain a shred of intellectual or political credibility?Of course the company should pay the workers their entitlements. This government has gone further than any other government in protecting entitlements in the situation where companies cannot pay. No other government has ever done anything in this area. The Leader of the Opposition and opposition members generally should certainly be judged on the basis of their bizarre statements over the last few days, but let us judge them not so much by what they said but by what they did. Let us look at the record of members opposite in the 13 years when they were in government. Let us consider all those workers who lost their entitlements when Bond went belly up, when Qintex went belly up, when the State Bank of Victoria when belly up, when Tricontinental went belly up, when Pyramid went belly up and when Budget Rent a Car went belly up. What percentage of entitlements were they guaranteed? Zero; a big fat zero. The percentage of entitlements that were protected by members opposite, the workers' friends—those people who are now crying crocodile tears over the plight of Ansett workers—was precisely zero.Let us look at the one almost exactly identical situation—the situation back in the early 1990s when an airline went belly up in Australia. This is a statement made by a senior minister from the Labor Party, which now believes that somehow governments should keep airlines flying come what may. The then minister for aviation, Senator Bob Collins, said:It wouldn't have mattered, frankly, if the airline had asked the government for $1 billion or $10. The facts are that the government is not a bank for private airlines.Brian Gray, the former boss of the then Compass Airlines, said:I went to the government on Wednesday and I asked for some relief. Kerin, Beazley and Collins came in—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Beazley?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—Yes, Beazley. None other than contortionist Kim.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Order! You will refer to the Leader of the Opposition correctly. The member for Moreton will be silent; he is not in his place.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—Mr Gray continued:... and sat down and, before I even opened my mouth, Kerin simply said there would be no cooperation from the Commonwealth government. He said “Under no circumstances will we help you by any means.”Forget what Labor say now; look at what they did then. When they had the power and the responsibility, they did not protect workers' entitlements and they did not do anything to keep airlines flying.Something that has been raised again and again by members opposite over many months is the National Textiles situation. They keep asking, `If National Textiles workers could get 100 per cent, why not others?' National Textiles workers got 100 per cent of their entitlements because Bob Carr paid 50 per cent. That is why they got 100 per cent—because the Commonwealth paid 50 per cent and the New South Wales government paid 50 per cent. If Bob Carr, Bracks and Beattie and all the rest of the Labor crew were prepared to do the same thing with Ansett workers as was done with National Textiles workers, Ansett workers would end up with about 130 per cent of their entitlements. Labor premiers are there with their class war rhetoric and their hollow sympathy, but the fact is that only the Howard government is there with a cheque when workers need it most. We have also heard time and again from members opposite over the last months: why doesn't the government legislate for this scheme? The important thing is that workers get paid. Whether they are paid under an administrative scheme or whether they are paid under a legislative scheme, the important thing is that there is a scheme. There is a scheme, thanks to this government, and there was never a scheme before this government came into being. We decided that workers' entitlements should be protected, and this extension of protection to workers' entitlements is one of the most significant extensions of the social safety net that has occurred in many years.The government discovered, in the 18 months or so since we put our scheme in place, that there was one great fault with our scheme. There was one thing wrong with it. What was that one problem with our scheme? The Labor states would not back it. The Labor states—the workers' friends— would not back it, so we decided as a government some time ago that it was important to further develop and extend our scheme of employee entitlement protection. Yes, the Ansett crisis has proved a catalyst for announcing this new scheme, but this is a new scheme that has been in the pipeline for months.Let me repeat for the benefit of members opposite, who seem to be accumulating a fair number of—I am using rhyming slang—frequent flyer points over these matters: we have guaranteed under our scheme all unpaid wages, all unpaid annual leave, all unpaid long service leave, all unpaid pay in lieu of notice and unpaid redundancy up to the community standard of eight weeks. This community standard was established by the Industrial Relations Commission. No less an authority than the Industrial Relations Commission said that eight weeks was the community standard, and that is what we are guaranteeing to workers.Let me say that Labor's policy, which is that 100 per cent of redundancy should be paid under all circumstances and should be guaranteed by government under all circumstances, means that the taxpayers of Australia would be paying up to $175,000 to individual Ansett workers. I very much feel for workers with large redundancy entitlements, and they should be paid to the last cent by Air New Zealand and Ansett. But, if they are not, does anyone opposite really think that the taxpayer of Australia should say, `Here's your $175,000'? Members opposite are saying that taxpayers earning $20,000 should be guaranteeing six-figure redundancy payouts to workers who were earning six-figure incomes. That is what they are saying. If that is not their position, I challenge the member for Gellibrand, or whoever is speaking next in this debate, to put it clearly on the record.Let me also say to members opposite that our experience as a government over the last 18 months, through the operation of the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme, shows that 93 per cent of claimants under that scheme would receive all of their legal redundancy entitlements under the new scheme of 100 per cent of community standard redundancy entitlements. Ninety-three per cent would receive 100 per cent of their redundancy entitlements. This is a good government. In this matter, as in so many other matters, this government is setting new standards of protection for the workers of Australia. The government believes that the workers of Australia should remain workers. It does not believe in protecting their entitlements to the extent that they rapidly become ex-workers. The government believes in protecting the entitlements of workers; it does not believe in destroying the employment of workers. The policies—if anything that they say opposite can be dignified by such a title—the confusing suggestions and the range of nostrums that are coming forward from members opposite essentially all revolve around a tax on jobs.You have the Leader of the Opposition talking about a 0.1 per cent levy on payroll. That would raise just $250 million a year. It would pay far less in a year than the entitlements that this government is prepared to guarantee right now for the Ansett workers. Then you have our old friend Dougie Cameron, who wants a close to 20 per cent levy on payroll, which would end up destroying at least 160,000 jobs in manufacturing alone. This is a good government that has protected workers in ways that are absolutely unprecedented. This is the best government since Menzies facing the worst opposition since Calwell. The Leader of the Opposition is not a leader. He is a commentator and that is all he is. His problem is that he cannot remember what he was commentating on last week. 16:00:0031007Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—It is interesting that the minister says in this debate on a matter of public importance that he has faith that the people of Australia are more intelligent than to expect the government to be responsible for Ansett's plight. That might be right, but I think that the Australian community are also smart enough to know, when you say a worker will get 100 per cent of their entitlements, what 100 per cent means. They know that it means that they should get all of their legal entitlements, however much that is. It does not mean 20 per cent from some scheme that the government just cooks up when it feels like it. That is not 100 per cent. That is what they are entitled to and that is what my party has been fighting for in the time that I have been in the parliament and certainly much longer before that.This is just a last-ditch effort by the government to try to quickly deal with the crisis and to look like they are vaguely sympathetic. But they are basically not dealing with the issue that we have raised time and time again since I have been in this parliament. In fact, it was one of the first things I did when I arrived in parliament, because I was in the unfortunate situation where a number of workers in my electorate were victims of a closure. Braybrook Manufacturing was an insolvent company. We had 70 fairly elderly migrant women workers, mostly with 20 and 30 years service, who got absolutely nothing from this government. And before that we had examples such as Cobar and Oakdale. The government knew that these crises would keep happening time and time again, yet they did nothing. It happened on their watch. The minister can say what he wants about anything in the past, but on their watch, in the five years that they have been in government, they have done nothing to respond to our demands that workers have 100 per cent of their entitlements covered. When I say 100 per cent, I mean 100 per cent of what a worker is legally able to claim— what they can claim in the courts, what they can show they have a legal entitlement to. Whether it is under legislation, awards or agreements does not matter; it is their money and they should be able to claim it. That is what I mean when I say 100 per cent, not what this government means: which is 100 per cent of anything they calculate and think is fair.Two years ago this was one of the first things I raised with the government, with the Prime Minister, and they did nothing. Members of parliament like the member for Prospect and the member for Brisbane have been here longer than I and have had bills in their name in this parliament that the government has refused to bring on and debate; the government just kept ignoring them. Time and again we deal with the devastation. What I do not understand is why 70 workers in Braybrook are less important than the 16,000 workers at Ansett. I think it is a national catastrophe; the situation for the Ansett workers is terrible. For every one of those individual workers it is just as terrible as it is for any other worker who ends up being in this position. I am hopeful that they will be able to get some of their money. I am pleased that the government is at least saying that it will pursue Air New Zealand and Ansett for this money. What a good idea: somebody actually standing in place of the workers and pursuing money that is owed to them! It sounds to me suspiciously like what you would do if you had an insurance scheme where you would have the insurer to pay the liability and the insurer would stand in the place of the employees and pursue the money. I do not know why it is now reverberating in this chamber: perhaps because what we have been saying here for the last two years is that, if you have a national entitlement scheme—as we have proposed—where you have a very small amount of money that is paid through the superannuation guarantee levy, you can insure all workers in this country for 100 per cent of their entitlements. That is the real 100 per cent, and not the so-called 100 per cent that the government is talking about on this. So, after dealing with the devastation of the Braybrook Manufacturing workers, just one example in my electorate, you can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it was with some shock that I heard that the workers at the National Textiles company were going to get an entirely different package. They were actually provided with a package of the real 100 per cent, not the pretend 100 per cent. That was the first we saw of a suggestion that the government was looking at a scheme that would cover all workers' entitlements. But then we saw example after example where the government refused to provide that amount of money and that scheme to any other worker in any other situation. This is why we stand in the parliament saying that we want legislation. The minister had the cheek, the temerity, to say in this debate, `Why does anyone care if we have got legislation? The important thing is that we have a scheme in place.' We care, Minister, because you keep applying that scheme at your whim: you give it to some but you do not give it to others. You change your mind when it suits you. You change your mind if it is close to the election. You care about it if the unemployment rate is high—but you change your mind if it is in the city or out in the regions. We want it in the legislation because we want all workers to be protected. It staggered me when the member for Brisbane said that there were 1,300 pages of legislation the government have been able to draft in this workplace relations area and they have not been able to put pen to paper on this entitlements scheme. It also staggers me that it seems to have taken less than a day to draft that appalling piece of legislation that we saw when it first came into this House as the border protection bill. There was not much care and attention put into that, but can I tell you that they could get legislation in quickly. We have had crisis after crisis, worker after worker and collapse after collapse, but we cannot get legislation in here that will even support the government's safety net scheme, as they call it. I find that totally bizarre.I had cause to be worried again in my electorate over this issue when Bradmill Textiles was put into receivership, with the potential loss of 800 jobs in my electorate. This government still refused to do anything about it. The minister, who wonders why the ACTU did not want him to speak at their meeting, had the cheek to come to my electorate—that was not cheek; he was welcome because the Bradmill workers asked him— and tell a meeting that it did not really matter whether their entitlements were not covered. He said—and I quote this because there were hundreds of people there who reported this in horror to me—`Are you saying that you won't be able to get a job somewhere else if you lose your job here?'I find it extraordinary that this minister could be so provocative when people are facing losing their jobs and their entitlements and they are getting a paltry amount of what is owed to them—that, instead of trying to do something to fix up the situation at hand, he could say, `What do you mean? You cannot get a job somewhere else?' Sorry, Minister: a lot of people cannot get a job somewhere else. I think that a lot of these 16,000 Ansett workers, highly skilled as they are, will find it difficult to find jobs in the short term. That is why they need, and are entitled to, their legal entitlements, which are meant to help tide them over while they look for other employment. I can understand why the ACTU did not want Minister Abbott speaking at their rally. Was he going to say, `What? You can't get a job somewhere else?' He might have come up with his famous ` job snobs' line and just said, `Surely you can go and work at McDonald's.' Disaster after disaster keeps happening on the government's watch. They are not expected to prop up the businesses, but they are expected to know that this is a pattern which will keep happening and that, every time workers are left without their money, we will raise this issue. Arnott's, HIH and One.Tel all happened on their watch, and they have still done nothing. It is not until Ansett has come up that they have really looked at doing something. I was reminded of a childhood book when the minister and Prime Minister were saying, `What is it that these employees want? How dare they want any more?' I could not help but think of all those individual workers being in the position of Oliver Twist, having to grovel and beg to this government, `Please, Sir, can I have some more?' They are having to ask, `Please, Sir, can I have 100 per cent of what I am owed?' `Can I have enough food?' `Can I have enough money to feed my children and send them to school?' They are having to ask all of those sorts of things. The government is avoiding reality in this area. The other thing that I think is quite a disgrace—and the minister and Prime Minister will not be able to kid the public about this either—is that the government's proposal does not deal with the community standard. The minister, revealing his ignorance yet again, thinks that a redundancy entitlement which is a community standard is eight weeks pay. Minister, I know that industrial relations is not your background, but this decision was made in 1985 and introduced as an absolute community minimum, above which people have been negotiating for 20 years—and those in the airline industry have had conditions way in advance of that. The conditions in the airline industry, the community standard for them, is well over and above it. I might remind the minister that the community standard even in the textile industry, where he has ignored workers in my electorate time and time again, is well and truly above that eight weeks as well. He can go out and tell people whatever he wants about the community standard, but he already knows that the public is far too smart for that. To them, 100 per cent means all of the money they are owed, and they should get the government's support to get it. (Time expired)16:10:0031009Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—I should preface my remarks today by saying that, prior to entering this place, I was an employee of Ansett Transport Industries for a little over 10 years. It was certainly a different Ansett in those days. It was the days of the Sir Reginald Ansett family, and I did not work in the airline; I worked with one of the allied companies. It is true that many of the workers of Ansett who now find themselves in this extraordinary situation were part of that old Ansett family, and I know quite a number of them who have been there more than the 26 years since I left. Certainly my heart goes out to them and to all the employees of Ansett who have found themselves in a situation which should never have evolved.I think it is worth while going over some of the history of how this incredible situation has come about and comparing the actions of previous governments with what has been claimed in this MPI today. If you go back some 20 years when there was a move by TNT and News Ltd to take over Ansett, we saw new people at the helm. While Sir Reginald Ansett was still chairman of the company, the managing director was Sir Peter Abeles—and he set the airline on a new course. I remember somebody making a comment, at the time of Sir Reginald's death some 12 months later, that what he had seen in the last 12 months was probably enough to break his heart. We saw a buying spree, and all of a sudden Ansett went from basically a two-aircraft type operator to one that was operating 14 and 16 different types. We saw investment in a number of innovations that added so much to the cost of operating that particular airline. That went on, and a lot of people welcomed it, because there were new standards of service for Australians. That service was, of course, always spearheaded by the staff of Ansett. We went through the period of deregulation, and notice was given of deregulation. I say quite categorically that I was one of those who promoted the concept of deregulation of the airlines, as early as 1976 or 1977—just after my election. But Ansett realised then that their costs were very high and they had to make a difference. They made a difference. They took on the pilots and we had the pilots dispute, which was the worst industrial incident that we have ever had in Australia. The dispute went for more than eight months and it sent literally hundreds of Australian companies to the wall. It was interesting, because it was necessary at that time to try to keep the air links open. And we saw, quite contrary to the then government's political philosophy, the importation of aircraft from overseas, on a wet lease basis with non-union pilots, to fly the airways of Australia. The RAAF was brought in to provide relief, and what tremendous relief they provided. The AFAP—for which I have not terribly much regard because I think they played the whole process quite stupidly—eventually collapsed and went to the wall. That was just the start, because it was made known around the airline industry that the pilots were only the beginning and that there had to be this attack on the then general conditions of airline employment if they were going to be able to compete against any upstarts and newcomers that might come into the aviation business. The reality was that Ansett were not game to take on any more of the unions, because they knew that another strike would finish them there and then. And this has been the problem ever since. In actual fact, the cost of operating Ansett is about a third more than the cost of operating Qantas.We saw that period when TNT sold out to Air New Zealand. We saw News Ltd making sure that they got the costs down as fast and as hard as they could and making sure that they got the profits up so that they could sell it. Then we saw the amazing situation of Air New Zealand coming in and paying probably $300-plus million more than the airline was worth. We saw a further struggle, with the advent of more low cost carriers coming into Australia. Consequently, we saw the airline going to pieces. We saw the grounding of the 767s last December and the regrounding of the 767s over Easter, and the writing was on the wall that Ansett was going to be in big trouble.What really upsets me is the fact that the administrators cannot find out what has gone on. They cannot find out where the money is. It is quite interesting to look at some of the reports of the last couple of days. PricewaterhouseCoopers have estimated that the amount of money that will be required to pay all the employees in the Ansett group up to date is in excess of $700 million—and that is huge. We have to remember that those 16,000 staff at Ansett are very highly qualified people. We are not talking small money. We are talking about salaries of $150,000 and beyond for pilots. We are talking about senior cabin attendants receiving salaries of $60,000 or $65,000 per year. We are talking about some big income people, and the money is adding up. The one thing that has not come out in this debate is that the government has pledged to pursue Air New Zealand for this money. This arrangement is temporary, and the government will do all it can to get the money out of that Ansett-Air New Zealand arrangement. There have also been other moves by this government to ensure that those entitlements come back. ASIC has already got this whole operation under investigation, and you can bet that the fine toothcomb of ASIC is going to try to work out exactly what happened and who was responsible. It is going to be a very interesting exercise indeed to try to land this responsibility.Our opening speaker today, the member for Brisbane, made the point that what Ansett people want is jobs, and that is true. What they need more than anything else at the moment is to be able to get the food on the table. Everybody in this parliament, and particularly in this government, has to make the effort and do all they can to get those planes flying again. But when you have a company that has no books, when an administrator cannot even find out how much the company owes or is owed and cannot find any records of the staff arrangements to try to work out what the exact entitlements are, it is incredibly difficult to expect to have those aircraft flying in a few days, despite all the technicalities of it. That is why I think the particular package that the government has come up with is very generous, and it is there as an interim. While there will be a $10 ticket tax applied to help pay for this, at the end of the day they are going to go Air New Zealand to get their entitlements. To give the union its due, it is going Air New Zealand regarding a letter of comfort that was given to Ansett by Air New Zealand on, I think, 8 September this year saying that the money was there and it was all going to be all right. Ninety-three per cent of the Ansett staff are going to receive their full entitlement under this arrangement. I would think that possibly that other seven per cent would be some of those who would be in the higher income levels or those who have had longer periods of employment with Ansett. The government, just as soon as the administrators can get through this unholy mess, is going to make sure that that money is paid as fast as possible. But I repeat: what is more important is to try to get those aircraft flying again and to get as many Ansett staff as we possibly can back into the air and back behind the computer reservation systems to ensure that they do have long-term employment, because the ramifications of this particular collapse are absolutely terrible. When you look back at the history of Ansett, the history of that pilots strike and when you look back at the time when companies were collapsing all over Australia, you find that no compensation was given—but $800 million was paid out to the airlines to keep them flying at the time. When you look at the collapse of Compass, you see that no comfort was given. When the late Brian Gray approached the previous government, he was sent away—nothing was given. For the first time, compensation has come from this government—from a Liberal government. Compensation has never, ever come from a Labor government, and that is an even greater disgrace than some of the accusations that have been made against this particular government. I believe this MPI is a fraud. The stance of the opposition is a political fraud. All I can say is: good luck to the government; keep going and get Ansett flying again. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Bills31011R139531011Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31011Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills31011R138731011Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31011Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills31011R138431011Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31011Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time. Bills31012R1413BillsR1414BillsR1412Bills31012Debate resumed. 16:24:0031012Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00— There are three bills in this package that we are debating this afternoon: the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001, the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 and the Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001. The first bill excises some Australian territories from the migration zone. In particular we are referring to the Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The second bill puts forward consequential measures associated with the first bill, and the third bill in this package is a validation of the government's actions in relation to vessels carrying unauthorised arrivals, in particular those unauthorised entrants on the Tampa, and enhanced border protection measures. I think it is important that we actually get a bit of realism into the debate and that some facts be put forward, not just simply some of the myths that have been peddled so far. Firstly, I do not think anybody in this parliament believes that illegals should be offered any sanctuary in this country if, in fact, they are queue jumpers. I think that is a view that both sides of parliament have held for some time. I think it is also a myth to suggest that those on the Labor Party side are anything other than tough on this sort of measure. But we also believe that it has to be tempered with compassion and therefore the comments that have been made in this place about the reasons why Labor would not support the original bill with reference to border protection are simply myths that are being peddled not only in this place but also, unfortunately, on talkback radio and in other places—and I will come to that in a moment.Let us get down to the facts. In the last 10 years, 13,000 illegal boat people have endeavoured to get to this country. In the last five years—that is, under the present Howard government—that number is 11,000. All of a sudden, three months out from an election, we find that the government is moved to do something about it. We find the government moved to put in place border protection legislation, or at least legislation under that broad rhetoric. We find the government moved to send one-third of the Australian Defence Force's naval assets to Christmas Island. What are those assets that got dispersed up there? It is interesting to have a look at them. We are talking about illegal boat people coming in leaky boats—and what do we send? We send one FFG7 class guided missile frigate with two Seahawk S70B helicopters—that is, the HMAS Newcastle; we send two Anzac class frigates, the HMAS Arunta and the HMAS Warramunga; we send one supply ship fleet oiler, the HMAS Westralia; and we send three P3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft. I remind you that that was after the event. That was after Tampa.After the people were picked up and put on the Tampa we sent in the Navy. What did we do before that? We put the SAS on board the Tampa to make sure that the people did not jump overboard. We sent all sorts of other defence assets to Christmas Island to make the place safe—safe from what? That is still to be determined.Whilst on this side of the House the bills that have been presented by the government this time around are acceptable, I think it is a little difficult to swallow in this environment and with this timetable that the government for three weeks has put so many naval assets and other assets of the Australian Defence Force on Christmas Island and in the immediate environment at a cost estimated at $110 million—for three weeks! That is not the cost associated with the initial approach in dealing with the Tampa refugees; that is after the event—$110 million to do that. What happens when the three weeks are up—and I think that that is probably towards the end of this week. What is going to happen then? Are we going to see the defence resource base again whittled down? Are we going to see moneys that have not been allocated within the defence budget going to extending the naval vessels operating off Christmas Island? I dare say that, if the election happened to be called, they might be kept out there for a bit longer. This is the government being tough. But even with those resources up there, guess what? More boats are still getting through. They were found on Ashmore Reef even after we had all of these naval resources there. There is a better way, and Labor has proposed that better way. We have said that not for just three weeks of the year but for 52 weeks of the year we need to have a cop on the beat. We need a maritime policeman. Labor has proposed—in fact, we put the policy out nearly two years ago—a coastguard; an Australian Coast Guard with a fleet of vessels and with intelligence gathering that can meet the contingency. We have said that we offer a better plan for being tough on illegals and cracking down on boat people. But we have also said that we have to have a better relationship with our region—particularly with Indonesia. We have suggested that, if, as has been speculated, many of these people are emerging from Indonesia on their way to Australia, we need to have a better relationship with that country so that they do something about it. What did this government do? They sent the three amigos up there—the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—to talk to the Indonesian government. What did we get out of it? Nothing. We ended up with the Prime Minister coming in here and saying—when Labor had reservations about the original Border Protection Bill—that we did not need to have safe havens for those people to be sent to; rather, they simply should be towed out in their leaky boats to international waters and left there. Then, amazingly, when the Border Protection Bill did not get up—because we pointed out the legal problems that were there and some of the concerns that Labor had about the original bill—suddenly we found the Prime Minister sending the Minister for Defence to Nauru to negotiate safe haven. Then, of course, we got the Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001, which has come in under the guise of the old Border Protection Bill, but is not the same bill as was here two weeks ago. It does not matter how often those in the government protest and say that Labor should have supported that original bill. The fact is that this is a different bill. If they wanted to test us again, why was the original one not brought back in? When some cool rational heads in the Labor Party got their minds around that hastily crafted bit of nonsense that was the Border Protection Bill—with 40 minutes warning given and asked, `Will you support this or not?'—even on a cursory examination we recognised that there was no way anyone could support what was in it. And we have now found that the government agreed. Indeed, the government agreed to such an extent that it changed the bill. The original bill sought to override any other law in Australia. Is that in this bill now? No, it is not—it has gone. The original bill bestowed open-ended immunities to the civil and criminal law. Is that there now? No, it has gone. This is a different bill altogether. The original bill posed no impediment to somebody wanting to tow an unsafe vessel out to sea. That has gone too, because cooler heads prevailed— and it is about time.We have offered bipartisan support right through this. There has been nonsense suggesting that we have not supported the government on immigration bills. Certainly, according to the advice I have—and according to my memory of discussions in the shadow ministry—the original Border Protection Bill was the only one we did not support. Now, here it is in a revamped form that we find we can support. So let us not get carried away with some of these views that are being peddled around this place that the Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001 is completely the same as the original Border Protection Bill. It is not.I repeat: we need a coastguard to deal with this, with a cop on the beat for 52 weeks of the year. We need to have an improved relationship with our region, particularly Indonesia, Malaysia and other adjacent countries, so that we can tackle this problem—not just now, not just two months out from an election, not just when another group of boat people happen to have arrived at Christmas Island, Ashmore Reef or wherever it might be. We need a genuine bipartisan approach in dealing with this issue. No-one wants to see illegals jump the queue. I genuinely think that we in this place, as members of parliament, have many people coming to our offices on a regular basis on immigration issues—the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs knows because we all make representations to him about them—and we know that there are genuine people who want to come to this country. It is true that we take our fair share of people under the refugee category—there is no doubt about that. Equally, there is no doubt that there is a sentiment in the Australian community that suggests we have to take a stand on that, and that is what this legislation is about. But, at the same time, let us not allow elements of this debate, particularly about racial issues, to meld into what we are talking about. There are genuine concerns. The other day the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, when we talked about the issues associated with those dreadful events last week in New York, made the point about the Muslim community—that is, the religious community or people from Middle Eastern background—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—Every time.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—Each time, as the minister says, that view was made. We have to ensure that the community cohesion in this country which we have all worked so hard over a long period of time to develop and preserve is sustained. We cannot allow the argument about the potential for terrorists to be on some of these boats to be confused. I note that the Australian today took exception to the honourable member for Fisher, Mr Slipper, when he said that there was an undeniable linkage between boat people and terrorists. Yet when asked to support his allegations, Mr Slipper said, `Many of these illegals come from Afghanistan.' Yes, they do; that is dead right. They are fleeing the Taliban regime which harbours terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. Undeniable linkage? Only in Mr Slipper's mind, and that is dead right.We have to be careful not to inflame some of the concerns in the Australian community which exist because of what happened last week. We have to be careful not to inflame and incite racial tensions in Australia where we have a cohesive society and over a long period of time have developed the view that we have a multinational society.In this legislation there is an opportunity to do something about the issues of people-smuggling and border protection, but the only way to sustain this for the future is by having Coastguard protection for 52 weeks of the year. Let the Navy and the other defence assets get on with the job that they are supposed to do—that is, protect Australia in all other ways. We need a better national and international approach to this problem, particularly along with our regional neighbours, so that we can all tackle this issue head on.16:36:0031014Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Originally I did not intend to speak in this debate but there were one or two remarks by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs during question time which provoked me to intervene. Given that it is the government's desire that this legislation pass through the chamber as quickly as possible and that we are prepared to facilitate that, I apologise to others on this side of the House who, if I had not spoken, might have had either a lengthier time in which to speak or a chance to speak.There were one or two remarks by the minister which I thought were particularly graceless. Those remarks went to our motivation in agreeing to support all this legislation and legislation in the other chamber. His remarks were graceless to the extent that he indicated that our motivation to support this legislation was a product of expediency and not of concern for the national interest and that our previous determinations had been based on expediency and not on concern for the national interest. In no case has our position in any way, shape or form been based on that at any point in time. The bill I particularly want to speak to in this cognate debate is the Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001. We have had now two opportunities to debate in this chamber a border protection bill: during the latter stages of the last period of sitting and today. The circumstances in which we debated these two bills are as similar as chalk and cheese. The bills themselves bear no resemblance beyond the title. The Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001 that we are debating today is a bill that would have been passed by this chamber during that last sitting had it been the bill that was offered to us at that point in time. We would have passed this bill because it is in the national interest. It is in the national interest of all Australians to have a decent migration program properly defended by its legality. It is in the national interest of all Australians to have our borders effectively protected. It is in the national interest of all Australians that our generous attitude towards refugees is not undermined by people who seek to flout that generosity by placing themselves ahead of others in the queue who are determined by an orderly process to be more deserving. These are all positions which ought to be commonly agreed in this nation and commonly agreed in this parliament.There is one side in this chamber that struggles for bipartisanship; there is another side that struggles for advantage. That process was never more clearly indicated than in the handling of this. The original border protection legislation was, I do believe, cobbled together for political advantage in the Prime Minister's department, not in the department from which this particular bill emanates. The suggestion was made during question time today—while he did not name me directly, I believe that he was aiming his remarks at me—that we were implying that this bill was weaker, that therefore we would support it and that this was sending a signal to those concerned to organise this illegal trafficking in human beings that they were advantaged by some process going on in this House. They are not advantaged. This bill is being supported because it is legal, because it is workable and because it will be effective. The reason it is legal, workable and effective is that the objectionable features of the previous bill which made it ineffective have been removed.One of the ironies of this legislation is that it contains an enormously extensive array of amendments related to the Tampa—and other ships which have been intercepted since—to protect those officers from any acts that may have been performed in the course of those persons on the Tampa being removed by the Royal Australian Navy to Nauru. As I indicated in the chamber several weeks ago, if the government had wished such legislation to be put in place at that point in time to protect their interests, they would have had it that night. I indicated it to the Prime Minister. I indicated it in this chamber. If they had wanted that coverage they could have had it that night. It was obvious to all of us in this chamber that the way in which that situation would resolve itself would involve, at some point in time, folk being removed from the Tampa and taken elsewhere. We asked one thing only: safe haven. When we asked for safe haven, we were mocked. The Prime Minister mocked us in question time. But he was making it up as he went along, and the next day he did it: he negotiated safe haven with a couple of countries and ultimately required protection for those engaged in the process—the transfer of those from the Tampa there.The Prime Minister knew he would never order the Tampa out of Australian waters. The captain was not a semi-piratical captain operating a bumboat; he happened to be an entirely respectable captain from one of the greatest lines operating at the moment in the seas. He had just performed a task in which we had vectored him into a rescue operation. He was sitting offshore with a reasonable grievance, and that grievance was not going to be assuaged by his being ordered out of our territory with nowhere to go. That sort of behaviour would have, had it occurred and been marked internationally, seen us in discredit for years. The government was not going to risk that—and rightly so; the government should not have risked that. But they required a conclusion, and that conclusion we were prepared to give them. We made amply clear to the government that whatever they needed they would get in a bipartisan way. The government achieved their objectives by putting in place an illegal, unworkable bill. They successfully wedged us and massively damaged us. They spurned the bipartisanship they were offered and they got their useful political effect. What they did not get was an enhancement of the reputation of this nation or a solution to the problem. It is extraordinary when you actually read that bill and work out what it could have meant. These things are unlikely to have happened, but they could conceivably have happened legally. If somebody in officialdom had taken it into their head to sink the Sydney to Hobart yacht race fleet, they could have done it. That was something that was open to them to do. It was also open to them to take from our waters a boat and sink it. That bill gave authority to Commonwealth officials beyond the authority that is given to a front-line soldier in attack mode in wartime. It gave them that coverage. It gave them more coverage than that for a policeman in hot pursuit of a gunman who has just shot someone and is scarpering to evade the consequences of the law. It gave them more authority in civil law than is given a policeman in that set of circumstances anywhere in Australia. It had a clause which overrode all legislation and it sought to exclude the operation of the legislation from the jurisdiction of the High Court. It was an extraordinary piece of legislation and could not be supported. The problem for us was that we could never make that understood in the Australian community. That was the hope of the Prime Minister, and his hopes have been realised as far as that is concerned.But we have to ignore all those consequences and stand on this side of the House for good law, and what we have got back is good law—good law that ensures that we are not a soft touch, good law that does not breach any of the reasonable constraints that ought to be on Commonwealth officials when they are exercising Commonwealth authority, good law that protects the position of those officials who have been engaged in the transport of people to Nauru in recent times, good law that recognises that ultimately the High Court has authority over all our legal system and that it has a role in making those determinations. We have in place before us in the border protection legislation good law.Previously, we had legislation that was cobbled together in the Prime Minister's department and not discussed in the Liberal Party caucus. When I went to see the Prime Minister, the legislation was slung contentiously across the table to me with a demand that the opposition support it. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, when the legislation hit the table, it fell open at that clause that has now disappeared from this law—it is not to be found in this bill—which said, `This law overrides all other laws in operation in the Commonwealth.' The legislation fell open at that particular clause. The Prime Minister picked it up, and I said to him, `We won't be supporting that. But, because you want this voted on quickly and facilitated, of course we'll be in that. We'll be in it for a debate, but we'll not be in it for passage.' That clause has disappeared. This is in fact not really a border protection bill, despite its title; it is an omnibus bill of good reforms to the Migration Act. That is what it basically is—a series of good reforms to the Migration Act that strengthen our borders, and therefore we support it, as we support the other bills because they strengthen the regime and they do so in a reasonably humanitarian way.I appreciate the fact that, before he chose to introduce this legislation into the parliament and indeed into his party room, the minister concerned actually approached my office and my colleagues and gave us advance knowledge of it so that we could properly discuss this in our caucus processes. I acknowledge that he did that. It was a belated gesture, but we think it is the way in which all of this sort of legislation ought to be handled. It ought to be handled that way because in this place we all have a mutual interest in the respectability of the migration program. We are not a country that can operate without migrants; we are not now and we never will be. When we look at the ageing of our population and the dependency ratios that are developing, we are always going to need a well-calibrated migration program. The truth is that, these days, the societies that succeed in becoming good knowledge economies are those societies which exploit their hospitality and their ability to offer good opportunities to people of very high skills in new technologies, and the competition internationally for those people is now manifold around the globe. If you go through Silicon Valley and see the enormous success which has driven the United States dominance in new technologies, what you will see is the clever usage made by American society—albeit anarchically—of people of great skill from elsewhere around the globe. That is what has driven the creation of a massive power of the United States in new technologies.If we want to be the same, we have to be the sort of economy, the sort of society, that openly welcomes people of those skills and encourages them to be here. If we get them, we succeed. If we do not, we fail. That is why it is enormously important that we have an effective migration program. An effective migration program cannot be defended in this society if people are frightened of it, if people feel that they are being economically disadvantaged instead of economically advanced, if people feel that their good offices, their good intentions, are being undermined by what is being done by those who would seek to breach migration laws.This has been a hard thing to deal with over the years. It was hard for us. The Labor Party put in place mandatory detention for asylum seekers when we were in office because we recognised that we could not afford to be perceived around the globe as a soft touch if we were going to keep the integrity of our migration program in place. But we understood one thing absolutely when we were in office, and it was this: there is no solution to this problem that is not national and there is no solution to this problem that does not have an international component. Unless we are in the business of persuading others that we have a common problem, we are not going to resolve this problem. The key to the resolution of that problem starts—does not end, but starts—in the countries in our immediate neighbourhood, which are the point of embarkation here.There are many reasons why there has been a surge of people seeking to enter illegally via sea. Not least of the reasons is that our relationship with our nearest neighbour has fallen apart. There was a degree of inevitability, in relation to the affairs which occurred on Timor, of that happening, but there was no inevitability that it should be sustained. It is incumbent upon Australian governments to assign top priority in Australia's international relationships to the region around us and, even when we have a difficulty, not to run away from it. We should take the opportunities that are presented to us for a constant conversation and, when we are handling a problem associated with the immigration laws of this country in which they are engaged, we should conduct the diplomacy on a basis of mutual respect, care and caution and we should not brace them with a megaphone. One of the most shameful things in this whole exercise has been the fact that the original cause of all this border protection legislation lay in the fact that the Prime Minister and the government could not engage in such a good conversation with our nearest neighbour.We need a simple thing in the neighbourhood. It is the sort of thing that we had when we were threatened some time ago with a surge of people who were refugees from Vietnam and the sort of thing which in a different way we have actually achieved in relation to China—that is, we get an acceptance from those in our region that, if they are the point of embarkation, everybody who comes here goes back. Ultimately that is the deterrent: everybody who comes here goes back. If that occurs, then it is not worth while anyone coming here. But we are never going to get that unless at the other end of the game they have the capacity to be confident that people who are processed through refugee camps in their areas are going to have somewhere to go that is not there. Therefore, the quid pro quo, what we have to do in return, apart from giving them all assistance in regard to their processes, is to agree to take our fair share within the cap that is there for our refugee program. That is what we did with the Vietnamese and that is what we need to do here. There is a very slow processing of UNHCR folk through the camps now in Indonesia. The consequence of all of this is that we have had the rate of illegal migration to this country of some 1,000 a year when we were in office bump up to over 4,000; there has been an absolute surge. There are many reasons for that, as I have said, but I have been outlining one of the most important ones. There have been 136 boats come in the course of the last three years. The government, five weeks before the calling of an election, chose to take umbrage at the 137th and 138th and 139th. Tough timing vis-a-vis the election; pretty ordinary prior to then. Now we find a situation which I hope most sincerely deters, and I believe it should. I believe anybody now sitting down and looking rationally at the laws and the processes we have in place knows this: they are not going to get here, should they attempt to get here illegally. And that message should go through to them very emphatically.But there is no doubt at all that, in making this thing up on the run, we have got ourselves into a diabolically expensive situation, not least in the Navy. The way that the Navy is being utilised at the moment is not what a navy is for. The Navy is a peak defence organisation capable of operating in highly lethal environments and delivering death and destruction upon our enemies. That is the purpose of the Navy, the same as it is the purpose of the Army and the Air Force. It requires ships of considerable capacity and crews of great skill in order to be able to do that. They are not patrol officers, they are not policemen; and ships that do those things are not cheap to operate, and never will be.We need what we have been advocating for the last couple of years. And we do not just advocate it for illegal migrants; we advocate it as a mechanism for dealing with the proper monitoring of our quarantine requirements and our fisheries and for the interception of illicit drugs coming into this country. We need a coastguard. We are a maritime nation: we need a 52 weeks of the year operation. You cannot afford to operate the Navy on this basis for 52 weeks of the year without wrecking the defence budget. We need purpose designed ships, auxiliaries to the Defence Force, commanded by naval officers but being essentially civilian or policing in character; able to be staffed, apart from the command arrangements, by others not necessarily in the Navy, not in peacetime but in wartime. That is what this country needs now. It is the second leg, if you like, of the two additional things that we would propose—I have already talked about the diplomatic relations. I hope the government will see its way clear to change its mind now that it has experienced the consequences of using the Navy for so long on this. I hope also to lay down here that we support good laws, we support good deterrents and we do not seek to wedge on migration matters. (Time expired)16:56:0031018Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—I can only speak for five minutes on the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001 because of what has happened: the debate has been cut off, unfortunately. I had very much to say and I had a lot of material prepared that I wanted to put before the parliament. I will be, it appears, the only member opposing this legislation. DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr Hollis—The rest of us were gagged!QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The honourable member mentions that the rest of us were gagged. There were people gagged on both sides of the parliament. It is a disgrace that in these matters people are gagged and are not allowed to express their point of view. I noticed that in the Senate Senator Marise Payne broke down and cried when she was talking about this issue.If ever there was legislation which will not deal with the issues, then the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill must take the cake. It is one of the silliest pieces of legislation ever put before this House and it actually makes a mockery of us as a nation. Imagine this: sections of our own country, parts of Australia, are going to the excised, pushed out and told, `The laws on migration do not apply here.' What other country has ever done anything like this? Can you imagine anything crazier and more absurd? Perhaps we should excise Tasmania and make laws that say, `The laws of Australia do not apply to Tasmania in terms of certain agricultural laws, or certain other laws.' What an absurd way to proceed to deal with a problem. The Prime Minister said, in answer to my question today, that we are going to deal with the issue of making equity between those who are coming by boat and those who are processed overseas, because we do not need a different set of criteria. Minister, if that is what you want, let us legislate for a uniform set of criteria that we all agree on, not this ad hoc and absurd proposal whereby sections of our own country are excised and taken out of the migration law. Just because they have managed to push the Labor Party into agreeing with it, does that mean that what is being done here is right or that it is sensible? It is a nonsense proposition.The bill does not even explain what is going to happen when these people are processed under the UNHCR. All right, the criteria are going to be tougher, but that does not mean that nobody will get through. What about the ones that get through, the ones that are actually classified, even under the tougher criteria, as refugees? What happens to them? Are we going to say, `Christmas Island is part of Australia but for the purposes of the Migration Act it is not part Australia. We are processing them under the UNHCR criteria but we are not going to let even the ones that pass these tougher criteria stay in Australia, we are going to send them off somewhere'? Is that what we are going to do? And if we are going to accept them under the tougher criteria, why doesn't the minister say so? Why doesn't he tell us what is going to happen to these people? There has never been such absurd legislation before this House.The other point I mentioned earlier today in my question to the Prime Minister is about the Taliban, that terrible regime that we are all against, the supporter of terrorists and the regime which has made an outrageous interpretation of the Koran and of Islamic faith and which has ended up absolutely against all civilised concepts of human rights and against its own people, the Afghani people. Millions of Afghanis have been forced out of Afghanistan and a few of them—less than one in a thousand—have ended up in Australia. And what do we say? `We are against the Taliban regime; we will support the Americans in whatever they want to do against the Taliban regime, as we supported them against Saddam Hussein.' And I support that. But I say this: what about a bit of consistency? What about saying that people who have escaped these regimes need some of our sympathy and some of our concern? I ask the minister: how many Afghanis are you going to accept from the camps? Why don't you show some goodwill at least in that area? Why don't you show some more goodwill? Why don't you increase the quota of Afghanis? Why don't you increase the quota of refugees from overseas, if you are really genuine about dealing with the refugee problem? But, no, you want to reduce the overseas quota just because some people are arriving in boats.I put it to you that if you want some consistency and equality in terms of the criteria then, rather than excising Christmas Island and these other islands, why don't we have a debate in this House about what the criteria ought to be and make them uniform criteria? But instead of that we have two sets of criteria, we are going to have part of Australia excised and we are going to say that this is a solution to a problem. I tell you what it is a solution to: it is a solution to political problems. It is simply an ad hoc attempt close to an election to deal with an issue when in fact we should be dealing with this issue in a much better way.I have run out of time because I have only being given a few minutes. It is unfair that the only person opposing this bill in this chamber should be given such limited time. But other members wanted to speak from both sides who also have some concerns and they have expressed their concerns to me privately. Although there will be one vote against this bill, I can tell you there are many members in this chamber who share the concerns on the issues that I have raised.Question resolved in the affirmative, Dr Theophanous dissenting.Bill read a second time.31020Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Motion (by Mr Ruddock) put:That the bill be now read a third time.Question resolved in the affirmative, Dr Theophanous dissenting.Bill read a third time.Bills31020R141431020Consideration resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.17:04:0031020Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I might just make a few brief remarks in closing the debate on this particular bill, and I want to do so in this context: these three migration bills are a package, along with the three other bills before the parliament. One relates to redefining elements of the refugee convention; another deals with access to judicial review; and a third deals with class actions initiated to enable some people to remain in Australia, notwithstanding the fact that they have exhausted all other remedies, when they join together for the purposes of having a matter before the courts on which bridging visas can then be applied for. We have 40,000 people on bridging visas, of which I think 5,000 or 6,000 are participating in class actions, and others using litigation for that purpose.Judicial review has had a very significant impact on the way in which the refugee convention is interpreted in Australia. That interpretation is one which is widened by individual cases. People make the point that we win most cases. That does not obviate decision makers from having to follow the precedents that are established. Once they are established, you have a situation where Australia, in relation to dealing with asylum claims, has a different regime operating from what you see overseas. I will make available to honourable members an article that has been written by a Canadian in relation to exactly the same impact that judicial review has had in Canada and the United States of America.The fact is that you have two forms of refugee conventions: the jurisprudential model in a place like Australia, which is much wider in its coverage; and a much more rigorously enforced refugee convention administered by decision makers who use the UNHCR handbook for decision making. The fact is that we have seen the courts able to do this largely of their own remit. They have achieved an outcome whereby some groups arriving in Australia have very high levels of acceptance, not because they necessarily have better claims but simply because those claims are made in Australia. When you see 14 per cent of Afghani claimants being accepted in Indonesia and 84 per cent being accepted here, it makes the point very powerfully.One of the reasons for the overall scheme that we are now implementing is to make it clear that those rules are no longer operating. People will be determined under a system that operates in exactly the same way as it does in Indonesia. The bill that I am addressing makes it very clear that those who are going to be resettled in Australia, if they are found to be refugees, will not get a better outcome than if they had had their claims assessed in Indonesia—it will be a lesser outcome. That is for the purpose of sending that very message—QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Why?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Because we are wanting people to avoid those hazardous, life threatening and life taking voyages and to have their claims considered by the UNHCR in Indonesia or Pakistan, rather than having them considered here, where they know they will get different outcomes. That is the reason.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MP10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Order! Messages will be put through the chair.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—It is to send a very clear message that there is a right way and there is a wrong way. We have six bills that need to be dealt with in two weeks. They will all be in the Senate by tomorrow afternoon. The test of genuineness in relation to dealing with these issues, which are part of an integrated package of measures, if you are serious, is whether these matters will be before the Senate and dealt with before it rises. That will be the test. That may require a little courage. QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Are you saying there are no more parliamentary sittings?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I am saying we want them through in these two weeks. The point I am making is that that may require a little courage in dealing with the Senate. It means that, if the numbers are there to get the legislation through, the legislation ought to carry. If somebody is not prepared to use the numbers to get that legislation through, there are some consequences.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—Do not fret.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I am not threatening. I am simply saying—6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—I said, `Do not fret,' not, `Do not threat.'10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Minister, through the chair.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I am not fretting, either. I assume the member is indicating that the opposition will work with us to give us that outcome.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—Bipartisan—which is what you do not want.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—No, it is exactly what I want. I have been seeking these outcomes in the national interest. I believe very strongly in what needs to be done. We are dealing with a very different situation to the ones we have seen before. They are different because when we were dealing with the Vietnamese boat people, as they were described, very few came to Australia. They were always detained in countries well away from Australia. Asian countries are saying, `We are no longer prepared to detain people for you.' That is what they are saying. They were prepared to do it for us in relation to the Vietnamese, and they felt they got left holding the baby. They are not prepared to do it now. China was different because nobody was going to get asylum claims up under our system as it was then operating. If they had been able to get asylum claims up, the result would have been very different. The snake heads would not have been deterred if they had found a way through that system.What has happened in relation to these movements is that these people understand how the refugee convention is operating; they understand its liberal interpretation here. They understand the extent to which benefits are more generously paid. As the Indonesians have said to me over and over again, it is the sugar. You get better outcomes if you are able to get in a boat and get to Australia than if you are languishing in the most appalling circumstances in Pakistan, Iran or wherever. I saw a program the other night—and I want to conclude my remarks on this point—on Afghanistan. I looked at the women and children who were starving in the streets, picking up the scraps and trying to get food out of them on which they could survive. If they went over the border into Pakistan, they would not suddenly end up with $16,000 to pay a people smuggler.Next at risk would be the women at risk program, where we single out specifically women and children for resettlement. What we are seeing is a movement of middle-class people who are able to raise substantial amounts of money. Very often, if they are Afghani, they have been able to earn large amounts of money in situations of safety and security long before they get on the boats. That is the reality.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—Some of them sell everything.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—They may sell all that they have to bring a whole family. If they are going to pay $100,000 dollars, that may well be. I tell you, the women and children have nothing. Let me just say—and it is a very potent point—that the boat that was apprehended in Cambodia by Cambodian police had 243 people on board who were going to claim to be Afghani when they got to Australia. They were opening up a new route. Smugglers had moved from Indonesia to Cambodia to embark upon sailing vessels across the Gulf of Thailand and through the Indonesian archipelago to Australia directly. Their first effort was thwarted by the Cambodian police. Then we started to test who they were. We were working with the police. Twenty-five per cent of them were on Pakistani passports; they were Pakistani citizens. The balance had in large part Afghani passports with endorsements that enabled them to live in Pakistan. One hundred and seventy-four of the 243 people voluntarily went back—because IOM only removes people voluntarily—to Pakistan rather than staying in Cambodia, where they would have been safe and secure. WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—How many Afghans were on the Tampa?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—We will find out about that, but we know that a number of people on the Tampa have already asked if they can be sent back to Pakistan. I do not know how many—I think a fairly small number at this stage. They have already said, `Our preference is to go back rather than wait on Nauru.' We will find out about that in time. A number of other points were made in relation to the border protection legislation. This border protection legislation is wider in its remit, wider in terms of what it achieves and more important than the former bill.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—It is not stupid like the former one was.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—No, the former one dealt with a very specific situation. We wanted to cover a wider range of situations, and the opposition said no. It is dressing it up on a whole lot of other bases, but the fact is that you did say no.Some issues have been raised about costs. Yes, it costs a lot at the moment in relation to the arrangements that have been put in place to monitor our borders, but not as much as it costs if people are allowed into Australia and have to be dealt with under the procedures and the detention arrangements and ultimately have to receive benefits under the arrangements that are in place. Just to give you an idea, a boat of 350 people or so arriving in Australia and processed under those arrangements costs in the order of $50 million. Take two boats of 700 people, and we are looking at over $100 million. Essentially the point is that, yes, it is costing a deal of money in relation to Nauru, and something in relation to the Navy, but they are costs that would have been incurred in other ways if we were not dealing with these issues with the determination that we are.I simply make the point that this is a package of measures that can have an impact. I am not going to say that there is not a need for more. I will have some more legislation for next week. All of them are essential, and I would hope that, as the shadow minister has indicated, we will have cooperation to get all of these measures through before the parliament rises at the end of next week.Question resolved in the affirmative, Dr Theophanous dissenting.Bill read a second time.31022Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Motion (by Mr Ruddock) put:That the bill be now read a third time.Question resolved in the affirmative, Dr Theophanous dissenting.Bill read a third time.Bills31022R141231022Consideration resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative, Dr Theophanous dissenting.Bill read a second time.31022Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Motion (by Mr Ruddock) put:That the bill be now read a third time.Question resolved in the affirmative, Dr Theophanous dissenting. Bill read a third time.Bills31023R132331023Debate resumed from 7 June, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.17:18:0031023Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001 amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to provide extra funding, as announced in the Australians Working Together package released on 2 April. The bill provides $8.6 million over three years for early intervention strategies involving communities, industry and education providers, in order to encourage indigenous students to complete year 12, to complete apprenticeships and to pursue job opportunities. It is estimated that around 1,600 students will be assisted between 2002 and 2004 through expenditure of $6 million to support development and implementation of a partnerships approach and customised service delivery. Another $2.6 million will be used to provide business support for vocational learning for indigenous secondary school students. I am advised that some 40 communities and several hundred students are expected to be involved. It is proposed that there will be a range of options available, such as entry level skills training, VET in schools programs, mentoring and individual case management, and that communities may use more than one of these approaches when deciding what their particular needs are—and we welcome that.The bill also provides $2.86 million over three years to offset the impact on non-profit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations of changes to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986. The changes came into force in April this year and restrict the eligibility of charities and other non-profit organisations to tax concessions on no more than $30,000 worth of benefit per employee. The funds from the Commonwealth through this bill are designed to help indigenous non-profit organisations continue to offer competitive salary packaging, which is necessary to attract appropriately qualified staff. I am advised that there are 145 non-profit indigenous organisations currently receiving funding under the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program. The estimate of the likely cost to these organisations of the changes to FBT legislation was based on a study commissioned by the Department of Health and Aged Care and by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The study found that the FBT changes, if not offset by additional funding, were likely to bring about staff cuts and/or program restrictions. For that reason we support this particular portion of the legislation.I cannot speak on a bill dealing with indigenous education without raising once again my concern about the recent decline in tertiary education participation by indigenous students—and I know that this is a concern shared by the honourable member for Banks. Progress in this area has been slow. In 1991 indigenous students made up 0.9 per cent of higher education students. By 1994 this had grown to 1.0 per cent. By 1998 it had reached 1.2 per cent. So growth was slow but steady. It is with alarm, then, that we note that the latest DETYA figures show that in the year 2000 the proportion of indigenous students in higher education fell back to 1.1 per cent. Participation of indigenous Australians in vocational education and training also fell in the year 2000—from 3.1 per cent in 1999 to 3.0 per cent. So we have seen an across-the-board fall in indigenous participation in post-secondary education and training, and that is a tragedy for those indigenous Australians who have missed out.In response to a series of Senate estimates questions asked in June this year, DETYA advised that in 2000 the number of indigenous students enrolled in higher education was 7,350, or 651 fewer than in 1999. It also advised that the number of commencing students was 3,510, which was 630 fewer than in 1999. DETYA said in its written response, `We are unable to confirm the reason for the decline and are undertaking further research into the issue.' I would ask the minister what that further research has revealed and whether he can deny that his own punitive changes to Abstudy provide the only valid explanation for this significant reversal of a trend of increasing participation that extends back as far as records go. In 1998 the minister announced changes to Abstudy that, he said, would `open up opportunities for indigenous students to access a wider range of assistance to achieve better education and employment outcomes'. He dismissed claims that the cuts in support to mature age students would lead to declines in the number of indigenous students, and the minister insisted that the changes were budget neutral. Now we have information from his own department that shows that the critics were right and the minister was wrong: the total number of indigenous tertiary students in receipt of Abstudy fell by 1,568 between 1999 and 2000, when the changes were implemented; and expenditure on tertiary Abstudy fell by more than $5 million. So much for budget neutrality! Of the $8.6 million in extra program funds provided by this bill, $5 million has already been taken from Abstudy. As I said before, the opposition will be supporting this bill, but we would appreciate more honesty and integrity from the government—and in particular from the minister—in dealing with the serious problems facing indigenous Australians.17:24:0031024Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I am pleased to rise in this House to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001. It is an issue that is fairly dear to my heart. It goes back many years, I dare say, right back to my own school days—and that now is a long time ago. There is a disadvantage in the Aboriginal community, and the disadvantage stems from lack of education. I have never doubted that for many years. I recall very clearly when I was a high school student in MacLean talking to the headmaster of the public primary school about Aboriginal children. That man was a very dedicated schoolteacher, and he commented that `we have them until 6th grade and then we lose them'. That is a statement that I think has been true for a long time. It was certainly true then and it is still true today. If you look closely at the figures of Aboriginal students who finish tertiary education, who finish high school and get training in DETYA, you will find that the percentages are way below those of the rest of the community. This is an issue I think that successive governments have tried to overcome. If you look at some of the funding that goes towards this education, I dare say that it could be said that governments have positively discriminated in favour of Aboriginal students—and yet we still have not received achieved the desired results. I have a school in my electorate at Baryulgil, which is a large Aboriginal community, and the state government has put every conceivable teaching aid that you might imagine in that school. There are three teachers there for 24 students, and that is way above the average that you would see at any other school. Unfortunately, out of 24 students, some days there are only four students at school. It is an attitudinal problem, and I think that somehow we have to get through to the parents of Aboriginal children the importance of education. I recall—and I suppose many of those my age would recall similar things—what my parents said to me every day before I went to school: `Remember, you must get a good education.' They never had the opportunity. They never went past 6th grade at school because they did not have the opportunity. Yet in my generation my parents drummed it into me, `Make sure that you get a good education.' I am not just saying this of the Aboriginal community; I think in some sectors of the wider community the attitude is that we are not impressing upon young people the importance of education. When you do not have a good education, you have no chance of getting a job in the community that you might want. That leads, of course, to unemployment, to alcohol abuse, and to assault and all the attendant social problems that frequently occur in the community. Trying to address this by extra funding is one thing, but it is not just a matter of funding, as I have said. We have to try and address it even further than that by way of attitudes—something that is absolutely necessary. Obviously, some people succeed. A very good example of that in this parliament is Senator Aiden Ridgeway. He went to school with my boys at Woodlawn college at Lismore and succeeded. But the trouble is that far too few of those people are managing to succeed. There are very good role models, and maybe we should be using role models to try and encourage young Aboriginal students to do more with the opportunities that exist. There is no country in the world that gives young people in the community the opportunities that Australia gives them. Those opportunities are open to everyone. No matter whether you are Aboriginal or what your ethnic background is, there is free education for all in Australia and every opportunity is given to access it. There are many countries in this world where young people would give anything to have the opportunities that exist in this country. I support this bill very strongly. But, as I say, money alone will not achieve the results we want to achieve. Somewhere along the line we have to look closely at how we can ensure that students continue in education and then have the opportunities to get some skills and get a job. We have to make sure that they can then join the work force and, as I said, overcome some of the disadvantage that is obvious in those communities.17:30:0031025Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I join with the previous speaker, the honourable member for Page, in indicating the importance of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001. As someone who has worked on a regular basis with people in indigenous communities, going back to 1975 when I first commenced employment with the Miscellaneous Workers Union, I understand the importance of the lack of opportunity that exists in many indigenous communities around Australia. From growing up in the western suburbs of Sydney, I also understand that one's opportunities in life are very much related to one's educational opportunities. In essence, it comes back to the fundamentals of life. If, in the early years of education, you do not get adequate support in terms of literacy and numeracy, you undermine your fundamental opportunity later in life to proceed with success at school and have the opportunity to complete your schooling and gain access to an apprenticeship or tertiary education. As difficult as that is in some of the outer suburbs of metropolitan Australia, it is even more difficult in the indigenous communities around Australia. What also concerns me is that, despite our continuing endeavours as a community to support indigenous education and despite the large amounts of money spent both at a Commonwealth and a state level, we have failed to get it right. That effectively means that we have to review what we have done in the past so as to ensure that we learn from our failures and start to guarantee that we get a better return on our investment in indigenous education and guarantee that people start to go beyond year 6, as suggested by the previous speaker, and proceed to the completion of year 10 and, hopefully, the completion of year 12. In trying to come to terms with indigenous education and targeted assistance, we have to review the method of delivery of education to indigenous communities. One of our weaknesses in the past is that we have failed to appreciate that it is very difficult to take indigenous children out of their communities and expect them to easily adapt to the education system that we and our children are accustomed to. As those who understand indigenous education know, the extended family and family support are of fundamental importance to the indigenous community. If we therefore expect indigenous children to actually grow in their educational opportunities and succeed at school, we have to make sure that the education system is tailored to the needs of those indigenous children. That means that more and more we not only have to take education into the communities in rural, remote and regional Australia but we also have to make sure that, if we get into a situation where those people are required to leave those indigenous communities to further their education, we guarantee that we provide adequate access to hostels in the major regional and metropolitan areas of Australia and provide a supporting environment which enables those people to easily adjust to their new environment and, more importantly, to go forward on the basis of a wonderful community spirit and sense of support—the key objective being that they settle into those new communities and succeed on the education front. I support the nature of our endeavours as a community to assist our indigenous communities. The key in the first instance is succeeding on the education front. If we succeed on the education front, we will then make progress with respect to jobs and career development, and as a nation we will be better off. 17:34:0031026Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001 amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000, firstly, to provide $2.86 million over three years to offset the impact on non-profit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations of changes to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 and, secondly, to provide $8.6 million over three years for early intervention strategies involving communities, industry and education providers to encourage indigenous students to complete year 12, complete apprenticeships and pursue job opportunities. The first purpose of the bill relates to the changes to FBT. The changes came into force in April this year and restrict the eligibility of charities and other non-profit organisations to tax concessions on no more than $30,000 worth of benefit per employee. Benefits above $30,000 per employee will now be liable for FBT at the rate of 48.5 cents in the dollar. The funds from the Commonwealth through this bill are designed to help indigenous non-profit organisations to continue to offer competitive salary packaging which is necessary to attract appropriately qualified staff. ATSIC and other indigenous organisations preferred a full exemption from FBT for charities and not-for-profit organisations. Instead, a relief package of $43.7 million over four years to Commonwealth agencies including ATSIC was announced on 30 March 2001. The additional $2.86 million in this bill is part of the relief package. The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, DETYA, assumes that with access to additional funding organisations will be able to continue to offer competitive salary packaging to professional staff such as teachers and principals. The estimate of the likely cost to these organisations of the changes to FBT was based on a study commissioned by the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The study found that FBT changes, if not offset by additional funding, were likely to bring about staff cuts and/or program reductions. During the assessment of the impact of the FBT, 121 education and training organisations receiving Commonwealth funding were surveyed. However, DETYA is not sure how many organisations requested additional funding when applications closed on 31 July 2001. As a result, the opposition, frankly, can have no knowledge whether this was adequate. I do not think it is widely understood in the general community how much work charitable or not-for-profit organisations do in indigenous communities. As someone who has resided in very remote communities in Australia for the best part of 26 years and having worked for one of these organisations for part of that time, I can say that, without these organisation, services would not be delivered to many parts of Australia and to many Australian citizens, yet they have been chronically underfunded for many years. The bottom line is that organisations have had to use creative methods to attract staff. As I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, one of the key issues in remote and rural Australia, but particularly in remote Australia, is attracting qualified professional staff. Inevitably, the budgets of those places are so tight that they are unable to provide competitive salary packages. As a result they find it difficult to attract and retain staff. In those circumstances, the people who are being disadvantaged, at great cost to the community in the long run, are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; in this case, in Northern Australia. The external costs associated with that are tremendous, yet they have never been quantified and no-one has endeavoured to look at what the cost would be if the organisations that currently carry out that work were not in operation. It is incumbent upon us to recognise that work. Whilst I support this package as proposed by the government today, I am not sure that it is enough. I say to the government that this is something that we want to reconsider in due course, after we have seen the impact of this package on the ability of those organisations to employ and retain staff and to undertake the work for which they have been properly mandated. The second purpose of the bill is to provide additional funding for indigenous education through an additional $8.6 million for non-Abstudy payments over the period 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2005, with the aim of encouraging 1,600 secondary school students in indigenous communities to complete year 12 and go on to further education. It will also assist 2,300 indigenous secondary education students to undertake vocational education and training. Since 1990, there have been increases in Commonwealth funding for indigenous education, which has continued under the coalition government. However, last year the government included the objective of better literacy and numeracy outcomes and better attendance outcomes for indigenous students as part of the funding arrangements to education providers for the purpose of implementing the government's National Indigenous Literacy and Numeracy Strategy. The launch of the National Indigenous Literacy and Numeracy Strategy in March 2000 was the occasion for the Prime Minister to further reiterate his flawed concept of practical reconciliation.Practical reconciliation emphasises the government's priority to achieving improved outcomes in education, health and employment and reducing welfare dependency. The Prime Minister has confined the indigenous affairs portfolio to what he labels `practical reconciliation'. By that he means housing, health, employment and education, and dismissing, therefore, what he describes as other irrelevant issues such as rights and social justice. Labor believes that the Howard government's practical reconciliation agenda is a rebadging of what really are basic citizenship rights. In other words, the Howard government believes that people's rights are not important to people's wellbeing in reducing disadvantage or advancing reconciliation. That approach has been criticised by many people nationally and internationally and by indigenous and non-indigenous Australians in all parts of the community, as practical reconciliation really just means providing services that other Australian citizens are entitled to and does not lead to substantive equality.`Substantive equality' means equality that is real or substantial. It does not mean treating all people in a uniform way, but it acknowledges socioeconomic differences between people and then trying to get equal outcomes. That clearly has not been the objective which has underlined the government's approach. From the proven statistical data concerning indigenous health, housing, education and employment, it is obvious that Australian indigenous people do not have substantive equality. Dr Bill Jonas from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission stated:The current approach of practical reconciliation simply manages the inequality faced by indigenous people. It is insufficient to reduce, let alone overcome, the disadvantage faced.Noel Pearson summed it up by saying:The problems that we are talking about are not simply practical problems that can be solved with good intentions and sufficient funding.But the government has failed even on its own terms of practical reconciliation. We have only to look at education to see that. There has been a fall in indigenous education participation rates over the past few years. In secondary education, school retention and participation for indigenous youth has not improved markedly in recent years. In tertiary education, according to the government's own department, indigenous commencements and enrolments have fallen dramatically in the last year: by 15.2 per cent and 8.1 per cent respectively to either below or just above what they were in 1996.According to the National Tertiary Education Union, indigenous students now comprise only 1.23 per cent of non-overseas students, the lowest percentage since 1996. That decrease has been linked to the cuts of $38 million made to Abstudy by the Howard government in the 1996 budget for both ATSIC and the ANU. That is the Howard government failing even on its own terms of practical reconciliation. In 1991, indigenous students made up 0.9 per cent of higher education students. By 1994 it had grown to one per cent, and by 1998 it had reached 1.2 per cent. However, DETYA figures show that in 2000 the proportion of indigenous students in higher education fell back to 1.1 per cent. Participation of indigenous Australians in vocational education and training also fell from 3.1 per cent in 1999 to three per cent in 2000. We have an across-the-board fall in indigenous participation in post-secondary education and training. In response to a series of Senate estimates questions in June this year, DETYA has advised that in 2000 the number of indigenous students enrolled in higher education was 7,350 fewer than in 1999. It also advised that the number of commencing students was 3,510, which was 630 fewer than in 1999. DETYA, in its written response, said:We are unable to confirm the reason for the decline and are undertaking further research into the issue.That is the Howard government failing in one of the key areas of practical reconciliation. Labor programs such as Abstudy have made a significant contribution to improving indigenous education outcomes. Labor is committed to improving indigenous participation in tertiary education across all disciplines and levels of study and it will encourage the recognition and valuing of indigenous knowledge within higher education institutions. Labor believes that indigenous people should be encouraged to enter tertiary education and not be earmarked for vocational education and training, as has occurred under this government and as is borne out by the decreases in tertiary education participation.Indigenous representation in vocational education and training is primarily in certificate 1 and 2 levels. This means that we run the risk of reverting to the old education paradigm of making indigenous people `good with their hands, but not with their heads'. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Indigenous people must be encouraged and assisted in accessing a full range of educational opportunities. The Prime Minister has asked to be judged on the performance of practical reconciliation; by this education measure, he is clearly failing. It gives me no pleasure to say that, in respect of almost every measure, this government has failed on its own definition of what it believes reconciliation to be about. There are very many examples where I live in the Northern Territory of where the government has failed. Indigenous housing is but another example of that. When I visit communities in my electorate, I see the appalling state of infrastructure, roads, health care and education. Even if you accepted the rhetoric coming out of the Prime Minister's mouth, it has failed. He has not lived up to the promise that he made to the Australian people on the issue of what he referred to as practical reconciliation which, after all, is what every other Australian takes for granted.We have an obligation to indigenous Australians which has yet to be met. We must recognise that they have a right to equal opportunity and a right to access educational resources. In my electorate of the Northern Territory, not one Aboriginal community has a publicly funded high school. I am talking about some communities of 2,500 people. This government have failed to impose discipline upon themselves and to see that, in terms of providing Aboriginal education, improving Aboriginal education outcomes and employment outcomes, and acknowledging a link between the two, instead of blaming Aboriginal people for poor health, education and employment outcomes, they should assess what the problem really is. The problem lies at the feet of the government and their public policy, and the inability and failure of the government to be prepared to provide appropriate finances to address these shortfalls.You cannot expect a young Aboriginal person who, like many in the bush may have English as a second, third or even fourth language in some cases, and who might leave school at the age of 13 or 14 with a reading age of year 3 or 4 in the school system, to be able to fit into a TAFE course which may require literacy qualifications for entry to that course. Whose responsibility is this? We know that Aboriginal people cannot then compete in the labour market because they cannot get the training to give them the skills to actually do the work. I see nothing coming from the government which is designed to address this problem. We hear a lot of platitudes and a lot of statements about its brave intentions, but there is very little to improve the outcomes in this area. As we approach a federal election, there is an obligation on the government to acknowledge that it has failed indigenous Australians in the area of education. The government needs to acknowledge that it needs to do a great deal more in terms of what it proposes to the Australian people to improve educational outcomes for indigenous Australians. However, it is not only indigenous education outcomes that need to be addressed; as I have said, there are many other matters. I have raised in this place before the way in which Aboriginal Australians, certainly in my electorate of the Northern Territory, have been shortchanged by approaches from this government, particularly with regard to roads and other infrastructure. It is all very well funding the Deputy Prime Minister's seat—I expect to no avail in the end—and providing $43 million for roads when my electorate of 1.3 million square kilometres and 110,000 voters gets half that amount of money. It was justified on the basis of need in the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate—I fear not; it was justified on the basis of political expediency. That is the issue here. Indigenous education is not a priority for this government—as much as it might like to say that it is. Indigenous education has never been a real priority for this government.The new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory was in the gallery this afternoon. Thank God she was elected. I say that for this very simple reason: the previous Northern Territory government, the CLP and the conservative brothers and sisters of the government, had refused to sign an indigenous education program agreement with the Commonwealth government which was a program worth around $43 million for education in the Northern Territory. They refused to sign that strategic initiatives program because they could not agree with the outcomes that the Commonwealth wanted. I think that I am right to say that one of the first acts of the new Martin Labor government in the Northern Territory was to instruct the department to sign off with the Commonwealth on those outcomes and to get the $43 million so it can be spent on Aboriginal education in the Northern Territory. A lot needs to be done. As I have said, we have seen a great failure on behalf of this government. It talks about practical reconciliation, but in reality it has failed.17:51:0031029Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—I rise to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001. I spoke on the same issue last year when the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Bill 2000 came before this House. I moved some amendments to the bill then. This bill is similar to last year's bill. While there are some changes in funding, in overall terms there are very few changes in policy or approaches.Last year, I raised the issue of what really can be a successful program in indigenous education. What can we do to ensure that we have successful educational outcomes for our Aboriginal people? The answer to that must be that, besides focusing on literacy and numeracy—which the government likes to do—we must also focus on a culturally reasonable and appropriate educational program for Aboriginal children and young adults.That means that we have to ask ourselves what has happened in relation to Aboriginal culture. This is a very tough question for a society that has essentially acted for over 200 years in a way that was designed to destroy Aboriginal culture. We did succeed in many ways. We succeeded in destroying much of Aboriginal culture. Many Aboriginal languages have virtually disappeared and many cultural traditions have disappeared. Even when some of those cultural traditions remain in some pockets, very often Aboriginal people that came from those traditions have no access to them. So, besides the physical suffering that we imposed upon the Aboriginal people, probably just as cruel was the destruction of their cultural traditions and the removal of people from those traditions so that they were not able to be brought up in those traditions or able to be educated in those traditions. In the debate on the stolen generation some people said, `Let's not overemphasise what happened. After all, these kids who were taken were brought up in Christian schools and they were taught things. If they had stayed in their original homes, they would probably have been worse off. Let's not overestimate the consequences of the stolen generation.' The single most important point here is this: in removing those children, we did not simply remove them from the family bond and situation as we understand it, we also removed them from their cultural milieu, from their cultural situation. In so doing, we effectively brought them up without much knowledge, or with no knowledge whatsoever, of their cultural traditions. Because so many people suffered this fate, whether they were directly stolen or removed in other ways, we have undermined Aboriginal cultures because we have removed much of the knowledge and much of the spirit of Aboriginal culture from many of the Aboriginal people themselves. We must come to a recognition of this fact, because the social and cultural alienation of the Aboriginal people is really what has happened. It is this social and cultural alienation which has in a sense broken the spirit of so many Aboriginal people. I do not say all. There are many who have resisted this, but there are also many who have been broken in spirit. When we see Aboriginal people who appear to be, from a Western point of view, at the dead end of society—in poverty, in situations that we would consider deprivation—and many people say, `It is all their responsibility,' we forget about what has happened here. We forget that their spirit has been broken because they have lost their cultural traditions.That is why at least a part of a reasonable and sensible program of Aboriginal or indigenous education must focus on the teaching of Aboriginal culture and tradition in the first instance to Aboriginal children. The government seems very keen to set targets in terms of numeracy and literacy, but it refuses to put into programs anything to do with actually teaching Aboriginal children about Aboriginal cultural traditions. If anything is taught, it is taught primarily on a voluntary basis in schools. Some schools do it and some schools do not do it, but there is no requirement, even though we have this targeted program. If we are not even teaching Aboriginal children about their cultural traditions, what hope is there of teaching other children about Aboriginal culture so that they can understand it and appreciate it, so that we can have genuine reconciliation?Last year I raised this issue in the bill that went before the parliament. I raised the question with ATSIC. I received a letter from the chairman of ATSIC. He said:I understand that you are to propose amendments to the government's Bill, the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Bill 2000.While I look forward to seeing the details of the amendments when they are tabled, I would like to provide some comments on your proposal.Firstly, I must comment that ATSIC does have a role of advising the government and the Ministers on legislation affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and will continue to provide as much positive input in that role to the government, whenever legislation is in formulation.Secondly, ATSIC already has broad policy and strategic objectives which indicate our strong support for the inclusion of indigenous cultural and heritage education for our people. For example, the ATSIC Corporate Plan states, inter alia:ATSIC will aim to be well placed to protect our existing land, sea and cultural heritage rights, as well as extend the formal recognition of these rights;ATSIC will ensure indigenous people are aware of and can exercise their rights, by funding education awareness campaigns on rights for indigenous peoples;ATSIC will promote the recognition of the right to use and be educated in indigenous languages in Australia.Thirdly, I note that the UN Human Rights Committee, in its recent examination of Australia's compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights asked the Australian representatives how Australian law guarantees the continuation of indigenous culture and livelihood for the future—a question which unfortunately was not, and cannot be, given a positive response.Given my preceding comments, I would like to add my own view that the proposed Bill will be insufficient if it does not carry provisions for the education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our own languages, of our own social Responsibilities and of our distinct indigenous cultural heritage. These are surely the fundamental components of our identity as Indigenous Peoples. You may take from these comments that I am in support of your intention to strengthen the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Bill 2000 by including quantifiable targets for the education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people regarding our own cultural heritage.I look forward to following the progress of your amendments during the parliamentary debate and I will ensure that ATSIC remains available to advise the government, the parliament and members of the parliament on this most important policy issue.Yours sincerelyGeoff Clark5 Oct 2000During the debate on the bill, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs indicated that, although they do not agree with specific targets in this matter, they will aim to achieve certain outcomes when educating children, Aboriginal children particularly, about their cultural traditions. I was told that there would an attempt to monitor this situation and report back to the parliament. We have a new bill that deals with this issue but no report. We do not have any idea of whether anything much has been achieved with respect to what Mr Clark described since that commitment last year, which is surely the fundamental component of our identity as indigenous peoples.With my amendments last year, I tried to ensure that a minimum of 20 per cent of education was dedicated to the teaching of indigenous cultures and heritage. This was to ensure that, when schools received funding under these proposals, they at least tried to have a component of this kind. I do not say that the whole responsibility in this matter rests with the federal government, but I do say that, as the government is funding under this program, it should be monitoring this and it should be trying to achieve these outcomes.Unless we address this issue, we will not be in a position to restore the heritage of the Aboriginal people to a level that will allow us to say with confidence that that heritage will continue into future generations. What am I talking about when I refer to this heritage? One might ask, `How can you do anything? There are so many Aboriginal cultures and languages.' We can certainly do much to restore the many common elements, even though there are differences. We can certainly do much in particular areas of Australia where there are high concentrations of Aboriginal people to help them to promote their fundamental values about humanity, about spirituality and about respect for one another—a whole different concept of Aboriginal society and philosophy. We need to ensure that that concept is not destroyed in the 21st century.Since the debate last year, a book was published—I have forgotten now the name of it—that presented the diametrically opposite view to the one I am presenting to you. Basically the book said that we need to tell indigenous people to forget about their cultural traditions—to forget about their backgrounds, become Western and get with it in the 21st century. They should forget entirely about all of that rich cultural heritage— which, by the way, we can learn much from—and simply become part of the globalised village, which will have certain common beliefs and values and will exclude indigenous ideas whether they be indigenous Aboriginal ideas or even indigenous ideas from other cultures. I totally reject the thesis in that book.We all understand that globalisation is heading in a certain direction, that communications humanity in a sense is moving closer together and that interactions of an economic nature will become increasingly more globalised—there is a certain inevitability about that. Globalisation does not mean that cultural diversity is finished. Globalisation does not mean that valued traditions, including the traditions of our own indigenous people, will be destroyed or should be destroyed and forgotten about. The thesis in that book was observed, but it was dangerous as well. This is why, when we have discussions about globalisation, we also need to have discussions about cultural survival—the survival of a diversity of cultures in a global context. Wouldn't it be a shame if all of the richness of humanity through its many cultures was destroyed through a globalised process and we all had the same beliefs, the same philosophies, the same values, the same metaphysics and the same political philosophy? 4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—It would be a boring world.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—It would be a boring world, as the honourable member says. But it would not be just a boring world; it would be a world in which we would not really have the totality of the richness that human beings have created in this world. That is why we have to protect and support Aboriginal cultural traditions. Where they have been destroyed we have to help restore them. We have to teach a lot about Aboriginal cultural traditions to Aboriginal children, and not just to those children living in remote areas but also to Aboriginal children living in the cities. I go back to the point that Mr Clark made in his letter to me: it is the very question of identity. The Aboriginal people themselves lose their identity if they lose their traditions and cultures. We have done so much to destroy their cultures and traditions; let us do something positive. Let us not just talk about having an indigenous education policy that is simply teaching them how to read and write. Let us look at an indigenous education policy that teaches them about these traditions.The proposal that I put forward last year for a modest 20 per cent of the curriculum to be dedicated to that was not a very huge proposal. It was a modest proposal. ATSIC supported this general idea. Other people in this chamber supported this general idea. But we have not heard much from the government about what is to be done with it. What we need from the government, and indeed what we will need from whoever is in government after the election in November, is a statement about the role of education in Aboriginal culture. We need a statement that addresses these fundamental issues of Aboriginal identity, of Aboriginal culture and its relationship to education. The member for the Northern Territory is right: we need to do a lot in housing, employment, health, infrastructure and all those areas, but we may do all of that and still not get the successes that we want until we help restore what was the spirit of the Aboriginal people, which was based on a whole belief system—a philosophy, a metaphysics, various religious practices and a relationship to the land, which is one that we still do not understand because it is different from our views of land. All of those ideas have to come back into an indigenous policy, because only in this way will we be able to have a genuine indigenous education policy and a policy that can assist to ensure the survival of our indigenous cultures throughout the 21st century.18:10:0031032McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00— The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001 is not unusual in terms of the bills that come before this parliament. It is one that ultimately everybody will vote for but about which some of us feel disappointment. Its purposes are to provide more funding for indigenous education. Who can complain about that? But it is so sadly inadequate and part of a structure of measures that are failing. You feel like crying out and saying, `Can't you see that more needs to be done.' But, on the eve of the election, all we are really able to do is say, `Here are some resources that are needed; they ought to be provided so let us not stand in the way. Let us simply say that what is being done is not enough and advocate the case for more, subsequent.'The money that is being provided pursuant to this bill arising to offset the impact of the fringe benefits tax is entirely non-controversial in its intention. It is not possible to assess whether it is adequate in its amount. The opposition broadly supported the changes to the fringe benefits tax, because they were about cleaning up the taxation system far beyond the indigenous organisations that were caught up in the crossfire of those amendments. The government was very tardy in its consideration of how the affected indigenous organisations might be compensated but, ultimately, it put in the budget an amount of money that is flowing out to indigenous organisations. I have been speaking to them around the country and there is no doubt that it is assisting them in meeting the crisis in staffing that was caused by the changes, but whether it can be considered as adequate only time will tell. But that is not the controversial part of the legislation; everybody accepts that there needs to be that compensation. The amount has been objectively estimated and we hope it proves to be adequate. The significance of the bill is in its direct educational expenditure. I want to respond very briefly to the remarks by the member for Calwell, not by way of criticism, because one cannot but admire his passionate commitment. I think the proposition he put forward last year was far too prescriptive. It assumed that the solution that is appropriate for some parts of Australia was nationally appropriate, and it assumed that we can set a targeted amount of money and that that will be broadly applicable. I think that is heroic in its assumptions but not particularly helpful. But the underlying intent of what he was setting out to achieve is valid and worthy of recognition. The concern about indigenous culture and indigenous language, its recognition and support and its enhancement by the educational process rather than by that educational process being in conflict with the process of protection, enhancement, reinforcement and continuity in indigenous culture is a valid concept and is worthy of recognition and respect.The additional funding provided by this bill is designed to assist secondary school students to go on to year 12 and beyond or to undertake vocational education and training. Over the last decade or so, and in some ways you could say over the last three decades, there has been a substantial increase in Commonwealth funding for indigenous education. That is welcome and necessary. Recently the government has added a more specific outcome objective related to its national literacy and numeracy strategy. It is not possible to argue that literacy and numeracy are other than worthwhile objectives; the risk is that the minister's focus on it might narrow the focus of educational funding as a whole and indigenous education in particular. I think this issue needs some further analysis. There has been a lot of very useful debate about this more broadly in the education community, but I do not want to divert onto it today. I simply say that it is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for an adequate indigenous education strategy, and I hope we can get a broader focus. It is that broader focus that I want to talk about. We need to get beyond the issue of so-called practical reconciliation—and that is consistent with the points that the member for Calwell was making. We need to look beyond those things which the government seems to think, for some reason, are special benefits given to indigenous people: housing, health, employment and education—as if those things were not a fundamental government obligation for all Australians. It is not a unique obligation for indigenous people. Along with that, there should be a recognition that there needs to be adequate support in those basic areas of housing, health, employment and education, that these are rights for all citizens, not special entitlements for indigenous people, and that we are not doing them a favour by providing necessary and appropriate support. This goes to the great fallacy that treating everybody the same constitutes equality. There is no way, in health policy, that we would ever say that we should spend as much money on healthy people as we do on sick people. Health funding should be proportionate to need. Rationally, one would have thought that we would do the same in education funding, but we too often hear the fallacy that somehow equality is the same as uniformity and we should treat everybody the same even if their needs are different. That is the first thing we have to dispel. The second thing is that we have to recognise that rights and issues of culture, social questions and questions of justice are worthwhile goals in themselves as well as playing into whether we can achieve our objectives of practical reconciliation. One would have to say that the practical reconciliation agenda is failing. I spent quite a lot of last week visiting indigenous education institutions, particularly tertiary institutions, and looking at the statistics. I have a particular concern about the decline in indigenous participation in tertiary education. Progress in secondary education seems to have stalled, but even the government's own department has released figures that show that, in tertiary education, commencements and enrolments of indigenous Australians have fallen dramatically in the last year. Commencements have fallen by 15.2 per cent and enrolments have fallen by 8.1 per cent, to below or just above the 1996 statistics. After years of steady increase in the proportion of indigenous higher education students, that figure has started to decline again in 2000. Participation of indigenous Australians in vocational education and training also fell in 2000. In 2000, there were fewer indigenous students enrolled in higher education than there were in 1999, and the number of commencing students was 630 fewer than in 1999. It had fallen from over 4,000 to approximately 3,500. These are the statistics of failure, and this is why we cannot oppose this legislation. Inadequate as we might think it is, if we are confronted with those circumstances and someone comes forward with resources that might be of value, we have to say, `Too little, too late; but better than nothing. Let's support this and let these resources flow as quickly as possible.' But nobody can be comfortable with the circumstances where enrolments and participation—absolutely and as a proportion of tertiary education participation—are falling. Any incoming government will have to face this issue after the election, and I certainly give a fundamental commitment that an incoming Labor government will address it.18:21:0031034Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—In summing up, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to the debate on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001, because it is certainly an important bill. While the educational outcomes for indigenous Australians are improving, considerable gaps still remain between the educational achievements of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, with indigenous Australians remaining the most educationally disadvantaged group in Australia. The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 is the vehicle for the government's Indigenous Education Strategic Initiative Program—or IESIP, as it is commonly known—for the 2001-04 quadrennium and provides the authority to approve some $591 million in grants to indigenous education providers in the states and territories over the quadrennium. This funding affirms the government's very strong commitment to indigenous education in Australia, an area that we know to be very important.The purpose of the bill that I am commending to the chamber today is twofold. Firstly, it will allow for the funding of projects involving partnerships between communities, industries and education providers and business support for vocational learning for indigenous secondary schools. Secondly, it will accommodate amendments to the Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986, which now restricts the use of tax concessions used by charities and other nonprofit organisations, which includes most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, to a maximum of $30,000 of the gross taxable value of the benefit per employee. The amendment in this bill allows funding to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to minimise the impact of the restrictions. The first amendment in the bill is a consequence of a budget measure under the Australians Working Together package. The measure is a response to one of the recommendations of the McClure report, Participation report for a more equitable society. The recommendation aims to encourage business investment in community economic development and provide leadership skills to disadvantaged communities. There are two elements to the budget measure: partnerships between communities, industry and education providers; and support for vocational learning for indigenous secondary school students. The projects involving partnerships between communities, industry and education providers are aimed at providing support for a significant cohort of secondary school indigenous students to stay on and successfully complete year 12 and go on to higher education or vocational education and training and industry based traineeships. The vocational learning projects will be based on local community industry needs and opportunities. The early intervention strategies to be funded through the bill are based on the experiences of the Polly Farmer Foundation Gumala project, which has been successfully operating in Western Australia. The vision of the Gumala project is to improve the educational outcomes for Aboriginal students in the Roeborne area to a level commensurate with the broader population so that they are able to compete effectively for apprenticeships and commercial cadetships or to pursue further education and employment opportunities. The fringe benefits tax compensation measure in the bill affects only those organisations that are providing salary packages to employees at 31 March 2001 in excess of $30,000 per employee. This is annualised and grossed up and does not include items such as remote housing allowances. The provision is expected to affect an unknown number of educational institutions but is included in this bill so that nonprofit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations can continue to provide staff with competitive salary packages and so that students who are educated by those organisations are not in turn disadvantaged by the changes which have been made to the Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986. This is particularly important in remote areas, where it is difficult to attract suitably qualified staff. The bill provides increases in appropriations for non-Abstudy payments by $2,538,000 for 2002, $4,504,000 for 2003 and $4,417,000 for 2004.With respect to the comments made by the member for Dobell regarding cuts to Abstudy from 1 January 2000, I would remind the member that more than $15 million was transferred from Abstudy to the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program for away-from-base activities for indigenous students undertaking studies through a combination of distance education and residential schools and other face-to-face teaching.The member for the Northern Territory expressed some concerns about indigenous students enrolled in vocational education and training, or voc ed, as we know it. It should be noted that, although there is an apparent decrease in the number of indigenous students commencing higher education—that is, university studies—there has been a substantial increase in the number of indigenous students enrolled in voc ed of some 12 per cent between 1998 and 2000. In 1995 there were 26,000 indigenous people in vocational education and training courses; in 2000 there were over 51,000—almost double that number. I consider this a very good achievement and something the government can take some pride in. Further, the Aboriginal take-up of New Apprenticeships has trebled in the past two years. The New Apprenticeships increased from 1,080 to 5,340 by March 2001.The member for Calwell asked some questions about monitoring programs and reporting to parliament. I remind the member for Calwell that reporting takes place in the year following the allocation of funding, so he should look forward to tuning in next year for that report. Again, I thank those who have taken part in the debate, and I commend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001 to continue the work to address educational disadvantage in the indigenous community.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.31035Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Ms Worth) read a third time.Bills31035R140331035Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Mr Entsch:That the bill be now read a second time.18:29:0031036Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The opposition supports this measure. The Excise Tariff Amendment (Crude Oil) Bill 2001 is designed to reduce the excise applicable to two kinds of oil: old and new oil, variously described, in order to seek to increase the production incentives for the respective kinds of oil that are described in the bill. The government, of course, is no doubt responding to the perceived problem which, I think, is quite rightly identified as an issue for Australia in the future. While we have been quite self-sufficient in crude oil reserves in the past, the reality now is that, as we look to the future, our reserves of crude and the potential reserves that we might exploit in the future are somewhat diminished over those that we have enjoyed in the past. As we look to that depleted situation in future years we can also look to increased costs from importing this essential commodity for our industry and for commerce. The reality is that that is a very expensive proposition and, clearly, the government, like the opposition, in seeking to avoid that kind of situation in the future, is looking for measures that might increase the discovery and production from the various kinds of existing and new facilities. Oil, of course, has the tags of `old' and `new' oil on the basis of when it was discovered and brought into production. Following the oil price shocks of the OPEC crisis in the early 1970s the then Whitlam government introduced an excise on crude oil in order to ensure that profits and super profits in those days arising from indigenous discoveries were shared with the Australian people and taxpayers. Oil which was in production before 18 September 1975 was referred to as `old' oil, and that oil which has been brought into production subsequent to 18 September 1975 is referred to as `new' oil—although these days it is getting somewhat older. However, the legislation in consequence of that seeks to find ways to stimulate production by lowering the excise rates on both these kinds of oil. The reductions are not dramatic. While the amount of money is obviously in the millions of dollars, compared to the cost and value of large scale oil production obviously it is not an overwhelming amount but certainly will contribute towards the incentives to find the new reserves and to increase the production from those existing reserves.There are other issues associated with the exploration and discovery of crude oil and petroleum resources. While we are facing the issue with crude oil, we do have quite substantial reserves of gas and condensate and we are in the position of importing and exporting these products. So notwithstanding the issue of domestic production of LNG and condensate, we also have the proposition that we import some of these commodities into Australia. Given the sheer geographical size of our country and the ease of shipping it directly from one area to another externally, it is often a better economic proposition to import some of these products into the eastern seaboard even if we export some of them from the western seaboard.The government over the last few years— it has now come to this conclusion probably somewhat late in the piece—have also undertaken a number of activities which have themselves contributed to reduce exploration. The one about which I am particularly concerned is the way in which they have allowed the Australian Geological Survey Organisation, AGSO, or Geoscience Australia, to shed staff and reduce their overall capability. The organisation have always had a very good reputation with industry and with the parliament and the public of Australia for being the premier scientific and geological survey organisation in the country. The data that they collect is of enormous use in a pre-competitive context both in mineral exploration and also in petroleum resources. Since this government has come to office quite significant cutbacks have occurred in the budget available to AGSO and that has reduced their capability and ability to assist the industry to look for new resources that this country will find essential. In the very period when Australia is facing reduced exploration in mineral activity and significantly reduced reserves of crude oil, we find the government acting quite in accordance with the economic cycle and the downturn by reducing the capability of the one organisation of government able to add value to the data and to provide extra capacity to the industry—instead of acting countercyclically and, in fact, increasing the funding available to that kind of organisation so that they might get out into the industry, make more data available perhaps at better rates and ensuring that those who are committing substantial sums to exploration and development of our mineral and crude resources are actually able to do that with somewhat less risk. By producing data in the pre-competitive phase, AGSO reduces the risk to those companies that would otherwise be forced to put substantial dollars of their own on the table in order to look for likely prospects for mineral or petroleum reserves. By reducing the availability of that data they are undermining our potential productivity in the area of mineral and petroleum resources, and this evening we are particularly concerned with the issue of those petroleum resources. Australia will eventually have a number of alternatives in this area. There is the potential of gas to liquids projects that seek to convert some of our abundant gas reserves into an alternative diesel effectively which, of course, is a very worthwhile project, and a number of options are available on that scale. There are also alternative means of powering some vehicles that use crude and some of those products that are ultimately derived from crude. So while one particular fuel or energy source is not the make or break of our economy, the reality is that for the foreseeable future we will be very dependent on the importation of crude oil at significant cost to our economy and the industry. While the opposition supports these measures as essential to encourage the exploration and production of this vital commodity, we would also draw attention to some of the policy failings in recent years. While certainly not the sole contributing factor— no-one makes that suggestion—the failure of the government to adequately fund AGSO and their failure to identify the obvious problem some time back and to ensure that industry was well positioned to respond otherwise in a time of downturn, I think represents a failure of policy at government level.Quite clearly, the government must take some of the responsibility for the position in which we now find ourselves—not so much the position we are in now, but the position we will be in in future years. As with everything in the resources industry, there are significant time lags involved. The period of time between exploration and production, in the case of minerals, can be five years or more. In the case of petroleum, it can be even longer. The amount of investment required is also quite substantial. The opposition is pleased to provide a speedy passage for this legislation, since it is obviously necessary that we undertake this. I think it is well worth while drawing the community's attention to the failures which we have perceived in recent years, which are outlined in Knowledge Nation.18:38:0031037Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10— Nobody who has an interest in communications, transport or industry can fail to give attention to the need for oil fuels and oil based fuels. It is only fairly recently that we have become aware of the way in which the OPEC countries can artificially jack up prices to maintain a money volume flow into their economies, and they do that by reducing oil production and increasing prices. Countries such as Iraq, which produces almost only oil, can use price increases to create tremendous damage internationally. Saudi Arabia has been ready to expand production and to modify the price of crude oil around the world. The flexibility and dynamics of politics and economics in the Middle East affects much of the cost of production in industry and much of the cost of transport in Australia.The government's Excise Tariff Amendment (Crude Oil) Bill 2001 will encourage, to some degree, greater exploration and greater development of oil and some gas resources in Australia. It is a proposal that, when you come to look at it, deals with the domestic price excise on crude oil. It is a most complex piece of legislation, because you have old, intermediate and new oil excise prices. Governments over a period—as tends to be their fashion—have chosen all sorts of formulas to define new, old and intermediate oils. They all carry a different excise. The level of excise depends on where crude oil is produced in Australia or whether it is branded old, new or intermediate. It is complex, and this government is seeking to simplify it to some degree and to ease the pressure on crude oil producers so that there will be encouragement for oil exploration and production both onshore and offshore. A secondary effect will be gas discoveries arising from oil exploration. The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, announced the government's decision on 15 August, just a little over a month ago. We are dealing here with the legislation that relates to that announcement. It was a very significant announcement, in which the minister said:Ultimately, the consumer and Australia will benefit from efforts to meet Australia's future energy needs through enhancing Australia's self-sufficiency in oil and gas.Every Australian would want to endorse that. When we saw petrol prices soaring at the retail level to a dollar a litre or somewhere near that, people began to really worry about where we were going with self-sufficiency. The most frequently asked question that was addressed to me as a federal member was, `I thought we produced most of our petrol and most of our oil ourselves, so why are we jacking up prices?'When one has some time to explain to people the complexity of world markets and the way in which world prices can be driven from the Middle East, how Australia must be free to sell on the open market or we expose our domestic market to all sorts of distortion, and how the process is now not in any way driven by government taxing policies—I will come back to that—they begin to understand how reliant we are on maintaining a good effort in both exploration and production. The minister went on to say:The potential expansion of Australia's gas reserves as a consequence of these legislative changes could be expected to contribute towards additional opportunities on the North West Shelf for downstream value-adding gas industries and for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).There we have a good decision—one that will add to Australia's efficiency, one that will add to our pool of resources to be used for Australian transport and industry production, and one which this government has sensibly made.The cost in one year, as I remember it, is something like $80 million, but the industry representatives and economic writers in the popular press have welcomed this decision. I noticed an article in the Australian dated 20 August headed `Excise Scrapped to Oil Wheels of Exploration'. In that article, I noticed that a Woodside Energy spokesman welcomed the move to increase the prospect of greater production and exploration. Another Weekend Australian article of 25 August was headed `Nation Needs to Maintain Tax Incentive'. One in the Australian Financial Review was headed `Canberra to Cut Crude Oil Excise'. That is a summary of what we are doing in the House tonight.The formulas and the scales are all within the legislation, and it is only if you are an oil producer—and very few of us have oil producers in our electorates—that you would be concerned about the detail. But I would be remiss if I let this opportunity go by without making some remarks about the far-sightness of this government in removing the automatic indexation on petrol, because it is a complementary process that we are entering into here tonight. The first move was to wipe out that indexation, something that was imposed as a revenue raiser by the Whitlam government—Paul Keating was chortling, budget after budget, about the amount of money that was gushing into the Treasury coffers from his indexation of petrol. It took John Howard and the government to wipe out and kill that indexation. In fact, the Labor Party in one instance when they were in government—and, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, you may remember it, but I will remind you in case you have not—were increasing their excise grab on a monthly basis. So the Australian motorist was the person responsible for filling up the coffers of Treasury for the then Prime Minister and previously Treasurer, who had claimed that he was the world's best Treasurer.The Hawke government fiddled the excise once a month during a 12-month period in 1986-87, diddling the motorist—and `diddling' is a word that comes from Alan Ramsey, a long-time friend, I understand, of former Prime Minister Keating. Alan Ramsey outlines in detail what he felt was a really obnoxious process of gaining revenue. The claim was made at that time by the Australian Labor Party that when crude oil prices fell, because we are tied in with world prices, the price of petrol would automatically come down. Nothing could have been further from the truth—absolutely nothing could have been further from the truth. It took the government at the beginning of this year to have the courage to say, `We are not into those hidden taxes; we are going to wipe out that 1.5c increase that occurred in January, and never again are we going back to the indexation of excise on petrol.' So we have a double consideration of the transportation and fuel needs of Australia. These are the very things—and I know that the member for Leichhardt will be very well aware of long distances in Australia and of the fact that the need, when you are in remote areas, for the provision of dieseline, petrol and oil for fuel is critical for lighting plants, equipment, and moving vehicles and people around. Of course, that does not discount the significance of air transport and air travel, whether it be the flying doctor services for emergencies or just the day-to-day business and family transportation. Australia is absolutely dependent on fuel oil for our success and continuation. The more remote the area, the more dynamic the member of parliament seems to be in representing that area, and the more significant this legislation becomes for the member and the people they represent.This legislation really does simplify the payment of excise on crude oil, but the big advantage is the incentive that it gives to go out and explore, and to produce more of Australia's natural resources. It means we become more self-reliant and that complements a wise decision taken by the government earlier this year to wipe out indexation of fuel excise.18:49:0031039Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I must admit I came here with the wrong information. I thought this was going to be a bipartisan debate on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Crude Oil) Bill 2001 because we both support it. But I find that the member for Mitchell simply cannot restrain himself. He has to get the barbs in wherever he can. I hope he stays and listens, because there is a little information I would certainly like to give him.We certainly support this legislation because it is designed to encourage exploration. It is designed to help Australia move towards self-sufficiency in liquid petroleum product. But it is also a statement of the lack imagination of this government, because this government is saying that the only form of liquid petroleum will come from crude oil. The whole point is that in Australia today we have the capacity to move towards the degree of self-sufficiency that the member for Mitchell was talking about. But, unfortunately, at the same time that this government reduced or removed the excise from CPI indexation, it whacked the GST on LP gas. We have seen what that has done to a typical Australian industry. If this government is fair dinkum, if this government is real and means what it says about us becoming self-sufficient in fuel reserves, it would do something about what it did to kill off the LPG industry, the liquid natural gas industry.The other thing that this government did when it was first elected back in 1996 was remove the bounty from new ethanol. The amazing thing is that we are a country that has the technology to use ethanol as a liquid fuel. We have Dr Russell Reeves, and I use his name constantly in this House, because he happens to reside in the electorate I represent. He is a world expert on ethanol technology. The company of which he is a part, APACE Research, holds the world patent for blending ethanol with diesel to produce diesohol, that five or six years ago was used in the ACTION buses right here in Canberra. It was used because ethanol is an oxygenator, creating better burning of the fuel and reducing pollution, and it is something that we produce in this country. If the government had had the foresight back in 1996 to maintain the bounty for new product ethanol, we could have encouraged a whole new industry.I would like to raise another issue tonight, and it is an issue of real concern when we consider the situation of the world today— the instability and the possibility of the world being pushed into a global conflict. With the current state of play in the United States of America, there is no doubt that a conflict would most likely involve the Middle East, that very rich source of crude oil. The shame of the matter is that Australia is certainly not self-sufficient in crude oil and we are no longer self-sufficient in distilled product; we are increasingly dependent on importing distilled spirit from offshore—and that is a shame. We no longer have the capacity to refine enough liquid petrol and liquid diesel for our own industry. How are we going to be if, as the Prime Minister says, we are prepared to support the United States all the way? It is quite likely that some of our sources of liquid petroleum will be denied to us. That is a distinct possibility in the short-term future. I venture to say that, if that happens, we will look back and rue the day that we put a GST on LPG; we will rue the day that we killed off the ethanol industry by removing the bounty for new ethanol and encouraging a new industry, because Australia is unique in this. We have the capacity to use both of these fuels probably more than any other nation in the world, and we ignore it—and the government expects us to hold this up and say that this is a triumph for modern thinking. It is not. It is, I would suggest, a logical way to go. But we need to be a bit more expansive. We need to use a bit of lateral thinking.We have been dictated to too long by the fossil fuel industry, by the enormous wealth of the petroleum companies. We need to be able to break that shackle, because eventually one day we will get to a situation where we will not get a new oil well that yields any product that we want. That is simply a fact of life. We are going to have to develop new technologies to move on. As I say, here in Australia we do have that capacity.I would also like to point out that I listened to part of a lecture by David Hale the other day. I know that David Hale is a pessimist—I realise that—but I think he is probably also a realist. He gave a lecture in Zurich, and I read part of what he said. He makes the prediction that within six months we will be staring at crude oil being in the order of $50 to $60 a barrel. What does that have the capacity to do to Australian industry and to the defence of Australia, when we have put the brakes on other alternative fuels that we should have been developing, encouraging and nurturing? While the government is supported by the opposition in this piece of legislation, there are other paths that we can go down—and we should.I heard my predecessor, Martyn Evans, indicate that the knowledge nation is a way to the future for Australia, and I am horrified when I hear members opposite denigrate it. But, as I say, one day we will put down a drill for an oil well and we will keep putting down holes for oil wells, and we will not come up with any oil. Then we will have to go back to the textbooks and design a new technology for a new fuel. We already have some of those new fuels, and we are ignoring the ways in which they can be used. If we were the clever country that Knowledge Nation points to, we would realise the capacity we have there and we would realise the potential that we have in alternatives. We would nurture those alternatives—and we would make sure that we get there quickly.18:57:0031040Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—The issue of oil and petrol pricing is one that I have spoken about in this place for many, many years—even in the previous place. In fact, I can remember as chairman of the industry committee of the Labor caucus in 1983 having debates about the taxation of oil and other natural resources—the so-called resources rent tax issue. In those days there was a lot of debate about how we were going to proceed in terms of taxing of oil and how we were going to balance the considerations involved in that very complicated subject. But in more recent times we have had the situation where the international price of oil, the so-called world price of oil, has fluctuated dramatically. Indeed, up until a little while ago it was continuously going up, and we were faced with very serious increases at the petrol pump—increases which were resulting in a heavy burden being placed on the Australian people.At that time the government spoke of the rises in the cost of petrol as simply being a consequence of being tied into the world parity pricing regime. There was no attempt to explain to the Australian people why we were tied into the world parity pricing policy, the benefits of that and whether there was some way to, at least, overcome the problems created by fluctuations in the policy. The explanatory memorandum to this bill provides significant information regarding the various levels of production and some of the costs of production. Yet when I asked the minister a question on notice relating to the current costs of production of oil in Australia as declared by the major companies involved in such production, the answer was, `The sort of information required to answer the honourable member's questions is not available.' Interestingly, we now have the situation where it suits the government to try to change the arrangements and lots of information is available about the costs of production and the taxing of those costs. One wants to ask the question: why is it available now in the context of this bill and why was it not available then? I do not oppose the provisions of this bill because they try to make it more commercially viable for companies to exploit old oilfields rather than new ones or, at least, provide parity in relation to the taxing of old oilfields and the taxing of new ones. As I said at the time, any increase in Australian production is welcomed. It is welcomed because it is better to rely on your own natural resources rather than import oil or even petrol. Having said that, though, the current situation in respect of petrol pricing is no different from the situation that existed a few months ago. The regime has not been changed. The issues raised, including by me in a question to the Prime Minister, have not been faced. As I think the honourable member for Patterson said, in a few months time we could be faced with another oil shock, another situation where the price of oil may go up. We have not dealt with the central question of how we would respond to that situation, especially if the price of petrol at the petrol pump were to rise significantly. In other words, the problem has been ameliorated a little bit because the world price of oil has slightly diminished from where it was, but the problem has been swept under the carpet. It has not been solved. It has not been resolved. We need to resolve that problem. We need to resolve what we as a nation are going to do in relation to the cost of oil production and the relationship between the cost of oil production and the cost of petrol at the bowser. If oil companies can make significant profits when petrol is 87c a litre and then, because the world price goes up, the same companies charge $1.03 a litre, you have to ask the question: why is there a difference in price? You might say it is due to world parity pricing. That is not the reason. That may have been the reason, but that is not the reason the charge goes up. If the petrol is supplied by Australian oil production then those oil companies that are making a profit at 87c a litre are making very big profits at $1.03 a litre. The point I made at the time was that there is no relationship between the costs of production and a reasonable profit for those Australian companies and the world parity pricing policy. The world parity pricing policy was brought into place at the time because it was felt that there needed to be a spur to exploration and production of crude oil in Australia. The idea was that if we fixed the price at the world price, which was above the price which would have normally been charged by the companies in the marketplace, then we would be effectively giving the companies a profit windfall, which is what we did, and we would expect in return a commitment from them in terms of investment in exploration. I have found out that there has been no relationship between the profits made by international companies involved in Australian exploration and petrol development and world parity pricing. This was just an artificial measure put in place.It is interesting that the Prime Minister talks about competition policy and the need for us to ensure that the marketplace operates, but in the case of petrol pricing and the profits made by companies through oil exploration what do we have? We have no real competition. We have competition only at the very edges. We have no real competition because we are locked into the world parity pricing policy. As I have said, people are not screaming as much as they were two or three months ago when that policy forced petrol prices in many parts of Australia to above $1 a litre. Just because there has been a stabilisation in the world parity price and companies have been able to provide petrol at between 87c and 93c a litre, it does not mean that that situation will continue. The problem that we identify will remain. That problem has not been resolved. We have to ask ourselves why we cannot allow more genuine competition among oil companies in Australia based not on world parity pricing but on the actual costs of production in Australia plus a reasonable profit margin. Why can't we allow that? Why do we have to have a policy which, in effect, in most situations gives them substantial and handsome profits, thank you very much? There is no relationship between those who are making profits and those who are committing resources to exploration. In fact, some oil companies have complained to me that all oil companies benefit from the world parity pricing policy, but only some are prepared to invest in new exploration and in the development of new oilfields in Australia. Why should all of them benefit from world parity pricing when only some do something in the national interest and invest in exploration?At the time of the petrol crisis the government felt that its hands were tied. Finally, as everyone knows, it offered a 1.5c a litre reduction in the taxation regime that applied at the bowser, but of course that minuscule reduction had very little impact. We have to develop a better petrol pricing regime. We have to get away from the situation in which the government has to dramatically reduce the taxation level, because the taxation level must be significant if we are to deal with issues such as conservation arrangements, road funding and many other issues. But at the same time—I am not arguing against a certain level of taxation—we need to focus on the issue that I have raised with respect to the world parity pricing policy and what it is amounting to.One thing that we have to do before we can make a final decision in this matter is get information about what is happening with respect to oil companies: information about how much investment they are making, information about how much profit they are making, and information about the costs of production and the relationship between the costs of production and the charge they are making at the wholesale level and at the final retail level. All those things need to be studied in an atmosphere of openness, not in a closed atmosphere, as is occurring now. I hope that I never again receive a response from the minister like the one in which he basically said, `The sort of information required to answer the honourable member's question is not available.' Of course it is available. I am not asking for commercially sensitive information; I am asking for information that will allow public policy to be formed in relation to petrol production costs.I urge the Prime Minister to think about this matter; it is not going to go away. As I have said, several people have commented on the possibility of the world price of crude oil rising again. If that happens and if OPEC makes certain decisions, we could face a situation in which the costs of petrol again go up to exorbitant levels that have a dramatic effect on the cost of living. When that happens, it is important to look at our policy and to think about finding a way through that is consistent with competition policy and with allowing a fair profit for the producers but not allowing people to make huge profits that they then are not required by law to plough into Australia. It would be much better public policy to have greater competition between oil producers, but to offer an additional incentive for those who are prepared to invest in new exploration, to invest in the development of new oilfields, or even to invest in the further exploitation of old oilfields that require new technology. That would be a much saner, more sensible approach than having the kind of policy which rewards everyone involved in oil or petrol production in Australia, even based on oil which is imported into Australia, irrespective of what role they play in the exploration of new fields.We all need to help to develop energy policy in this country. We must continue to confront the question of oil and natural gas resources. It is especially important for a society like ours which has so many available resources. However, as people have mentioned, unless there is a structure in place which encourages greater exploration and greater development, and which rewards those who are interested in doing something more in this area as opposed to rewarding those who do nothing, we will not have the developments that are required. I want to say something about the relationship between the oil companies and the cost of petrol at the retail level. Some of the oil companies promised that they would not undermine and perhaps push out independent retailers, the people who wanted to shop around in respect of the wholesale price of petrol. Professor Fels from the ACCC has often commented that the oil companies should be very careful about these sorts of non-competitive pressures that are placed on particular petrol station operators. There was some improvement in behaviour, but I know that a number of independent operators have, in certain cases, been squeezed out of business by major oil companies having too big a role in the retail sector. More work needs to be done in this area and that work ought to be done by a parliamentary committee, or by some other inquiry, which would report back to parliament on ways and means of moving forward to do the best for the Australian consumer.In the short term, we are stuck with the motorcar and the cost of petrol. We need to get the best result for the Australian motorist. (Time expired)19:18:0031043Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—in reply—In speaking to the Excise Tariff Amendment (Crude Oil) Bill 2001 I would like to thank the honourable members who have participated in this debate. I thank the member for Bonython for his contribution. His comments about AGSO were particularly relevant. That is a magnificent organisation and I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is a premium geoscience organisation which is very capably run by Neil Williams and his crew. From a government perspective, it is an organisation in which we can take a great deal of pride. It is highly recognised around the world.The member for Mitchell's magnificent contribution touched on the value and incentives created by responsible treatment of excise. For those who might have forgotten, he reminded us that this government removed the automatic CPI increases on petrol, and of the subsequent benefits felt by the Australian public as a result of that action. The member for Paterson raised a very valid point, and one with which I totally agree, in respect of his support for alternative fuel sources. He acknowledged that we have to be able to focus on those alternatives and that we cannot rely forever on our fossil fuels. I remind the member for Paterson of this government's recent investment in ethanol. I am particularly proud of the $7.35 million that went to the Mossman central mill in my electorate as part of a successful G Gap proposal, to develop an ethanol plant. I can tell the House that it is progressing very well. It will certainly have an added value for the sugar industry in my region and it should blow a new breath of life into that region.I thank the member for Calwell for his contribution. I was pleased that he welcomed the opportunity offered through this bill to increase oil production in Australia which hopefully will reduce our reliance on imports. He also offered some interesting views on the issue of fuel pricing and raised some serious concerns about non-competitive pressures placed on independent operators by majors. I was pleased to see that he acknowledged that there has been quite considerable work done in this area to address these concerns. However, I note his interest in wanting to continue to further investigate this area and to see what further can be done.The bill responds to concerns raised by industry groups that high excise imposts on old oilfields discourage full exploitation of these existing and very valuable resources. It streamlines current legislation. It reduces certain crude oil excise rates and encourages oil exploration and production both onshore and offshore. A secondary but highly desirable benefit could be gas discoveries arising from oil exploration. At the moment, the excise regime for crude oil is complex, with rates increasing according to the age of the oilfield and the volume of the oil produced. It is proposed to streamline this system and to reduce rates for the oldest and the newest oilfields. For old oilfields the crude rate is up to 75 per cent. The bill will reduce the rate for some oil by as much as 20 per cent. In addition, as part of the streamlining, the bill will remove the threshold price provisions for old oil. These provisions have not been used recently, so they are an unnecessary complication in the law. Reductions in crude oil excise rates for new oil have the effect of providing an incentive for the North West Shelf expansion project by delivering $75 million worth of assistance over 10 years from 1 July this year.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.31044Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch) read a third time.Miscellaneous3104410000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Order! Mr Speaker has received the following message from the Senate:The Senate acquaints the House of Representatives of the following resolution agreed to by the Senate this day:That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The failure of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anderson) to act in Australia's interests by developing and implementing a strategy to protect the jobs of the employees of Ansett Australia and regional air services.The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Quorum required; ring the bells. Nonetheless, I will continue to read the message from the Senate:The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.It is signed:Margaret Reid, President.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You cannot continue reading the message from the Senate—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You called the quorum; I did not. You are extremely discourteous in not allowing me to read the last few words of the message.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Your role as the chair of the House is to respond to the points that are put forward. I drew your attention to the state of the House. You then had an obligation to call a quorum, not to continue on dealing with business before the House, because, if there is not a quorum in the House, you are not allowed to continue with the business of the House—and you know that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Thank you. I will read the message again when there is a quorum. (Quorum formed). The following message from the Senate has been received: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:The failure of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anderson) to act in Australia's interests by developing and implementing a strategy to protect the jobs of the employees of Ansett Australia and regional air services.The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.It is signed:Margaret Reid, PresidentMotion (by Ms Worth) agreed to:That consideration of the message be made an order of the day at the next sitting.Adjournment3104410000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—It being approximately 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.310453104519:29:0031045McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I rise tonight to discuss an issue that is of great importance and concern to the people of my electorate of Stirling and to the nation, and that is the Howard government's commitment to sell the rest of Telstra should it be re-elected. Before I begin, I would like to express my relief that the seven retail staff working for Telstra in the company's Fifth Avenue office in New York were safely evacuated and accounted for after the tragic events of 11 September. I wish these staff and their families all the best in rebuilding their lives.Recently, I invited Labor's shadow minister for communications, the member for Perth, to meet with workers from the Telstra depot in Balcatta in my electorate to talk about their concerns about future job losses. I commend Gary Carson of the CEPU for drawing the workers' concerns to my attention. Given that 40,000 jobs have been shed from Telstra since the sale of the first half of the company, I understand these workers' fears about what might happen to their jobs should the rest of Telstra be sold. Labor opposes the sale of Telstra and pledges not to sell any further portion of the company. While I was there I signed the Labor Telstra pledge. I pledge to the people of Stirling this: while I am their representative in this House I will never vote to allow the sale of a single Telstra share. I say this for two main reasons: firstly, I believe in Telstra's role as a nation builder and, secondly, I believe that Australian taxpayers will lose on any further privatisation of Telstra.Telstra serves all Australians. There is nothing the government has ever owned which is as significant to the lives of ordinary Australians, and there is nothing the government has ever owned that will provide ordinary Australians with technological change when they need it. Telstra is a great national institution and its nation building task is not yet finished, but one thing is clear: Telstra will not perform its nation building task unless it stays in majority public ownership.Telstra recently announced a $4.1 billion annual profit. This will result in Telstra paying a dividend of more than $1.2 billion to the Commonwealth government, for the benefit of all Australian taxpayers—$1.2 billion for one year's work. So why would anybody want to sell the rest of Telstra when it continues to show record profits at a time like this? Still the government believes in selling the rest of our stake in Australia's biggest company. It is there for anyone to read in the government's own budget papers. Furthermore, it makes financial sense not to privatise Telstra. After 3½ years, the Commonwealth is now $499 million worse off as a result of the sale of the first one-third of Telstra. This is because, over the last three years, the cost of selling Telstra and the amount of dividend lost to the government has been more than the government has saved in retiring public debt. In short, the Howard government has cost Australian taxpayers more than $3.8 billion to save just $3.3 billion. Maintaining majority public ownership of Telstra is a better investment for this nation than retiring public debt. Not only does Telstra nation-build in what it provides in services; it nation-builds in what it provides in dividends. That money goes to our schools, our hospitals and our universities. These are the critical things for the development of our nation and for the needs of the people of Stirling.Recently, the Howard government allowed SingTel to take over Telstra's main competitor Optus. Singtel is controlled by the Singaporean government. Under the Howard government we have the strange situation where it is acceptable to have a majority foreign government owned telecommunications company operating in the Australian market but not an Australian majority government owned telecommunications company. Is this hypocrisy or just plain stupidity?Labor has continually argued that Australians are better off relying on the continuing dividend stream from Telstra rather than on a one-off flog-off. The figures for the sale of the first third of Telstra clearly support Labor's view. If the government sells off the rest of Telstra, then Telstra's profits go only to those who are wealthy enough to be shareholders rather than benefiting all Australians. A company built with the collective will and the collective investment of all Australians should not be sold for the benefit of the wealthy few. If Telstra is fully privatised, local services will suffer and more jobs will be lost. If Telstra is fully privatised it will focus only on profits for the few and not the diverse service needs of the many. Australians will have a clear choice at the coming federal election. If they want to stop the full privatisation of Telstra, then they should vote for a Beazley Labor government. 3104619:34:0031046Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—There is no doubt that every one of the 148 electorates in this place has been touched in one way or another by the events in Washington DC and New York on Tuesday of last week, and my electorate is no exception. It has become clear that one of the passengers on one of the four aircraft that crashed was a constituent of mine from Westmead. Mrs Yvonne Kennedy was well known to the electorate as a consequence of her charity work for the Red Cross. I know there is one grieving family among literally thousands who have lost a loved one, and I want to extend my condolences to the Kennedy family.Also in my electorate there is a completely irrational expression of prejudice and vandalism at the St Mary's Orthodox Antiochian Church at Mays Hill. It is a magnificent church building, with some of the finest Antiochian iconography inside. It has a thriving congregation. The Antiochian orthodox are led by the extraordinarily dynamic metropolitan archbishop, Paul Saliba, who came to Australia only in the last year and whose absolute dedication to the young people of the Antiochian orthodox community is evidenced in everything the church does. They have this magnificently vibrant active core of young people who are making an excellent contribution as model citizens in my electorate.I had a phone call today from Sister Irene Boughosn, who is the principal at Our Lady of Lebanon School at Harris Park. She called to express her anxiety at the treatment that some of her pupils were receiving at the train stations and at bus stops on their way to and from school. In the same way, the graffiti that was splashed across the Antiochian church attacked the Jewish and Lebanese community in this apparently random and irrational expression of prejudice. At a time like this we have to ensure that these acts of incredible inhumanity in other places around the world do not provide the pretext for random expressions of prejudice and bigotry against completely undeserving individuals and communities.I note for the benefit of the House that the youth masses at Our Lady of Lebanon in Harris Park, presided over by Father Geoffrey, regularly attract 800 to 1,000 young Lebanese Australians. When they recently decided to make a contribution by way of charitable fundraising to the Geraldine Fund for Cancer Research at Westmead Hospital, the youth group met over six nights, concluding with an event at which they attracted 200 sponsors. On that one occasion, they raised $70,000 for the Geraldine Fund for Cancer Research. If the example of the young Lebanese Maronites at Our Lady of Lebanon were taken up by the broader Australian community, examples of generosity, of dedication and of civic pride, there is no doubt that my electorate would be a better place than it already is. I particularly want to extend my congratulations to the youth group and to Father Geoffrey and to note that they will be meeting tomorrow night for a mass in solidarity with the grieving families of those tragedies in Washington and New York. I think it behoves each of us to approach these issues with restraint and with the best in our nature and to follow the examples of others, whether they be in the Islamic community, the Antiochian Orthodox or, in particular, the young Maronites that I recognise tonight who are making an outstanding contribution to the Australian nation.3104619:38:0031046Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—On 3 September this year we received the very sad news of the untimely death of Mr Arnold Hunter, better known to everyone as `Puggy' Hunter. I had the privilege of working with Puggy during the inquiry into indigenous health that was undertaken by the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs of this House. The inquiry took over two years and, for much of the time, Puggy was our interpretive eyes, ears and cultural and health adviser as we met with many communities, organisations and individuals throughout Australia and, in particular, in the more remote regions visited by the committee. Puggy was a unique Australian. He had a way of expressing his views honestly and without favour, always with his community at the heart of his concerns. Puggy was elected chairperson of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, NACCHO, which is the peak national health advisory body on Aboriginal health. NACCHO has a membership of over 100 Aboriginal community controlled health services. Puggy was the inaugural chair of NACCHO, from 1991 until his untimely death at the age of 50. He was a vice-chairperson of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Council, the federal health minister's main advisory body on Aboriginal health, established in 1996. He was chair of the National Public Health Partnership Aboriginal and Islander Health Working Group, which reports to the partnership and to the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council. He was a member of the Australian Pharmaceutical Advisory Council, the General Practice Partnership Advisory Council, the Joint Advisory Group on Population Health and the National Health Priority Areas Action Council, as well as a number of other key Aboriginal health, policy and advisory groups on national issues.Puggy was born in Darwin, to where his parents had moved from Broome, and worked in the Northern Territory and South Australia. His concerns and interest in Aboriginal community development and youth led him to study Aboriginal community development at the University of South Australia. He subsequently took up a position in Kununurra, Western Australia, with the state welfare department and Warringari Aboriginal Corporation. His work with families in crisis and on child neglect, physical abuse and the consequences of poverty and exclusion provided him with powerful insights into the plight of his own people. He became increasingly aware that the best way to address these problems was through comprehensive Aboriginal community controlled health services and resource agencies. He was involved in the establishment of the East Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Service in Kununurra, the Yuri Yungi Aboriginal Medical Service in Halls Creek, the Kununurra Miriuwung Construction Project, Warringari Arts, the Kununurra women's crisis centres, the Aboriginal radio station, Broome's youth centre and modern Dreamtime dancers.He also worked with Homewest, the WA state housing authority, assisting with the redevelopment of Aboriginal housing throughout the Kimberley. He was an ATSIC regional councillor from 1993 to 1996. He was an elected committee member of the Broome Regional Aboriginal Medical Service and the chairperson of the regional Aboriginal health resource body in the Kimberley, the Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council. He was elected the national chairperson of NACCHO, as I said, in 1991. As chair, Puggy played a critical role in driving federal government policy on Aboriginal health issues.Puggy was a delight work with. He commanded respect and response when he shared his views. Whether we were sitting in the dust under a tree in the outback somewhere or in a committee room in this place, Puggy always played with a straight bat and expected the same in return. He fought uncompromisingly for the cause of Aboriginal health and held the respect and affection of his counterparts in politics and in government. He had a passionate commitment to Aboriginal community control and would often say that it was no longer acceptable to `do' Aboriginal health without Aboriginal people. He was awarded an honorary doctorate in April 2001 from the James Cook University. He is survived by his wife, Blondie, and his children, Emily, Renae, Troy and Amber, whom I have to say he always referred to; he always talked about them. He will be very sadly missed by his family, by his community and by his country. I would like to put on record on behalf of myself and my colleagues on that committee our absolute debt to Puggy Hunter for his insight into the whole question of Aboriginal health and wellbeing in this country. 3104819:43:0031048Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Over the past few months a large number of Blue Mountains residents have contacted me with their concerns about two of our local hospitals—that is, Springwood Hospital and the Blue Mountains Memorial Hospital at Katoomba. Both are state government public hospitals administered under the Wentworth Area Health Service. They have concerns about each of these hospitals. With the Springwood Hospital, their concerns come from a discussion paper released by Wentworth Area Health Service in April and another one in August this year. Those discussion papers outlined a number of options being considered by Wentworth Area Health Service for the future of Springwood Hospital. The options included the possibility of a rehabilitation hospital, an aged care unit and a palliative care unit—options that included the removal of day surgery procedures that are currently carried out at Springwood Hospital.These options papers have resulted in a flood of protest from my local community. A petition organised by the Springwood-Winmalee Hospital Auxiliary has gathered over 5,000 signatures and was presented to the Wentworth Area Health Service of the New South Wales government. One of the reasons for the protest is that the community views this hospital, very strongly and quite rightly, as their community hospital. I understand that many years ago much of the money to purchase the land, to build many of the buildings and to support the hospital was raised through community fundraising efforts. Local residents are very anxious and very angry about any propositions that might lead to a reduction of the level or range of services at Springwood Hospital. Simply, local residents do not want to see any downgrading of the range or level of services at Springwood.The second hospital of concern is Blue Mountains District Anzac Memorial Hospital at Katoomba. For many years, there has been a growing shortage of specialist services at Katoomba hospital, and it has been getting worse. There seems to be a shortage of anaesthetist services in particular, and this seems to be undermining the availability of other surgical services that can be provided there. There was an article in last week's Blue Mountains Gazette outlining problems being experienced by expectant mothers, and many others requiring surgery, needing to transfer to Nepean Hospital because services are not available all the time at Katoomba.The point is this: the Wentworth Area Health Service of the New South Wales government needs to take far more seriously the public hospital concerns of the Blue Mountains. For Springwood, it needs to look at and respond to the needs and the expressions of concern of the residents of the Blue Mountains, and it needs to accept the fact that the residents do not want to see any removal of day surgery and they do not want to see any downgrading of the range of services at Springwood. For Katoomba, the Wentworth Area Health Service needs to seriously address the problem of the shortage of specialist services, and it particularly needs to provide some incentives to get anaesthetists back to Katoomba hospital to provide the full range of services there. The problems at Springwood and Katoomba hospitals are reflective of the problems of the New South Wales government generally and its failure to adequately fund public hospital services in New South Wales. The figures speak for themselves. Between 1998 and 2001, Commonwealth government health funding for public hospitals in New South Wales rose from $1,905 million to $2,099 million. That is a 10.2 per cent increase in two years, an increase of $194 million. Over that same two-year period, the New South Wales government's funding for its own hospitals actually decreased, from $2.35 billion to $2.31 billion. That is a decrease of $33 million over two years, a decrease of 1.4 per cent. The fact is that the Commonwealth government is increasing its funding to New South Wales public hospitals while the New South Wales government is decreasing its funding. Add to that the fact that under the GST the New South Wales government is getting far more revenue than it did two or three years ago to fund essential services such as hospitals, and it is redirecting that money away from hospitals. This year the New South Wales government will receive $8.3 billion in revenue from GST. There is simply no excuse for the New South Wales government to be underfunding public hospitals and public health services in New South Wales. I call on the New South Wales government to lift its game, to increase funding for public health, and particularly to increase funding for the hospitals in the Blue Mountains. (Time expired)3104919:48:0031049Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00— Yesterday, a group of residents from the Armadale area marched on the Western Australian parliament as part of their ongoing protest at the proposal to change the category of waste allowed to be processed at the Brookdale Liquid Waste Treatment Facility. Sadly, I was not able to be there, because I was required to be in Canberra for my parliamentary duties. When the facility first opened in 1988, it was designed purely to treat waste water. However, during the time of the Court state government, the facility was allowed to start processing materials that were not included in the original approval, and the community was not informed of these changes. At the present time, the Brookdale facility is licensed to store up to 57,600 litres of flammable liquids and 8,000 litres of PCBs. Currently, the site is operating with special approval from the environment minister to take selected hazardous waste that is outside its licence but within dangerous goods control. In recent times, the site has seen the acceptance of greater amounts of hazardous material because of increased industry demand as well as an increase in the types of hazardous waste.This is of grave concern. If the public is to have confidence in our government bodies such as the DEP, they must believe that there is enforcement of the original licence given and that, if there are plans to make changes, there will be community consultation and it will not be done quietly. I know that the state Labor members in the area are working hard to make sure that the independence of government bodies is guaranteed, and that they are seen to be guaranteed, and that facilities will not have the chance to operate outside their licences in the future.Residents are concerned that the plant will become a permanent storage and treatment facility for hazardous waste, and they are concerned that there could be an accident similar to that in Redcliffe. When the facility was first built, the area was undeveloped. Since then, there has been a primary school built and the number of residents living nearby has increased. There are also a number of proposals to increase developments, such as a senior high school, in the area. Within two kilometres of the facility there exists the potential for future housing worth $300 million to $480 million. Also, the local council is planning the development of a business park. Unless there is public confidence that the process to change the licensing is being carried out properly, there is a risk that the development will not go ahead. The business park could create over 4,000 jobs and would generate some $24 million per annum back into the Armadale community. In an area such as Armadale, where the unemployment rate is far higher than the national average, this is a crucial development. There is also a proposal to build a commercial and recreation village close to the site, including facilities such as a child-minding centre. But if the plans go ahead, there would be doubt about approval for the centre, as once this area has been designated to store hazardous waste, land close to the plant would be limited to certain uses, and these uses would definitely not include a child-minding centre.All of us recognise that there is a need to have treatment facilities, and one of the priorities must be to ensure that no-one employed at the current facility faces either unemployment or reduced hours because of the changes. Any new treatment facility will need to be created close enough to the city to discourage users from dumping waste in the bush areas. One of the reasons this site was originally developed was that a number of people were dumping waste, and that is not what we want in our bushland. We also need to make sure that there is a buffer zone adequate to make sure that the residents feel secure and do not feel at risk from the waste. When I attended one of the community meetings, there was a genuine fear in the people present that there were significant health risks to themselves and particularly their children. The facility is close to a local school, and should there be an accident none of us wants those children to be hurt in any way. It is also in the vicinity of the world listed Forrestdale Lake and is only 800 metres from the Wungong River.How can one justify upgrading this facility when it is so clearly against the health and welfare of the residents of Armadale? I support the residents in their opposition to this change and urge the environment minister to find a more suitable locality. I will continue to work with the state members and the community to make sure that jobs are protected and the facility is in an appropriate and safe place. Finally, I congratulate the community leaders on the action taken so far to make sure that our area is protect.3105019:54:0031050Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—Just under a fortnight ago I attended an excellent Centenary of Federation event in the community of Lock on the Eyre Peninsula. I am indebted to Toni Sheridan, who sent me some details of that event. I will quote from her email to me. She said:Despite the inclement weather we were able to improvise and most of the planned events were able to take place. The day certainly drew lots of people and the comments from the community have been most encouraging. It is wonderful to see a small town like Lock pull together. The Federation Ball on the Saturday night drew almost 300 people and the family atmosphere and the dancing was truly great to see.On the Friday that I was there, there were three schools involved in the Australian History Challenge. Those schools were Cummins, Lock and Warramboo. The winners of the quiz were as follows: year 5, the Lock team, consisting of Luke Durdin, Kory Beard and Luke Northcott; and year 7, the Cummins team, consisting of Kate Nelligan, Jessica Sawyer and Bodie Siegert. I congratulate those people. It was a well contested history challenge and it was quite enjoyable for all of us who were watching. I also congratulate Mr Hand, the principal, who was the quiz master as well as the adjudicator—with a little bit of help from one or two people around him.With the inclement weather, we were forced indoors. I think that added to the sense of adventure and enjoyment, although not everyone would agree with that. We were tucked away in sheds and classrooms, where we had to move to finish the quiz and to watch the fashion parade and the people in period costume. I thank very much those who organised the sausage sizzle, which was very much appreciated, and that wonderful soup which I very much enjoyed on the day. Between showers, we were able to observe the grand parade of vehicles and floats and then, just before the heavier rain came, we were able to enjoy the opening of the museum, incorporating the old police station, and there was a wonderful array of machinery in the shed on the block just off the main street. The museum was opened by well-known citizen, Mr Mellor.In the Australian History Challenge there were 50 questions for those in year 5 and 84 questions for those in year 7. Examples of the year 5 questions are as follows:Which bird is featured on the SA state flag? The magpie shrike. Name the first Australian Prime Minister.Edmund BartonI think the 100 years have certainly brought Edmund Barton's name to the fore. Further examples of the year 5 questions are:How many troopers chased the Jolly Swagman?3 troopers.What is Australia's National Flower?The wattle.Going to the year 7 questions, some examples are: Which explorer proposed the name, Australia, that was adopted in 1817?Matthew Flinders.Name the first Australian Aboriginal to be elected to Parliament?Neville Bonner.What sport did the Aussie troops play in front of the pyramids?Aussie Rules Football.Name the author of the Saltbush Bill character.Eric Joliffe.In 1956 Australia hosted their first Olympics in what city?Melbourne.It was a great day at Lock on the Eyre Peninsula. It was a celebration of Federation and a celebration of the great community spirit of smaller to medium communities that exist all over Australia. I thank Toni Sheridan and the people of Lock.3105119:58:0031051Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—On page 23 of today's Sydney Morning Herald there is an article entitled `New blow to Sydney airport bidding', which says:Bidding for Sydney Airport is in disarray, with two participants in the ABN Amro consortium pulling out.It is appropriate that the government halt the sale of the Sydney airport until it resolves the aircraft noise problems. The Labor Party, when we were in government, legislated for the curfew and the 80 movements per hour cap at Sydney airport in the interests of the residents of Sydney. Unfortunately, the government is continuing to go down the path of selling Sydney airport, and my constituents are very alarmed.I was most alarmed today—as the parliamentary secretary at the table, the honourable member for Bradfield, understands all too well—when I received a reply from the Prime Minister to question No. 2854, which I put on the Notice Paper on 9 August, trying to justify the long-term operating plan. My constituents in Lowe are getting more than twice the air traffic movements they were promised by the government. The government does not seem at all interested in implementing the long-term operating plan. I am most concerned that, with the sale of the airport, the purchaser of that lease is not going to implement the long-term operating plan. My constituents and the constituents whom the member for Bradfield represents will suffer.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:0031051House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices31051The following notices were given:7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to provide for confiscation of the proceeds of crime, and for other purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to implement the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, and for related purposes.GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie Kelly to present a bill for an act to amend the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987, and for other purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to certain fuel grant and rebate schemes, and for related purposes.2001-09-19—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.52 a.m.Statements by Members310523105209:52:0031052Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—The collapse of Ansett Airlines is an event which has far-reaching consequences for all Australians. It will have major long-term implications for the nation's economy and international reputation. Ansett has played a major role in the nation's infrastructure, providing services which are essential for the ongoing functioning of the economy. Along with Ansett employees, many businesses in my electorate of Swan which provide a range of goods and services to Ansett face an uncertain future. Gate Gourmet, which provided in-flight catering, is one example. The state's resources sector also relies on air services to many distant locations without which the work force and essential supplies cannot be moved.The ripples from the collapse of Ansett will continue to spread out across the whole community. This is a collapse that did not just happen. It was allowed to happen by the failure of the Howard-Anderson government to adequately fulfil its responsibilities. It was allowed to happen by an irresponsible government. A responsible government would have recognised the magnitude of this collapse and acted swiftly and effectively.The employees of Ansett, their families, the workers in associated companies who face an uncertain future, regional communities now largely cut off from metropolitan Australia, tourists, sporting groups and business people all deserve an explanation from the Howard government. They deserve an explanation as to just how it was that a national government sat back and did nothing to prevent this collapse, and then after Ansett had collapsed, why the government continued with its inaction. This government saw no necessity to effectively monitor Ansett. In fact, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services should resign. If he did not know what was happening with Ansett, he is incompetent. If he knew what was happening and did nothing, then he is derelict in his duty.Now that Ansett has collapsed, this government has no policy for ensuring that all affected workers receive their full entitlements. Why has the government not sat down with its New Zealand counterparts, Ansett's administrators, unions and other airlines, to try and resolve this situation? If Ansett is beyond rescue, where is the government's mechanism to ensure that all workers, both those employed by Ansett and other associated companies, receive 100 per cent of their entitlements? If only the Prime Minister could act with the same speed with which he acted when his brother's company went to the wall. The Prime Minister has proposed a bandaid solution that attempts to protect workers' entitlements, but it will not protect 100 per cent of these entitlements.Only Labor has a national scheme under which all employees are covered for their unpaid wages, accrued annual leave, long service leave, termination and redundancy arrangements and superannuation payments. Labor's plan is based on a small contribution of 0.1 per cent of payroll to fund the scheme. The Howard government seems to have forgotten about Ansett workers and all those affected by this collapse. Those affected will not forget at the ballot box later this year. Once again, the government is asleep in the cockpit, the plane is on autopilot and it is desperately low on fuel.3105309:55:0031053Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I wish to support the motion of condolence moved in the House on Monday, 17 September. On Tuesday, 11 September 2001—at a time chosen to ensure that the maximum number of civilians would be at work in the targeted buildings and with the planes loaded with fuel to ensure the largest possible impact—unknown terrorists succeeded in killing thousands of ordinary men and women going about their lawful, peaceful occupations. The attack took place on American soil but Australians also felt the blow—at first reeling in horror and outrage and now united in sorrow. We join with the United States, having invoked the ANZUS treaty, in trying to ensure that this abhorrent action is an aberration, not a precursor to a new world order where ordinary men and women live in fear and nowhere is safe.Over 5,000 civilians are still missing, presumed crushed in the rubble. Over 50 Australians are amongst those missing, along with victims from more than 20 nations. On behalf of the people of Murray in northern Victoria, I want to offer my most profound sympathy for all the victims and their loved ones. In the strongest possible terms, we condemn this calculated act of hate. The people of Murray have never hesitated in answering a call to help defend our nation or the freedom of others threatened by tyranny or oppression. Many individuals have sacrificed their lives or personal liberties for our greater security or that of other nations. Like other Australians, we know that justice and freedom come at a price. We acknowledge our need to stand by allies at this time, with carefully targeted action aimed precisely at those responsible.I want to quote what John Grey Gorton said on his return from the Second World War. He spoke on behalf of the 17 returned servicemen from Mystic Park, Shire of Kerang. He said:We cannot expect to make a new and better world by the exercise of brute military force. We can only expect to achieve the kind of world we want by the use of our brains and effort during peace. We fought only to preserve, for our children, and ourselves that conception of political freedom and justice, which was being attacked by a tyrannous power.These words are not about vengeance, although John Gorton suffered more than many; they are about the restoration and preservation of freedom and justice. It was not only office workers who lost their lives in the immediate attack. Civilian firemen and police also died in their efforts to fight the fires and usher the survivors to safety. No doubt their courage and the calming reassurance of their professional and humane response helped ensure panic did not lead to an even greater loss of life in the smoke-filled stairwells.On behalf of the people of Murray, I want to praise the work of these people: the firemen, police and rescue workers. They remind us of what it is we need to aspire to and protect: the performance of selfless service for others, especially in adversity, and love, not hate, for fellow man. Finally, I want to add my voice to the motion in encouraging all Australians in the wake of these appalling events to display those very qualities of tolerance and inclusion which the terrorists so assaulted. The Australian nation, and Murray in particular, is a multicultural, multiracial society. We aim to see all treated with respect and dignity. May this be a time of recommitment to the values that make us a civil society.3105309:58:0031053O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I rise to speak about the collapse of Ansett and, subsequently, Kendell Airlines. This collapse has and will continue to heavily impact upon the Tasmanian economy. Nearly 500 local people within Launceston were, until Friday, employed with either Ansett or Kendell. The bulk of these jobs were in the Launceston call centre. The collapse has impacted on our tourism industry, as one in nine people in Tasmania are employed in this industry. Tasmanian exporters are facing an uncertain future. The impacts upon Tasmania following the crash demand attention from the federal government—attention that we are not seeing. Ansett has been in difficulty for some time. The industry knew it; the general public knew it, but apparently the minister for transport did not know it. The minister has claimed that he was unaware of the level of difficulty faced by Ansett until the weekend before last. That proposition is laughable—laughable if the consequences of the minister's obvious incompetence were not so severe. The facts are very simple. The Australian government was aware of the difficulties faced by Ansett. The chairman wrote to the minister in June, and the CEO wrote to him in April. Only weeks ago, staff begged him for help. There is no escaping the fact that the collapse of Ansett is, in some part, due to the policy and administrative failure of the minister for transport. The government's job is to risk-manage our economy. I call upon the House to take actions to ensure that northern Tasmania does not need to suffer any longer than is absolutely necessary. The government must at first take every action to get Ansett flying. If they fail to do that, there are other tasks that they must undertake. They must safeguard the entitlements of former staff, ensure the adequate provision of air services, passenger and freight, to Tasmania, and provide a structural adjustment package to ensure that there are employment opportunities in Launceston in the future. The community of Launceston has been hurt: from the bloke who owns the freight company and used to employ 10 people to the kiosk at the airport that is only operating until it runs out of stock. There is 23-year-old Matthew, who has a seven-month old baby and has just purchased a new home. Karen, who was due to settle on a new house last Thursday, will lose her deposit. The child-care centre had a lot of clients from the call centre. I think what the child-care centre is doing embodies the local spirit. This centre is waiving fees for Ansett parents. I call on other organisations to have the same kind of spirit.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills31054R139531054Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:0031054Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The Health and Other Services (Compensation) Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 is one that Labor will be supporting. It contains three related sets of amendments to streamline the current administrative arrangements concerning the way in which Medicare and nursing home benefits are reclaimed where a person has suffered a compensable injury, either through WorkCover, transport accident insurance or some other form of legal recovery of medical expenses. Specifically, the bill intends to streamline the administration of the compensation recovery program, managed by the Health Insurance Commission. It intends to make consequential changes to the act governing charges under the program and make consequential amendments related to the change from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Administrative Review Tribunal. The bill will reduce the requirements in cases which involve settlements of less than $5,000, reduce the notification requirements, simplify the method of calculating debt, and allow the minister to vary the percentage amount for advance payments. The explanatory memorandum states that these measures are estimated to save the Commonwealth $24 million over four years and will reduce the administrative costs both for insurers and legal firms. I would appreciate it if we could get an undertaking from the minister that the Health Insurance Commission will report on the impact of this legislation and the realisation of savings in its future annual reports. This is a useful piece of legislation and, as I said at the start, the opposition will be supporting the bill. 10:02:0031055Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—The Health and Other Services (Compensation) Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 was an amendment to the acts which have the objective of preventing double dipping. Double dipping is where claimants receiving Medicare or nursing home benefit with respect to their compensable injuries later receive compensation for medical costs as the successful conclusion to a judgment or settlement of a claim. Double dipping is where they do not repay these benefits to the Commonwealth. The acts are designed to allow the Commonwealth to recover these benefits. It is not uncommon for local MPs to see problems relating to this act. Sometimes we see people who have received payments and then find that the Health Insurance Commission is claiming it back. A 2001 review of the act by Mr George Pooley found that the legislation was complex and labour-intensive in its requirements. The review opted for a streamlining option which delivers some savings and has unanimous support amongst stakeholders. They looked at three options: retaining the status quo, a streamlining option or applying a levy. This streamlining option, which is the one that they have recommended, has savings of over $25 million over the next four years. What this bill specifically does is, firstly, allow for removal of the notice of claim prior to judgment or settlement. The reason for this is that many claims never get that far. Secondly, it allows the use of statutory declarations to extend the time frames if no further services were provided. Thirdly, it sets a proposed threshold of $5,000 as opposed to $166.60, and amounts below that threshold will be defined as `small amounts'. This reduces the number of settlements and judgments that the Health Insurance Commission will be interested in. The reason for this is the cost of recovering these small amounts outweighs the revenue that they receive from getting them. Fourthly, it extends the time for validity of the notice of past benefits from three to six months and, fifthly, it reduces the current administrative burden of the compensation recovery program. These amendments together will reduce the administrative burden on the Health Insurance Commission, insurers and claimants.Looking at the streamlining option, which is the one that is contained in this bill, the cost of this to government will be that there will be a greater reliance on statutory declarations. This means that there will have to be tight fraud controls and audit procedures. There are already some in existence. There will also be reduced total recoveries.But the benefits will be a decreased number of reported settlements and judgments, a decreased issuing of the notice of past benefits statements, decreased complaints because of the sliding scale that has been used in the advanced payment option, and there will also be a decreased administrative cost of $25 million. Another benefit to the government is that this option had unanimous stakeholder support.There will be a cost to business: this option still maintains some compliance cost. The benefits to business will be a reduced reporting of claims, reduced administration of reported claims, an ability to use the advance payment option, and there will be reduced costs of $2.9 million.For individuals, there will still be some compliance costs that have been retained, but there will be benefits. Those who receive compensation of less than $5,000 will no longer be required to comply. Those who have claims greater than $5,000 will be able to give a statutory declaration if there was no Commonwealth benefit received. There will also be a decreased need for a notice of past benefit. We estimate that individuals who come under this will be $11.3 million better off.This bill represents an improvement. It is workable and acceptable to all. It does involve a net recovery of $19.9 million, which is better than what we currently have but less than what would have occurred under the levy. I have noted that the opposition supports this bill. This bill essentially has technical amendments, which will involve streamlining the act and preventing double dipping. 10:07:0031056Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I rise to support the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. Like previous members, I see this as a piece of legislation that streamlines a bill that is already operating. The bill will specifically streamline the administration of the compensation recovery program managed by the Health Insurance Commission, make consequential changes to the act governing charges under the program and make consequential amendments relating to the changes from the AAT to the Administrative Review Tribunal.This piece of legislation is refining the Health and Other Services Compensation Act 1996, a piece of legislation that was introduced to stop double dipping by successful claimants for compensation whereby they could receive both a Commonwealth and a workers compensation, or a compensation benefit of some sort. Whilst it has been a step forward, there were still some problems with it. A review was conducted by the former Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner, George Pooley, who was appointed in March 1999. He reviewed the operation of the act and recommended some changes that would make the legislation more workable. This is something that has had bipartisan support in parliament since its inception, but it has had some opposition from insurers and lawyers along the way.Prior to becoming a member of parliament, I worked in rehabilitation with a lot of people who benefited from workers compensation or who were sometimes victims of the workers compensation system. One of the big problems these people had once they received a settlement was the waiting period, the long time they had to wait before they could access the money that had been awarded to them.The original piece of legislation enabled 90 per cent of the compensation that they received to be paid to them, but 10 per cent was held by the Health Insurance Commission. If it was a small settlement, that quite often created a problem for those people. One aspect of this legislation which is particularly pleasing is the fact that people who receive settlements of $5,000 or less will be exempt. That will get around a lot of the problems that those in receipt of workers compensation have had. I am sure that members other than me have made many phone calls to the Health Insurance Commission, chasing up the 10 per cent that has been withheld. It really was a complicated administrative system that caused hardship. For those people that were involved in compensation, be it workers compensation, motor vehicle accident compensation or public liability compensation, it created hardship at a time when they needed to put it behind them and get on with the rest of their lives. Also, the complexity of the system actually increases the cost, not only to government but to all of those people involved in the process. Right from the beginning, when the original act was introduced in 1996, I think this legislation has been a step forward. I think that we really need to continue to focus on improving the system so that all parties involved in it can benefit from it.Over the years people who have been involved in the workers compensation system have had to come to terms with a lot of problems and issues along the way. One of the main issues that they have had to come to terms with is the adjustment to their disability and to their changed life and circumstances. Allowing the payment to people involved to be exempt where it is only a small sum and streamlining the system will actually improve it not only for those who administer it but for those who are benefiting from receiving a workers compensation settlement. In conclusion, I would like to say that I am very happy to support this legislation because I see that it will make the system work better and will assist those people who have received compensation payments. 10:12:0031057Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I must say that the expedition with which this bill has proceeded through the Main Committee is proof positive that members of parliament are certainly not paid by the word. The Health and Other Services (Compensation) Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 proposes—Honourable members interjecting—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The parliamentary secretary will ignore the interjections.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I thank my colleagues for their good-natured approach to this legislation. This bill proposes to amend the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges Act 1995. Acts were passed to ensure that when plaintiffs went 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 injuries.As has been already outlined, the bill arises from a review of the acts undertaken for the government by the former Commissioner for Superannuation, Mr George Pooley. Mr Pooley found that the compensation recovery program covered by the acts has proven cumbersome and burdensome for all parties. He made a number of recommendations to improve these processes. These new arrangements will be simpler, more efficient and will keep impositions on claimants to a minimum. Simpler claiming and administration processes will allow the speedier release of final compensation settlements or judgments and reduce the worry and red tape for recipients and their families.Before I conclude, I want to refer to some remarks made by the honourable member for Jagajaga in her contribution. She asked if the Health Insurance Commission could report on the implementation of, and the savings achieved from, this measure in its annual report. I have been informed that the minister would be happy for this information to be made available, so I ask the opposition whip to convey that message to the member for Jagajaga—unless she picks it up during her daily reading of the Hansard record. I thank the honourable members for their support for these important amendments to the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 and to the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges Act 1995. I commend the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills31057R138731057Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Abbott:That the bill be now read a second time.10:17:0031057Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2001 will create a legal framework for the electronic transfer of Commonwealth government securities, enable the Commonwealth to create equitable interests in Commonwealth government securities and enable a body corporate to be appointed as a registrar under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill instead of, or in addition to, the Reserve Bank of Australia. Unfortunately, both the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech by Minister Abbott were not overly elaborate on the reasons for, and consequences of, this bill. Accordingly, I do have some questions that I want to ask the minister, and I will come back to these in due course. I understand that certain initiatives in the bill stem from CLERP paper No. 5, which deals with electronic commerce. That paper was circulated in 1997 and a number of initiatives in that paper have already been implemented. The initiative relating to this bill is in part 6 of the CLERP paper. There it is explained that the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act of 1911 and the regulations under that act currently require the transactions and transfers of legal title in Commonwealth government securities be settled through a paper based system. The Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act, therefore, does not allow Commonwealth government securities transactions to be settled electronically. That paper also discusses how the absence of an electronic system to settle transfers is being dealt with by the Reserve Bank. The paper states:However, there is nothing in the CIS Act prohibiting the introduction of an electronic system for the transfer of beneficial interests in, or other choses in action—that is, things—relating to, CGS. In practice, the concept of granting a chose in action in relation to CGS has been developed to overcome the existing impediment to electronic transfers of the debt instruments themselves presented by the CIS Act.This concept works as follows. Legal and beneficial ownership of securities lodged into the Reserve Bank Information and Transfer System ... by a member passes to the RBA. The RBA then grants to the member a chose in action. The chose in action is then transferred through RITS. The chose in action entitles the member to direct the RBA to deliver to the member securities of a specified description and face value.The CLERP paper then concludes:It would, however, be preferable to amend the CIS Act to allow the electronic transfer of the direct beneficial and legal interests in CGS—that is, Commonwealth government securities. Accordingly, proposal No. 6 in CLERP paper No. 5 is that:The Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 and Regulations will be amended to enable the electronic transfer of the direct beneficial and legal interests in Commonwealth Government securities (CGS). This will enable transactions in CGS to be settled electronically, as well as through existing paper based means.That proposal is implemented in the first two aspects of this bill that I described earlier— namely, the bill creates a legal framework for the electronic transfer of Commonwealth government securities and it enables the Commonwealth to create equitable interests in Commonwealth government securities. This is not controversial. However, the CLERP paper is silent on the third aspect of the bill: to enable a body corporate to be appointed as a registrar under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill instead of, or in addition to, the Reserve Bank of Australia.The Reserve Bank is currently the registrar under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill. The most recent annual report of the Reserve Bank says that the bank provides registry services on behalf of the Commonwealth government, the South Australian Government Financing Authority and a number of other domestic and foreign institutions. The services provided by the Reserve Bank include the issuance of securities, maintenance of ownership records, payment of interest and redemption of securities at maturity. The Reserve Bank annual report from the previous year says that the cost to government through its agency, the Australian Office of Financial Management, for the operation of the registry declined by 19 per cent during that year. A further decline of around 20 per cent has been forecast for the year 2000-01. One of the first questions that need to be asked of the minister is about the cost to the government if, as contemplated by this bill, a non-government entity performs the functions now performed by the Reserve Bank under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act. This question needs to be asked because this government has an appalling record on outsourcing. The report by the Australian National Audit Office into the government's information technology outsourcing program was highly critical of the management and implementation of the information technology outsourcing program and sceptical of the savings to be realised.When the information technology outsourcing program was launched by the Minister for Finance and Administration in 1997, the Hon. John Fahey stated:The Government is committed to achieving the best value for its information technology dollar, to support the delivery of services at the lowest cost to the taxpayer.Later, the minister said that the government estimated that the information technology outsourcing program would save taxpayers approximately $1 billion over seven years. Those savings have not been realised. They were spurious and the contracting of information technology has not been achieved at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. In fact, a vastly different outcome has occurred. I am aware, for example, that in the tax office, where information technology was outsourced to EDS, the number of staff involved in the tax office's information technology area fell only slightly but you had an information technology contract in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars going to EDS. The net result of information technology outsourcing there was that a great increase in resources—both tax office and outsourced resources—went into this area, a very poor outcome from the perspective of the taxpayer following information technology outsourcing in that area.I am also concerned to ensure that there is confidence in the settlement, transfer and registration of Commonwealth government securities. Commonwealth government securities provide the benchmark yields from which the rest of the debt market prices its risk. It is essential that they maintain their characteristic of being `risk free securities.' I note that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, in his second reading speech, said:These reforms will increase business confidence in the effectiveness and reliability of electronic transfers of Commonwealth government securities by providing a certain and secure framework for electronic transactions in the Commonwealth government securities market.I would be very concerned if the Reserve Bank processes were not providing a certain and secure framework for transactions in Commonwealth government securities. Accordingly, another issue I wish to explore concerning this bill is how the registry service provided by the Reserve Bank in accordance with the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act interacts with the Reserve Bank information and transfer system.According to the Reserve Bank's annual report in 2000, that system: ... provides its 143 members (representing 267 organisations) with facilities for the electronic settlement of transactions in Commonwealth Government securities (CGS). The system handles over 99 per cent of CGS turnover in the market ... The system also provides facilities for electronic tendering for CGS, automatic interest and maturity payments for securities lodged in the system and for settling the interbank component of equity transactions on CHESS, the Australian Stock Exchange's electronic settlement system. RITS is also Australia's real-time gross settlement system and is the means through which banks and other approved institutions access their Exchange Settlement accounts with the RBA.According to the CLERP 5 paper, the financial system inquiry noted that the real time gross settlement system to be implemented, which has since been implemented, will represent world's best practice. I hope that the minister will be able to further explain these issues to me and also explain what consultation there has been on aspects of this bill dealing with the outsourcing of functions performed by the Reserve Bank. I have indicated to you that there are a number of questions I would like to ask the minister and seek a response from him on, either in terms of consideration in detail or some way in which the minister can come back to the opposition and provide a formal response. I will indicate these questions now to give the government as much opportunity as I can to respond to them.They are essentially: (1) what is the cost to government of the Reserve Bank providing the registry services required under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act; (2) under what terms, including the cost, would another entity be appointed as a registrar under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act; what measures would be put in place to ensure that the yield on Commonwealth government securities does not incorporate any risk stemming from a non-government entity providing the registry services; (3) what entities has it contemplated may be appointed to be a registrar under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act; (4) what consultation was there on this bill; (5) what is the interaction currently between the Reserve Bank's registry system under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act and the Reserve Bank's information and transfer system; (6) what would be the effect on the Reserve Bank's information transfer system if the Reserve Bank was no longer the registrar for Commonwealth government securities under the act; (7) are there any concerns that the Reserve Bank could not provide a certain and secure framework for electronic transactions in the Commonwealth government securities market; (8) could there be any effect on the risk attached to Commonwealth government securities from the changes proposed in this bill to the settlement and registration of Commonwealth government securities and what advice has been provided to the minister concerning this issue? The opposition is interested in seeking responses from the government to these important questions. I indicate, however, that on the information provided to us we are supportive of this bill.10:29:0031060McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—This Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2001 is a continued part of the government's package in reforming the economy and the methodology by which the economic transactions take place. It is part of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999, the Electronic Transaction Act 1999, the Corporations Act 2001 and the Financial Services Reform Act 2001.We have an bill here which is line with the government's reform agenda. Of course, I note that those members opposite would historically have needed to raise large sources of Commonwealth funds to fund their debt, having raised $96 billion of Commonwealth debt at the peak of the Hawke and Keating governments. The current Leader of the Opposition left the government as the Minister for Finance with a $10 billion black hole. So, to fund these particular operations, Commonwealth bonds are required, and this is a tidying up operation of the government to ensure that we remain internationally competitive. I notice the member for Corio has fortuitously arrived in the chamber. He will have very little knowledge of these matters, but hopefully he will listen carefully to the erudition of the member for Corangamite. WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—What do you know about inscribed stock?VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—Madam Deputy Speaker, as usual the member for Corio is causing disarray in the parliament, but hopefully he might listen and concentrate on matters in his portfolio. WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—Flattery will get you nowhere.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—He needs to concentrate to understand what he is on about. The Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 really needs modernisation, because it allowed for securities to be transferred by a paper system. It is interesting that, when the act was established, it stated: The Treasurer may establish a Registry for the inscription of stock at London in the United Kingdom.So that is how far back we were relying on the paper transference of money, which is very much part of the modern government. Currently, the Reserve Bank system creates a legal property right known as `chose in action'. This legal right—the chose in action—then gets transferred once it is placed on the Reserve Bank transfer. The Reserve Bank transfer member holds no proprietary interest; he or she merely directs the transfer. So you have an old approach, which this bill is trying to modernise. This bill removes the chose in action approach. This now allows for a direct electronic transfer and the ownership of the security, in keeping with modern arrangements on the stock markets around the world and the bills that governments of Australia raise. The bill in detail allows for the creation and transfer of government securities. It takes into account the fact that the securities are now bought and sold electronically, as are shares on the share market and in the same way as individual Australians use electronic transfers in their own banking arrangements. It brings the government operations into the modern age. The main objective of this bill is to increase the flexibility in the Commonwealth government securities. It allows for the appointment of a non-government clearing facility for securities so that it is not just a monopoly of the Reserve Bank. The Commonwealth government securities are dead instruments. The examples of this are treasury bonds and treasury notes. The government raises these treasury bonds and treasury notes through the Australian Office of Financial Management. The trade of these securities is very much part of the monetary policy of the government, be it the Howard government or be it another government. It is interesting to note that the Commonwealth securities were worth $74 billion in the year 2000, which gives a clear indication of the magnitude of the trade involved; $74 billion is a lot of money in anyone's language.In any one day, the market turnover is $3 billion of Commonwealth bonds. The improvement of electronic transfer and the identification of the buyer and seller will improve efficiency. The inscribed stock treasury bonds will have their title recorded in a register rather than in the form of a certificate—again, a modern practice which is being instituted in the stock markets—and will be as legal title. The Reserve Bank currently has an electronic securities transfer system and this system currently handles 99 per cent of the securities trade.The government is improving the arrangements for the economic conduct of commerce in Australia and the government operations in an electronic age. I commend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2001, which is part of the reform package that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Mr Hockey, has been instrumental in bringing about. I have had a number of discussions with the minister about the importance of the Corporations Act 2001 in bringing Australia into line on a competitive basis with other trading nations, and this bill is part of that reform process. Whilst it is not headline stuff, it is important to ensure that the fundamentals of the Australian commercial system work well. It is in the modern age, it is effective and it is legal. I commend the bill.10:36:0031061Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Corangamite for his words of support for the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2001. The member for Corangamite always participates in these important debates, and that is why he is a damn good local member.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—Not for much longer! 10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Member for Corio, you will be speaking later. If you want the same courtesies extended to you, I suggest you extend them to others.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Today is not the day to make a comment like that, sunshine! Today is not the day, buddy! The member for Corangamite is the custodian of the legacy of former member of parliament Bert Kelly, and he does a fantastic job for his constituents in delivering better quality services, particularly in relation to financial services. I also thank the member for Wills for his contribution to the debate. I understand that the member for Wills has raised a number of questions—or that he has been the conduit for a number of questions. I apologise to him for not being here when he asked those questions, but I undertake to take those questions on notice and get him some answers. I have not seen all the questions, but certainly we are prepared to be as helpful as we possibly can in a bipartisan manner to address any concerns that the opposition might have. I undertake to make my officers available to assist the opposition with their detailed queries.To remind the House, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2001 takes us into a new age for the trading of debt market securities and, perhaps arguably, it is long overdue. We are enabling a dematerialisation of the market. That is, we are shifting from paper based trading to electronic trading in debt markets. As we have witnessed in relation to other markets, it in fact has a significant positive impact on liquidity. In relation to financial markets there is perhaps no factor more important in a market than ensuring that liquidity is in play. Other factors, obviously, such as transparency and integrity are also vital ingredients for good markets, but for a market to truly reflect developments on a microsecond by microsecond basis you need to be able to have a reasonable level of liquidity in the marketplace. Therefore, anything governments can do to improve liquidity in a market is of vital importance. It is also vitally important to ensure that we protect transparency.Australian markets are generally very good at being transparent. Transparency is directly linked to the integrity of a market. If the markets are transparent, if investors, traders and agents in the marketplace are able to determine all the factors that can affect a price and, at the same time, there is a reasonable level of liquidity, then the markets develop their own integrity. And if there is some inappropriate practice in a marketplace then everyone needs to have confidence that, through a process of transparency, they are able to identify it and that the appropriate authorities can seek appropriate redress.This bill will open up the conduct of the Commonwealth government securities market to clearing and settlement facilities involved in the broader operation of the financial markets. It will make it clear that non-government clearing and settlement facilities regulated under the Corporations Act may be appointed by registrars under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act in addition to, or instead of, the Reserve Bank. It will also create equitable interests in Commonwealth government securities. That will hopefully further improve liquidity in the marketplace rather than simply relying on the legal interests held by the Commonwealth. The bill will also provide for regulations to be made that provide for the transfer of legal or equitable interests in Commonwealth securities in accordance with the act or by applying provisions of the Corporations Act to the transfer of interests in Commonwealth government securities. This bill will increase business confidence in the effectiveness and reliability of electronic transfers of Commonwealth government securities and improve the working environment for that trading.We are obviously entering an overall period where markets are becoming much more sophisticated, where they are becoming 24-hour places of operation, and it is vitally important that governments maintain level heads and retain sovereignty over their markets during these challenging times. I am not just referring, obviously, to what has happened in the United States over the last two weeks, but more generally. Markets rely, as I said a little earlier, on liquidity. Closely linked to liquidity is volume. For example, the greatest threat to equities markets around the world is the fact that the cost of raising capital is higher in a less liquid market than it is in a liquid market. Take, for example, New Zealand. A number of companies have left the New Zealand Stock Exchange to list either in Australia—I think in one case in Singapore—or offshore. The main driver of that is not particular New Zealand interests; it is the fact that the cost of raising capital in a small equities market is greater than if you were raising capital in a much more liquid or larger market—for example, London. That is one of the reasons the dual listing structure is very attractive to a number of companies in Australia. It means that they can raise capital overseas cheaper but at the same time retain their position on the Australian Stock Exchange. Today the New Zealand Stock Exchange has a total market cap of around four per cent of the Australian Stock Exchange, which is extraordinary. The Australian Stock Exchange has been greatly buoyed over the years by demutualisation and privatisation. That has helped to significantly increase the cap of the Stock Exchange. Look at some of the companies that are in the top 10 stocks today compared with, say, 10 years ago—the Commonwealth Bank, AMP, Qantas, NRMA and a number of other companies—that were either government owned or mutuals a few years ago and today they are listed, or they are part of larger conglomerates like Woolworths is part of the IEL group. The market has changed quite dramatically over the years, and that is a good thing because it has helped to increase the size and scale of the equities markets in Australia.But at the same time we face our challenges in our marketplace. Australia is blessed with very sophisticated markets. Our derivatives markets are very sophisticated. We have excellent bond markets, various capital markets and in particular derivatives traders. We in Australia have developed some of the most sophisticated financial products in the world. That is not an idle boast. That is reflected in the fact that a lot of Australians are very highly sought after in foreign markets, particularly London and, as we realised in fairly stark terms quite recently and quite sadly, New York. Australian traders, marketers and researchers are very highly prized because we have a very sophisticated market.The question is how we develop scale. With governments of all persuasions quite rightly paying down debt, we have seen an enormous reduction in the comparative scale of the government bond market in Australia. But I understand that in only the last two days we have had a massive seachange in the Australian bond markets with the corporate bond market now passing in size the government bond market. As members of parliament, we would all be rejoicing that in fact the government is not the biggest borrower in the marketplace today.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—Hear, hear! It is due to this government, the Howard government.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Yes, that is right. We will get to that in a second, but I do not know that today is really the day to really drill into the opposition.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—The former opposition—Paul Keating's.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Yes, but there was a paydown. To give them their due, at a state level there have been some state governments of Labor Party persuasion that have been as committed to reducing government debt as the Commonwealth coalition government has been. There was a blip. It was a $96 billion blip whereas, as you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sorry to paint the chair as partisan and that is not our intention of course—in 1983 there was, I understand, $16 billion of Commonwealth debt accrued over 82 years, and, to the great credit of the Labor Party, they blew that debt out from $16 billion to $96 billion within 13 years. That was the most extensive line of credit I have ever seen for a government; that is why I say all credit to them. But the truth is that we had to pay it back, and we have paid back $50 billion of that $96 billion so far, with more to come, through prudent financial management by a coalition government. What we have seen is a diminution of the public sector bond market and the semi-government bond market, but bear this in mind: you can have an essentially debt-free jurisdiction and still issue bonds responsibly. The Queensland government has done that over the years to maintain liquidity in the Queensland bond market and in the semi-government bond market, as it is known. But that is certainly not the case when you are just accruing debt and spending it as a government, which, as we all know, is highly irresponsible. It leaves you no room to move on a rainy day.It is good to see the corporate bond market growing because that is adding liquidity to the marketplace. It means that corporations, instead of borrowing money from overseas, are able to borrow money in the Australian market in Australian dollars and, therefore, are able to finance things here without sending interest offshore. Instead, hopefully they are sending interest to the mums and dads of Australia, whose superannuation funds in many cases are invested in domestic corporate bonds. So overall I think this is a very good bill. The bill is long overdue. We look forward to a more liquid market. We look forward to improving transparency. We look forward to lowering the costs of trading in this marketplace. Certainly in relation to the questions raised by the opposition we on this side of the House only indicate goodwill. I am prepared to provide them with whatever answers they may require to their specific and detailed questions. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 31064Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:52:0031064Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I wish, in the consideration of the bill in detail, to provide the minister with an opportunity to respond, if he wishes, to questions which the opposition has. The minister's second reading summing up—the hymn of praise to the government's prudent financial management—is a tad provocative. There was no reference to foreign debt blowing out from $200 million to $300 million. The reference to prudential financial management might not wash quite so well if you are a worker with Ansett or a customer with One.Tel or a policyholder with HIH. One is tempted to talk about the way in which this government has messed up aviation, tourism, insurance, communications, et cetera. I might be straying a bit from the bill, so I will get back to the questions which are specifically on our mind here. The minister, as he indicated, did not have the opportunity to hear them in the second reading debate so I will go through them. He has flagged the prospect that the government may wish to take these matters on notice and provide us with an answer subsequently. I would not be offended by that. I am happy for the minister to be a conduit for the answer, as he suggests I have been a conduit for the question. My questions are as follows—and if he does want to say anything about them now he is very welcome to do that. Firstly, what is the cost to government of the RBA providing the registry services required under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act? Secondly, under what terms, including the cost, would another entity be appointed as a registrar under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act, and what measures would be put in place to ensure that the yield on Commonwealth government securities does not incorporate any risk stemming from a non-government entity providing the registry services? Thirdly, what entities is it contemplated may be appointed to be a registrar under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act? Fourthly, what consultation was there on this bill? Fifthly, what is the interaction currently between the Reserve Bank's registry system under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act and the Reserve Bank's information transfer system? Sixthly, what would be the effect on the Reserve Bank's information transfer system if the Reserve Bank was no longer the registrar for Commonwealth government securities under the act? Seventhly, are there any concerns that the Reserve Bank could not provide a certain and secure framework for electronic transactions in the Commonwealth government securities market? Finally, could there be any effect on the risk attached to Commonwealth government securities from the changes proposed in this bill to the settlement and registration of Commonwealth government securities, and what advice has been provided to the minister or has been received by the minister concerning this issue?10:55:0031065Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—There is a number of detailed questions there which I am happy to take on notice. But one thing I understand—and I may be proven wrong on this—is that the yield in relation to a bond is specifically related to the risk associated with the payment on the bond. I make this perfectly clear here and on the Hansard record: we want to maintain the absolute integrity in the clearing and settlement of this market. As far as I am concerned, I would hope that nothing would be done that would in any way lessen the integrity of the clearing and settlement procedures in relation to Commonwealth inscribed stock. That is essentially unrelated to yield, because when you are looking at the yield from a certain product, no matter what it may be, the marginal impact of the integrity of the clearing and settlement is not there unless there are substantial issues about integrity of clearing and settlement.Under those circumstances, I just say to the member for Wills that, firstly, on the question relating to yield—which is the one that I can particularly answer—that is a matter for factors other than clearing and settlement generally. Secondly, if there are any attempts in any way to negatively impact upon the integrity of the clearing and settlement procedure, they need to be remedied immediately. If the opposition have any concerns about that they should bring them to our attention as soon as possible. Certainly, there is a very steely determination from the government to maintain full integrity, transparency and accountability in relation to clearing and settlement. From our perspective, that will have no impact on the yield from the stock.Bill agreed to.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills31065R138431065Debate resumed from 29 August, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.10:58:0031065O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—From the opposition's point of view, the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 2001 will be supported in its passage through the House. There is some tragedy in relation to this particular bill in that the government is winding it up before the member for Corangamite will be able to access it. I think that is going to be one of the tragedies of this bill. I notice the euphoria of the government coming in from the cold, as we say, in polling terms. The honourable member who spoke in the debate previously happened to mention the polls, and of course the honourable member for Corangamite will no doubt be buoyed by them. It has been a long time between drinks for the government in the polls. As the honourable member for Corangamite knows, we harbour fond hopes of winning the seat, and nothing has changed in light of the polls. The measure of the government's desperation in holding onto the jewel in the Liberal crown in Victoria was the appearance of the Prime Minister in Corangamite. I do not think we have ever seen a Liberal Prime Minister, only one driving through the seat: the Lord of Nareen used to drive through the seat on his way to Melbourne. But now we have the Prime Minister, that great urban lawyer, pretending that he knows something about rural affairs in the seat of Corangamite.10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Member for Corio, while wide ranging debates are generally accepted, I think we might make a mild reference to the bill!WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I was alluding to the intent of the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker; perhaps I have not made that particular point clear. It deals with retirement assistance for farmers and it was in that context that I directed my comments to the member for Corangamite. This scheme was announced in 1997 as part of the government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia package—that great and original package from the coalition that basically rebadged most of the good schemes that were put in place by the Labor Party at the time. I guess that is one of the skills you have when you come to office: you pick the eyes out of the good things that have been done by the previous government. Of course, that will be the philosophy that the Labor Party will employ when we come to power after the next election, although it will probably be slim pickings. But we will scour what has been done by the government over their five wasted years and, if there is anything that missed the wreckage, we will most certainly adopt it.This particular scheme originally allowed farmers a three-year window of opportunity, which began on 14 September 1997, to give farms and farm assets with a value of up to $500,000 to the next generation, without affecting their access to an age or a veterans' affairs pension. The opposition supported the passage of that legislation through the parliament when it was put up by the government. Of course, like everything that the government says, we heard the claims by the then minister—that great exaggerator, the Deputy Prime Minister—who at the time announced to the rural sector that this was the greatest thing since sliced bread. This was the creme de la creme of schemes to effect the intergenerational transfer of farms. He raised great expectations that there would be some 10,000 farmers with the capacity to access this particular scheme.Of course, the drumbeats went out in rural and regional Australia, like they did with multiperil crop insurance and a host of other things, and we saw the spectacular failure of the government's policy in this regard. As I understand it, to date only 2,000 farmers have made use of the scheme. I commend those farmers for the actions they have taken under the scheme. Even the member for Corangamite, who, on his vast properties in the Western District, counts sheep day in, day out, can understand that there is a difference between having 10,000 in the pen and 2,000 in the paddock. I say to the member for Corangamite: is that not so?VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—They're not much good for counting in the House!WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—We know that those skills are not transferable from farm to the House. But when he gets out there, breathing the fresh air on the farm, he knows the difference between having 10,000 in one paddock and 2,000 in another paddock. That is what your minister said at the time with respect to the number of farmers who would access this scheme—that it would be 10,000. This was going to be the great government initiative to effect the intergenerational transfer of farms. Of course, what happened? We now see that 2,000 have used the scheme. The reason why you were able to ratchet up the figure of 2,000 was that you extended the scheme. It was no good; the criteria were too tight. The NFF told you that; the New South Wales Farmers Association told you that. One of the honourable members who is present in the chamber is from New South Wales. It is good to see New South Welshmen in here, because normally when we speak on agricultural affairs the two squires from the Western District, the members for Wannon and Corangamite, speak in these debates. The honourable member from New South Wales would know—834Lawler, Tony, MPMr Lawler—Parkes.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Parkes, is it? I am sorry, I am obviously elevating him beyond his station. I acknowledge the honourable member for Parkes in the chamber today. I understand that he is leaving parliament and that it is going to be—QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—It's because he's unimpressed with Corangamite and Wannon.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—It may well be that, but I think the parliament is going to be a bit less for your going, honourable member for Parkes, quite frankly, and that is the view of members on this side of the House. I will get back to the matters in hand. The honourable members for Corangamite and Wannon were part of that cabal that trotted around the rural industries and rural districts of Australia trumpeting this great initiative and, here we are, talked up to 10,000 but actually delivered 2,000. They are serial offenders when it comes to policy. I will confine my remarks to the rural sector because I think it is illustrative of just how hopeless this particular government has been over the last five years.In the first place, we had the wool industry fiasco and the sale of the stockpile. This always gets the honourable members excited because they really do not like to know the truth. But when Pauline speaks, some members of the Liberal Party jump. It is like the sheep dancing out in the paddock, or perhaps it is like the sheepdog that leaps up on the back of the sheep. When Pauline rattled the can, the honourable members, spooked as they were, suspended sales from the stockpile.Let me tell you, friends: the polls will not spook us, not like Pauline spooked you when you suspended the sale of wool from the stockpile. But it does not end there. The tale I am telling here is about failure of policy, the failure of policy in the instance of dairy deregulation. The honourable member for Corangamite was lauded by the minister here as the Bert Kelly. We know him in my electorate as Captain Zero. He has the electorate over the other side of the river. He is the zero tariff man. He is the man that would have destroyed Ford Australia. There would have been no car industry if we had not defeated you in that election, way back when. Honourable member for Corangamite, you might know a bit about sheep, but I do not think you know much at all about dairy. If your influence in the bowels of the coalition had been as profound as you claim, I would have thought we would have had a different attitude to dairy deregulation.What we got was a disaster, and I will relate it to this Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 2001, because it is dealing with the intergenerational transfer of farms. Let us have a look at dairy deregulation and what it has done to the age profiles of the dairy industry in this country. As we know, one of the vehicles into the dairy industry traditionally has been sharefarming, where young dairy farmers not only gain expertise in running an enterprise under the guidance of an owner but they are able to accumulate some capital and stock which, at a particular point of their lives, they take from that facility onto their own farm. What has been the impact of the coalition's dairy deregulation on that particular section of the dairy industry? As we went around Australia with a task force looking into this failure of coalition policy, what we found was that many sharefarmers took the money and ran, and left the industry. Some very good young people who would have stayed in this industry and lowered the age profile of the industry actually left it as a result of government policy.In this Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme, we have a failure of policy. In relation to the capacity of young people to earn an income in the dairy industry, the government's policy has failed. I go to exceptional circumstances: here where you demand consistency of policy what have we had? We have had procrastination and decisions made on a political basis—another example of policy failure. I go to quarantine. This would be something that would be close to the member for Hinkler, another one of the good guys on the National Party side. He is one of what we call the `rural socialists' in the National Party who is probably so far to the left of the member for Corangamite he would fall off the breakfast plate. As far as quarantine is concerned, we had a flurry of activity in the budget. The coalition must think that the farming community is stupid. We know that the audit report was done well in advance of the budget. Of course, the budget comes down and the minister says, `Hey presto, we have got here a great initiative of $600 million on quarantine'! I am talking about policy failure here. Of course we know why the government did that. But if you go one step back and have a look at the Senate committee reports on salmon, apples and chicken meat you realise just how bad the government has been in that quarantine area as far as policy is concerned.I am mentioning these areas because I think this reinforces the point I am making on the floor of this chamber today: we are debating a bill which, on the government's own criteria, is a failure. The issue for the rural sector in the future is going to be lowering the age profile of people in the industry. I do not cast any aspersions here. I know that there are some members in this place who can run half marathons and I commend them for that. They do that when they are almost at retirement age. I think that is an extraordinary feat. But the question is: how are we going to get young people into this sector? The honourable member for Corangamite has got a few clicks up on the old age meter and so have I. We both consider ourselves in our prime as far as life is concerned. But the simple fact is that the age profile of farmers has risen over a long period of time. The dairy industry is one industry we could look at: the age profile there is somewhere in the region of 58 or 59. How do we encourage young people into agriculture and how do we effect that intergenerational transfer of farms? Obviously this particular scheme has not really addressed the latter. As far as the former is concerned, I think there is a great task now facing the sons and daughters of people who are raised on farms.The honourable members for Wannon and Corangamite will relate to this. Maybe they play polo out there on the fields of the Western District. We working class lads from Alvie only had football to play in the winter and maybe tennis or cricket in the summer. We did not play polo or any of those sorts of games down on the flat lands of Nareen in the Western District.Nowadays young people growing up have multiple choices as far as their sporting directions go which were not available to somebody like me when I grew up in the Western District. Today there are competing occupations, and it is more difficult for the sons and daughters of young farmers when the objective of the family is to send them away to be educated. They do taste the good life in city environments and then they see in a comparable sense that significant incomes can be earned in other occupations. It takes a long time for them to work through that experience and finally come back onto the farm. There is another thing at work here, and that is of course the decline in services. Here the government is particularly culpable, because in its first years it drove the boot into rural and regional Australia. That is why we have the MV Tampa, we had the trip to the United States and now we have this as far as the Prime Minister is concerned. One of the reasons why young people— 10000Kelly, De-Anne (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Member for Corio, `wide ranging' does not mean `all encompassing'. I think we will try to restrict comments to the bill in question.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will accept your guidance on this. I am trying to draw a picture of why young people are not coming back onto the farm, and I mentioned the decline in services which has taken place over the last five years. The government must be held responsible for that. There is now a general unwillingness on the part of many urban spouses to partake of the country experience because these services are not available. All of this relates very directly to how we effect the objective of getting more young people on farms, and this is the subject of the legislation that is before us here in the Main Committee. I think industries in agriculture must take some of the responsibility for the encouragement of younger entrants into their particular industries. It cannot be left to government alone. Many industries have developed discrete pathways where young people get access to a rural experience, obtain some skills and make their way through a series of steps to the point where they can own their own farm.But of course governments must also look for successful ways in a policy sense to encourage that lowering of the age profile and to attract new young entrants into the sector. I think there is a job to be done in the education system, because we are now finding that there is not only a lack of understanding of the length and breadth of the occupations that are available to people in Australian agriculture but a general lack of understanding in cities about country life in general. Governments do have a role to play there. Perhaps the criteria that were employed in this particular scheme were somewhat strict. This was not an easy program to access according to the NFF and other farming organisations. There were a number of eligibility criteria but the main ones were that you had to have long-term involvement in farming, you had to have a total income of less than the applicable age or veterans' pension rate for the three years prior to the transfer and you had to be of age pension age or reach that age before the scheme's end date. These were fairly strict criteria and not many farmers were able to access the scheme.The bill that we are debating here today amends the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme provisions in the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to enable farmers who are otherwise qualified for the scheme and who have submitted an application before the cut-off date of 30 June 2001 to finalise the transfer of their farm within a specified time frame after 30 June 2001. For most qualified farmers this will be a period of three months from the date that the department of social security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs advise them that their application has been approved.This is not the first time that this particular scheme has been amended by the government. I would have thought that the issue we are discussing today would have been dealt with in the original bill that extended the scheme, but it was not and of course it is the subject of debate here today. As I indicated earlier—and the member for Corangamite will be pleased about this—we will certainly not inhibit the passage of the bill through the parliament. Our only disappointment is that the government is going to wind this scheme up before the member for Corangamite can access it.11:20:0031069Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I thank the member for Corio for those comments on the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 1998, though I must say that at various times during his discourse I was wondering whether I was actually in the right chamber. His comments gave an inkling of why the opposition have not let loose with any policies. Some of the words spoken by the previous speaker—he said that a responsible government would take policy from the previous government and pick the eyes out of it—clearly explain why they have no policies on the public record at the moment. It is because they clearly just want to carry on with the policies that this government has started. One of the reasons a number of farmers have not partaken in this scheme might be that when this government came in it found that the previous government had left the agricultural sector absolutely on its knees. Some of the reforms that this government was able to bring in—not the least of which was bringing interest rates to some sort of manageable level—meant that there were some farmers who could actually afford to stay in the industry who otherwise would have had to get out. That might be some explanation.The previous speaker made some comments as to eligibility for the scheme. I do not think the government need make any apologies for that. We are not in the business of handing out money and opportunity to those who do not need it. This bill was designed to assist those farmers who were caught in a difficult social position—often with two families on the one farm. Their inescapable situation was that they were unable to extract themselves from that arrangement and still maintain some sort of lifestyle on the pension.I speak in strong support of the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 2001. Retirement assistance for farmers in financial difficulties was originally one of the key components of the very successful Agriculture—Advancing Australia scheme. I briefly mention the great success and gratitude expressed by people in the western division who have embraced the West 2000 concept put forward by this government and recently extended as part of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia scheme.As previous speakers have said, it was introduced by the government in 1997 as part of a sustained approach to provide economic impetus and support for the rural sector. Since then the package has delivered unprecedented backing to all elements of the agricultural industry through enhanced competitiveness, viability and therefore profitability. At the same time the Advancing Australia project included provision to assist those farmers struggling to cope financially. This was in the form of the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme. This bill simply seeks to extend that assistance to farmers who have not been able to finalise the transfer of their farms to the next generation before the 30 June deadline this year. Since being introduced in September 1997 the retirement assistance initiative has served as a reassuring safety net for many hundreds of retiring Australian farmers and their families in my area.The retirement assistance scheme allows older farmers to transfer their farm to the next generation without jeopardising their access to age pension payments or service pensions. This bill seeks to extend this invaluable scheme's benefit to those farmers who contacted Centrelink prior to 1 August and were told they would qualify for the scheme. These farmers can still qualify for assistance under the scheme, provided the transfer is finalised within three months from the day of the Centrelink contact and confirmation of their eligibility. In doing so, this bill allows more farmers to utilise the scheme and its considerable benefits and to pass their farm operation on to the younger generation without penalty.This retirement assistance most benefits farmers who are confronted with financial difficulty because their farm business is, as I said previously, trying to provide a livelihood for two families when in reality the operation only has the capacity to support one. It does so by removing the significant barrier to the transfer of the family farm from one generation to the next—that being, a delay in the retiring farmer receiving pension assistance. They are able to pass on their farm to their children as a going concern, confident that the new owners will be able to make a more viable living, and they will receive pension support immediately. From a broader community perspective, maintaining the farm in family hands will foster economic confidence and allow long-time farm couples to retire in dignity and comfort. This extension of the scheme will not change the key eligibility criteria. If the opposition believe, as I understand the previous speaker does, that the limitations are a bit severe then perhaps at some distant time in the future when they may find themselves in government they may be able to make the changes that he wishes to make. Nevertheless, the conditions that have applied for the past four years are, amongst others, that the net value of the farm must be no more than $500,000; the retiring farmers must have owned the property for at least 15 years or have been actively involved in farming for 20 years; the retiring farmers must have had an average income of less than the age pension rate in the previous three years; and the next generation to which the property is being handed must have had an active involvement in the farm for the three years prior to the transfer.By extending access to this worthwhile program, the government will have contributed to a stronger farming community and allowed older farmers, including numerous armed forces veterans, to retire, having placed the family farm in safe hands. Coupled with federal initiatives, such as the recent $18 million farm innovation program to financially back innovative ideas in the farm sector, this government is constantly making ground in boosting the fortunes of primary producers. Such an approach is particularly critical in my electorate of Parkes in western New South Wales. As it is a predominantly sheep and wheat producing area, the impact of a generally declining world wool market and, until recently, plunging commodity prices has had a dramatic and long-term effect. Emerging alternative farming methods and products, ably supported through the funding efforts of this government, augur well for the next generation of farmers who will take control of the farm operation. Freed from the burden of trying to provide income for two families, the farm's chances of remaining a viable income source are increased.We have to point out, however, that in the state's far west, the options for alternative farming—that is, farming other than sheep grazing and wool producing—are a little bit more limited, and earlier drought conditions have greatly aggravated the economic situation for people in that region. But here the prospects for two-family farm operations are most dire, and it is in these communities where support mechanisms, such as retirement assistance for farmers, are most needed and most appreciated. It is essential that governments continue to offer incentives and support to the farming communities that are the cultural heart of areas such as western New South Wales.The more farmers' offspring that can be kept on the land, the more a confident sense of economic security and stability can be maintained in our smaller rural communities. The curse of the asset rich but cash poor farmer is well recognised, and by extending this assistance scheme we continue to right the wrongs of fiscal circumstance for older farmers on less profitable holdings. Small communities rely heavily on the economic wellbeing of the surrounding farming operations and, as a result, the balance between remaining a service town and becoming a virtual ghost town is a delicate one. By striving to provide both the initiative to excel on the one hand and a safety net for embattled, older farmers on the other, this government is meeting its commitment to the people in the non-metropolitan heartland of this country. In areas hardest hit by the reversal in the fortunes of traditional produce, this scheme is a commonsense approach to delivering the best outcomes for individual farmers and the wider communities in which they live. I commend the bill to the House.11:28:0031072Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to commence my comments on the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 2001 by saying that Australia's agricultural industries are vital to our national prosperity in terms of export and employment and as the economic foundations of our regional and rural communities. I do not share the pessimistic view of the member for Corio, and I am quite sure that his figures about young dairy farmers are quite wrong. My understanding is that, with the deregulation of the industry, a lot of younger people, certainly in Victoria, have been attracted to it. Provincial cities, like Bundaberg, rely on agriculture to drive their economy—sugar and horticulture and, to some extent, beef cattle and, to a lesser extent, dairy cattle. These all contribute strongly to the economy of the area. Travelling further west to Childers, the economy is completely reliant on agriculture, as is the Boyne Valley on cattle and timber. Further north, the Miriam Vale Shire is a major cattle producer, with some small crops in the area and, I might add, some very innovative dairy farmers.I interpose here for a moment to compliment Mr Bruce Polzin who, when the dairy deregulation measures came into place, instead of retreating from the industry actually built his own boutique factory—a very ambitious move which he did, I might add, without government assistance; and it grieved me that he could not get government assistance. He built a factory—I guess it would have cost somewhere in the order of $1 million to $1.25 million—and he now turns out a quality of milk which he calls Baffle Dairy. It is beautiful milk which is available in both full cream and trim. In addition, he makes the old non-homogenised milk in which the cream comes to the surface—and it is a long time since Australians have seen that. The extraordinary thing about it is that, in every store you go to in the Bundaberg and Gladstone areas that carries this milk, even though there is a slight premium on the price, it is enormously popular because people like the taste of it. 10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Do you drink it?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Yes, I drink it unashamedly. Recently, we had a garden expo and leisure field day. He had his milk there and he was testing his flavoured milk—and, again, it was enormously popular. We hear a lot of talk about gloom and doom in primary industry, but a lot is happening. Even in my own electorate, in addition to Bruce Polzin with his very innovative approach and the involvement of some of his neighbours who produce milk for his factory, farmers in Childers are growing a variety of tree crops and small crops. Bill Trevor, who is the mayor of that shire, is arguably the largest grower of zucchinis in Australia. John Dorrian makes guacamole from his own avocados and sells it in bulk to the various dip manufacturers and people who make paste and the like in the delicatessen field. David De Paoli grows a variety of chillies and presents them in very attractive vacuum packs. His chillies are now in high demand all over Australia and he has also developed a huge export market to the Middle East. His presentation of the various colours of chillies in the vacuum packs is particularly attractive. The Steinhardt family has developed a method of serrating vegetables into various forms—some with oils, some in natural form—and they are using a special process whereby the vegetables maintain a shelf life of up to six weeks. They are all very innovative people. At the other end of my electorate, the great farmers of the Yarwun-Targinnie area are arguably the best pawpaw growers in Australia and they also grow a variety of tree crops. So I do not share the pessimistic view that the member for Corio has. Australia's traditional strength as an exporter of primary produce continues to underpin our national economic performance. This year, our primary industries will generate about $24 billion in income. It is pleasing to see the recovery of the beef industry and also the completion of the dispersion of the wool stockpile. It is a tough year for sugar producers, but they are hanging in there and, in my own area, hopefully in the next 12 months some of the sugar farmers will be growing chicory as a second crop. Since 1996, the coalition government has provided a stable pro-growth business environment, characterised by low interest rates, low inflation, a more flexible labour market and a tax system which rewards enterprise. They are four very important ingredients. They are not always talked about in the context of farms. Remember the days when interest rates were up at 17, 18, even 20 per cent, with high inflation, high unemployment and all those things. When you are in an environment where they are not present, there is a greater incentive to do something about it. Again, referring to the member for Corio's contribution, it is in an environment like that that young, well-educated people will go back to the land and have a go. The government has done a great deal in that field to reward enterprise and to show young people that there is a future in farming.Australia has enjoyed a sustained period of high growth on a scale not seen since the 1960s and matched only by the performance of the United States. Just seeing the words `United States' brings to mind the success that the government has had through the Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, being able to get more of our lamb into the United States. That was an enormous win for Australia and the minister should be complimented on his negotiations.The government has also sought to redress the neglect of the previous government in areas vital to agriculture. I found the presentation of the member for Corio disingenuous in the sense that, in the 13 years when Labor was in power—and I do not want to be unduly political in this speech—there was not much happening in the bush. Some of the measures, like the wool stockpile, have been there to haunt us ever since—or until recent times, anyhow.One of our best packages was Agriculture—Advancing Australia, which put together a comprehensive set of measures to strengthen agriculture. The AAA package—as we refer to it—was introduced in 1997 and extended again in the year 2000. It will inject $800 million into agriculture and fishing industries to support education, training, innovation and adjustment. This support complements $180 million a year that the government devotes to research and development in that sector.As successful as the AAA package has been, the government recognises that the future of agriculture is dependent on more than measures that enhance competitiveness and efficiency, as important as those are. The purpose of this bill is to amend the provisions of the Social Security Act and Veterans' Entitlements Act applying to the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme. The amendments will enable qualifying farmers who were unable to finalise the transfer of their farm by 30 June 2001 to transfer their farm after that date and continue to qualify for the RAFS. The RAFS was introduced as part of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package announced by the Prime Minister and the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson, on 14 September 1997. It provided assistance for older, low income farmers who wished to give away the farm to the younger generation without having their pension entitlements affected by the age pension assets and gifting provisions. Prior to 1997, I saw some terrible cases in my first years in parliament—especially under the previous government. Quite often you would see a situation where two sons had grown up on a farm which may earlier have been reasonably successful and each son had married and three families were then living on the farm. That became a trap as dad moved towards retirement or passed the retirement age and three families would be trapped on the farm, with the boys wishing to take over the farm but the father not able to gift the farm for fear of losing social security entitlements.It was a tragic thing. In fact, I saw families who were trapped in a poverty cycle well below the social security level. It was a dreadful circumstance. It was one of the most appalling things to see. It was almost government—and I am not saying capital `G' government; I am saying small `g' government—imposing a structural poverty on people. I think that the RAFS has gone a long way to ameliorating that grave injustice. My personal view on it—it is not the government's view and I do not pretend that it is—is that $500,000 is perhaps too low a limit. I would like to see it perhaps in the range of $650,000 to $750,000. No doubt that will be a challenge for us in our next term of government. While the RAFS commenced on 15 September 1997, it was also open to farmers who had gifted their farms to a near relative in the five years before that date. To qualify, a farmer must have owned the farm for at least 15 years or must have been involved in farming for 20 years, must be an Australian resident or living in Australia, and must be of age pension age or had a partner who was of age pension age on or before 30 June 2001. The farmer must be legally transferring their farm to a person of the younger generation who had been actively involved in the farm enterprise for three years preceding the transfer and must be on an average income for three financial years before the farm transfer or for the three financial years prior to 30 June 2001—whichever was the earlier—equal to or less than the age pension rate. As I said earlier, a lot of people in those circumstances were getting less than that. Another feature of the scheme was that the net value of the total farming enterprise being given away had to be less than $500,000. We should have that in our minds should this scheme be repeated or should something similar to that be done in the future—a challenge for a future government.When announced, the RAFS was intended to run only to 14 September 2000 and it was estimated to cost $77.6 million. It was extended to 30 June 2001 at an estimated cost of less than $7 million. In the first year, 716 farmers, including spouses, accessed the scheme through either Centrelink or Veterans' Affairs. A further 212 farmers were assessed as eligible once they transferred their farms. In the second year of the scheme, 846 farmers, including spouses, accessed the scheme through Centrelink or Veterans' Affairs, and a further 165 farmers became eligible once they transferred their farms. Some 1,500 in total were assisted as of 28 March 2000.This is by no means an isolated measure. The government has also listened to the concerns of farmers in implementing the changes to the treatment of private trusts and private companies to ensure that succession planning for farms is not adversely affected. It is also providing a $17.4 million over three years extension to the Rural Financial Counselling Service, a very important measure. Something the previous government never could understand was that farmers provide the backbone of regional Australia, and farmers were seldom listened to before. In 1996, 21 per cent of farmers were aged 60 or more. The government has put in place measures to assist farmers in succession planning and to assist those who were already too old to benefit from these changes to the industry. Another example of this commonsense approach to farm families is the family assets test that applies to dependant claimants for youth allowance. Normally for youth allowance the family asset limit is $438,250, but a 75 per cent discount for farm and business assets applies to the family assets test. That has also been of great assistance to people on the land and to the young people who live with them.Farm help is another example. Its origins are in the Family Farm Restart Scheme that was announced in the AAA package in September 1997. The four key components are: income support payable for a maximum of 12 months at the Newstart allowance rate, with a partner component; a reestablishment grant of $45,000; the obligation to obtain professional advice on future viability, and a $3,000 grant to assist with that; and a retraining component of $3,500. I think you can see that the government has been concerned. It is a structured measure. It was put in place—and this extension is part of this—to help those farmers who were caught in a poverty trap and particularly those who were having trouble towards the end of the scheme unloading their farms in the requisite time limits. I think we should take a more optimistic view of the Australian farm community. It is now enjoying, in many commodity areas, the best prices since the 1960s. We are seeing the benefits of good trade promotion. We are seeing the benefits of innovation on farms. We are seeing the reestablishment of older Australians, with appropriate social security benefits, off their farms. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.11:47:0031075Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Hinkler, who is a fierce defender of rural Australia and, in particular, Queensland. I was very interested to hear the stories about pawpaws, homogenised milk and other things that are happening in his area. I would like to share with the chamber some stories about rural produce in the seat of Richmond. I hope the member for Hinkler will choose to come down and enjoy our produce one day. Before I get to the substance of the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 1998 I would like to reinforce some of the comments that he made: there certainly is a very buoyant renaissance happening now, particularly with commodity prices, in agriculture. It has taken a long time to come about. The range of assistance packages that the Liberal-National Party government has introduced over the last six years has helped underpin a lot of those rural communities. Most recently we introduced a package for the dairy industry. We were asked to do so by the dairy industry, principally because the states failed to honour their responsibilities.Other areas of agriculture are doing extremely well at the moment—for example, beef. It is good to see that my beef producers, particular those in the Tweed and Northern Rivers region, are now getting prices which they have not received for 10 to 15 years. We are seeing a much higher increase in commodity prices for cereal crops, as mentioned by the previous speaker, and for lamb, for wool and for pigs. I recall that it was not that many years ago that the industry was, allegedly, on its knees. Pig prices are now at record highs. In the horticulture industry, macadamia nuts have benefited from the low Australian dollar. I would like to salute all our growers on the north coast. They are doing a magnificent job with their exports, particularly to Europe and to the United States. Other boutique horticulture industries are lychee and blueberry farming. Robyn Amos and Otto Saeck from the lychee farm at Newrybar are doing a terrific job. But there does need to be continuing caution with commodity prices, particularly in the sugar industry, which is still struggling, and in our fishing industry.The purpose of this bill relates to RAFS—the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme—which was put in place in September 1997. It was our view, and certainly that of the community, that extra assistance had to be given to the farming sector, and particularly to older farmers who wanted to transfer their farms on to the next generation in order to qualify for RAFS. The RAFS has provided a three-year window of opportunity for low income, age pension age farmers and their partners to gift the farm to the younger generation without affecting their access to social security payments. The legislation provides for the scheme to finish on 30 June 2001. Without changes to the legislation, farmers who would otherwise be eligible under the scheme but have not been able to transfer their farm assets by 30 June 2001 would have been prevented from accessing the scheme. That is why we had to extend it. So the effect of this bill is to extend the RAFS to farmers who have contacted Centrelink prior to 1 August 2001 to inquire about their eligibility for social security payments relying on RAFS. They will still qualify for assistance under the scheme even though the transfer of the farm was not completed by 30 June this year. The transfer will need to be finalised within three months from when they are notified by Centrelink that they will be eligible. Farmers still have to meet the other qualification criteria for the scheme as they stood at 30 June 2001, such as being of age pension age and, most importantly, meeting the means test. Details of the proposed changes were communicated broadly via a media release on 12 July 2001. The Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 2001 is required in order to give that extension. Before I conclude, I want particularly to thank the ministers who were responsible for this scheme back in 1997—the then minister for agriculture, the current Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, who was followed in the agriculture portfolio by Minister Vaile and then Minister Truss. I thank those in the respective departments—my department and Minister Truss's department—who have worked long and hard on the initial legislation and on extending it. I also acknowledge the work that Centrelink has done across the country in giving assistance to rural communities.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. Main Committee adjourned at 11.53 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing31077The following answers to questions were circulated:31077(Question No. 2689)268931077Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) How many Service personnel have contacted the Burchett audit team to date.(2) How many complaints are the subject of investigation.(3) When will Mr Burchett reporting his findings.31077Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Burchett audit team contacted 2,350 serving personnel in some 41 military establishments. The audit team received a total of 586 formal contacts either in written or oral submissions.(2) There were 30 complaints that were referred to appropriate authorities for investigation.(3) Mr Burchett handed his report to the CDF on 12 July 2001. CDF has accepted all the recommendations. An edited copy of the Report has been released to the public.31077(Question No. 2837)283731077Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 August 2001:(1) Does Defence currently maintain a centralised case flow management system in order to ensure that the military justice system is operating efficiently and to prevent unnecessary delays with individual cases before court martials, Defence Force Magistrates and summary authorities.(2) In particular, does Defence currently monitor progress with (a) notification of laying of charges, (b) the steps proceeding to trial and (c) the result of any trial; if not, has the need to introduce such a system been identified by the Judge Advocate-General.(3) Does Defence currently utilise a structured system of directions hearings to ensure that appropriate preparations are being made for a trial; if not, has the need for such a system been identified by the Judge Advocate-General.(4) Has the Judge Advocate-General noted difficulties with the ready provision of statistics on the operation of the military justice system; if so, would the proposals referred to in parts (2) and (3) assist in overcoming these difficulties. 31077Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. However, once a court martial or Defence Force Magistrate trial is convened informal centralised monitoring by Defence Legal Service occurs. (2) (a) No. The laying of charges are currently single service command based decisions. As such charges are monitored at unit level and at some superior headquarters.(b) No. The laying of charges and the proceeding to summary or court martial/Defence Force Magistrate trial are currently single service command based decisions. As such proceedings are monitored at unit level and at some superior headquarters. Local legal officers provide legal advice at various stages of the process.(c) Yes. The need to introduce case flow management procedures has been identified by the Judge Advocate-General. Paragraphs 32 to 40 of the Judge Advocate General's Report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2000 refers. Mr Burchett QC has also recommended the introduction of a similar system in his recent Report on Military Justice.(3) No. The need for such a system has been identified by the Judge Advocate-General. Paragraph 38.b. of the Judge Advocate-General's Report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2000 refers.(4) Yes. The proposals in parts (2) and (3) may assist in overcoming these difficulties.31078(Question No. 2854)285431078Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 August 2001:Further to the answer to question No.2303 (Hansard, 6 August 2001, page 29177), in light of the fact that the aggregate movement of aircraft to the north of Sydney Airport up until 31 May is 29.4%, when compared to the promised Long Term Operating Plan target of 17% for aircraft movements to the north, (a) upon what basis does he claim that the Government has addressed the aircraft noise issue by providing for a substantially more equitable sharing of noise and (b) what does `substantial' mean in light of the facts on aircraft movements for Sydney Airport, with particular reference to aircraft movements to the north of that airport.31078Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Under the Government's noise sharing plan - the Sydney Airport Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) - residents in areas to the north of the Parramatta River have received significant noise benefits. I am advised by my department that the Long Term Operating Plan has brought about an approximate 40% reduction in the number of landings from the north compared to the arrangements in place under the previous Labor Government. By opening the east-west runway it is now possible to rotate the runways in use so that areas are given a break from aircraft noise for at least some periods on most days. In fact there were no landings over the north for more than a quarter of the days in the year 2000. Prior to March 1996 all aircraft taking off to the north had to use the main runway and travel to the Parramatta River before turning towards their destination. Under the LTOP, departures to the north are shared between the two parallel runways and almost all aircraft taking off from the main north-south runway turn toward the north-west before reaching the Parramatta River.31078(Question No. 2871)287131078Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to recommendations implemented by the Minister for Health and Aged Care following recommendations by the Medicare Specialist Advisory Committee regarding funding of hyperbaric medicine.(2) Has he received advice that the restriction of the use of hyperbaric medical facilities is likely to increase the number of amputations for conditions currently treated conservatively through high pressure oxygen; if so, will he undertake to examine funding directly through his portfolio, expenditures the Department of Health and Aged Care will no longer meet for the care of veterans.31078Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) I understand that the impact of the Medicare Specialist Advisory Committee (MSAC) recommendations is to amend the current Medicare Benefits Schedule to limit access to Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) to patients with conditions of decompression illness, gas gangrene, air or gas embolism, diabetic wounds, or necrotising soft tissue infections. This means that veterans with wounds related to peripheral vascular disease and soft tissue radionecrosis would no longer be able to access publicly funded HBOT for treatment of these conditions. The MSAC assessment report found there was insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of HBOT for either of these conditions. Based on evidence currently available, it cannot be concluded that excluding veterans with peripheral vascular disease from accessing HBOT will have any effect on the incidence of lower limb amputation in this group. However, following concerns expressed by the hyperbaric medical profession about the potential impact of withdrawal of HBOT for these indications, the Department of Health and Aged Care has agreed to maintain interim access to the use of HBOT for wounds related to peripheral vascular disease and soft tissue radionecrosis. While these items will not appear in the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), due for release in November 2001, funding of benefits for these indications will continue until 1 May 2002, by which time MSAC should have considered a further submission from the profession which may or may not provide more evidence for the efficacy of HBOT treatment for these conditions. The Commonwealth's position will be reconsidered again following MSAC's determination of this matter in May 2002.