2001-09-2039110REPS3107902001-09-20—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports310793107909:31:0031079SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Croatia and the Czech Republic.The report I have presented records the impressions of the Australian parliamentary delegation which visited the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Croatia and the Czech Republic in April 2001. I had the privilege of leading the delegation and was accompanied by the honourable member for Blaxland, as deputy leader, the honourable members for Fadden, Fowler and Cowper, and Senator Grant Chapman. The delegation secretary was Ms Brenda Herd from the Department of the House of Representatives. The delegation was impressed with the rapid economic transformation and structural changes occurring in all three countries, as they work towards accession to the European Union. We wish them well in their endeavours. While none of the countries visited rank among Australia's major trading partners, they all offer important export, growth and investment opportunities. Australia is fortunate, in that it has established valuable associations with all three countries. Members of the delegation felt a special feeling of friendship with the people and the parliaments of this region. This is hardly surprising, given the fact that migrants from the region have made an invaluable contribution to Australia's rich and diverse cultural fabric over many years. I should indicate to the House that the practice of submitting reports has of course been brought forward to Thursday because of the condolence motion on Monday. For that reason, I intend to keep my remarks brief. Comments will be added by other members of the delegation. It is my intent to ensure that all delegation and committee reports are restricted to 10 minutes. Can I therefore, instead of elaborating, take this opportunity to express the delegation's deep appreciation to the parliaments of the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Croatia and the Czech Republic for such an informative and comprehensive program. We found the warmth of the welcome in all three countries particularly memorable. Our thanks go to His Excellency Mr Max Hughes, Australian Ambassador to the Slovak Republic, His Excellency Mr Neil Francis, Australian Ambassador to the Republic of Croatia and Her Excellency Mrs Margaret Adamson, Australian Ambassador to the Czech Republic. Their support, both in the planning stage and during the visit, together with the work of their staff was exemplary. We also thank officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Parliamentary Library for the thoroughness of their briefing material prepared before the delegation's departure. I wish also to express the delegation's gratitude to the ambassadors of each of the countries we visited for the support they gave to us and for their briefings prior to our visit.I conclude by remarking on the cohesiveness of the delegation which I led. I particularly appreciate the hard work that all delegates undertook to effectively represent Australia and the way the delegation operated as a team throughout the lengthy, hardworking and memorable overseas parliamentary visit.09:34:0031079Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—by leave—On behalf of the opposition members of the delegation, I wish to thank the Speaker for the manner in which he led the parliamentary delegation which visited the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Croatia and the Czech Republic and the manner in which all of the members of the delegation worked so cooperatively together to advance the interests of Australia on this visit to Central Europe. It was an important delegation—a delegation opening up our relationships with the countries that we visited.I also want to underline the fact that all of the support that we had from Ms Brenda Herd, Mr Peter Gibson and Australian officials both overseas and here enabled us to underline the importance that we saw in this parliamentary delegation in building a greater understanding between ourselves and the countries that we visited, and we did that on a series of levels. There is probably no more important time to draw the strongest possible line under the necessity for parliamentary delegations to meet with and build greater links in the world community than in the situation we are at present. Very shortly we are to have another delegation go to overseas countries in a world environment that is entirely different from the one that this delegation took place in. It is of central importance that, in a world that has greatly changed, through the work of the parliament and the work of the parliament's delegations we continue to try to build greater understanding and a more sensible approach to relations between countries and to unify our general perceptions, both between ourselves and the others that we meet, and also to indicate that, as a free and proud democracy, we are intent upon opening ourselves up to the rest of the world.Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Labor Party members of the delegation, I thank you for your leadership and I commend this report to the parliament.09:37:0031080Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—by leave—May I also extend my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership of this delegation and to Brenda Herd and Peter Gibson, and to all the members of our posts overseas for the backup support we received from their staff and, indeed, from the foreign affairs department before we left. This was an important delegation. It is an area of the world in which we do not have as many of the contacts that we have with some of the other more established regions. In that respect, I think this visit was important. It is important to establish those relationships between the parliament and these newly emerging democracies, and I think it is interesting that, in the past month or two, we have had high-powered visits from people in Croatia. The relationships that were established between us and the leadership of Croatia obviously meant something because the interaction is continuing. I would hope that we would see that extend to the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.The other thing I would like to comment on, and you made reference to it, Mr Speaker, is the situation of small trade between ourselves and these countries. It is true that there are certainly some tremendous opportunities for Australian companies to make a mark in that part of the world. I would hope that this delegation helped to build up that trade relationship. There are already some success stories there in the insurance business, with companies like QBE. We saw the development of light aircraft in the Czech Republic, which involves a small Australian company, and a soft drink company in Croatia. So the seeds are there to make this a most relevant part of the world in terms of our trade relationships and our investment relationships.But, most importantly, in Croatia we saw the remnants of the horrors of the war in which they have been involved for so long. All of us were deeply touched when we visited Vukovar, which was one of the most important and most dreadful areas in that conflict. It brought home to us the horrors of war and everything for which we should be so grateful here in Australia. So, in that respect, it was a most comprehensive delegation, one with which I am proud to be associated and one that I hope will be built on by future parliaments and future delegation exchanges between the two areas.09:39:0031080Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—by leave—The visit to the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Croatia and the Czech Republic provided a wonderful opportunity for the Australian parliamentary delegation to learn of the experience of three newly emerging democracies—three nations which have long histories but which, over the past decade, have undergone great change and face further change in the years ahead.In speaking to the report I would like to focus my attention on the Republic of Croatia. Our visit there was of great interest to me, for the reason that my electorate of Fowler has several thousand residents of Croatian origin. As a former part of Yugoslavia, Croatia was also significant because of the devastating effect on its economy and its people caused by the conflict which arose in the break-up of Yugoslavia. The delegation visited the city of Vukovar, which suffered a three-month air and artillery bombardment in 1991. Much of the city remains in ruins. Its population has been reduced from 50,000 before the war to 20,000 today. It will require billions of dollars to restore this 10th century city to its former state. Vukovar is today a symbol of the bravery of the Croatian people for their survival in the face of a superior force. It is also a symbol of the work needed to restore the Croatian economy. While in Vukovar I visited a partly rebuilt church where I was greeted by the priest, who expressed his gratitude for the contribution of Australian Croatians in helping to rebuild the church. I was given a small bell as a token of thanks. When I returned to Australia I visited the Cardinal Stepeenatz Village Croatian nursing home in my electorate to present the bell, only to find that the priest at the village had served as an altar boy in that same church. Such is the close relationship between Croatia and Australia. A highlight for me during the visit to Croatia followed a meeting with the health minister, Dr Ana Stavyenich-Rukavina. We were invited to spend Easter Sunday with the health minister and enjoyed a traditional Croatian meal and warm hospitality at her home.I would like to thank the other members of the delegation and the staff. Mr Peter Gibson and the delegation secretary Ms Brenda Herd, made for a pleasant and, I am sure, a productive delegation. There is much to be gained from closer relations with these countries. This visit did much to develop those relations. I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your fine leadership of that delegation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Thank you, Member for Fowler.Bills31081R136731081Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.3108109:42:0031081Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Proceeds of Crime Bill 2001 is to greatly strengthen and improve Commonwealth laws for the confiscation of the proceeds of crime.The primary motive for organised crime is profit. Each year in Australia, drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, people-smuggling and other forms of serious crime generate billions of dollars.This money is derived at the expense of the rest of the community. It is earned through the harm, suffering, and human misery of others. It is used to finance future criminal activity. It is tax free. Criminals have no legal or moral entitlement to the proceeds of their crimes.The need for strong and effective laws for the confiscation of proceeds of crime is self-evident. The purpose of such laws is to discourage and deter crime by reducing profits, to prevent crime by diminishing the capacity of offenders to finance future criminal activities, and to remedy the unjust enrichment of criminals who profit at society's expense.For a number of years, the Commonwealth and all states have had laws enabling proceeds of crime to be confiscated after a conviction has been obtained—these are conviction based laws. However, these laws have not been fully effective. In particular they have failed to impact upon those at the pinnacle of criminal organisations. With advancements in technology and globalisation, such persons can distance themselves from the individual criminal acts, thereby evading conviction and placing their profits beyond the reach of conviction based laws. In its 1999 report entitled Confiscation that counts, the Australian Law Reform Commission concluded that Commonwealth conviction based laws were inadequate. Several states and some other countries have now enacted more effective laws enabling proceeds of crime to be frozen and confiscated, through civil proceedings, without the need to obtain a conviction. The Commonwealth's confiscation regime is in need of improvement and strengthening.The Proceeds of Crime Bill 2001, which proposes major changes to our existing conviction based system for confiscating proceeds of serious crime, represents a concrete demonstration of the government's tough stance against organised crime. At the earliest opportunity I will be bringing forward a further bill which will not only contain the consequential amendments flowing from this bill and propose more effective money laundering offences but will set out the arrangements for the transition leading to the repeal of the existing Proceeds of Crime Act 1987. The bill will, if enacted, eventually replace the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987, which will continue to apply to proceedings commenced under that act. For this reason this bill deals not only with a new civil forfeiture regime broadly similar to that which has been operating in New South Wales since 1997, but includes improved provisions for conviction based confiscation. Although all confiscation proceedings, including those under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 are civil proceedings, the term `civil forfeiture' has become widely recognised as a term to describe forfeiture which does not require conviction of a criminal offence as a condition precedent. Civil forfeiture can occur where a court is satisfied that it is more probable than not that a serious offence has been committed. Such a finding by a court does not constitute a conviction and no criminal consequences can flow from it. The provisions are all about accounting for unlawful enrichment in civil proceedings, not the imposition of criminal sanctions. The object or focus of the proceeding is the recovery of assets and profits, not putting people in jail.This bill also proposes the introduction into Commonwealth legislation of a regime to prevent criminals exploiting their notoriety for commercial purposes. The bill includes provision for literary proceeds orders that can be made, for example where criminals sell their stories to the media.This bill represents a major overhaul of the Commonwealth's confiscation regime and demonstrates the government's commitment to combating organised crime within Australia and deterring transnational criminals from using Australia as a staging post for their activities. The bill was released for public comment on 20 July 2001, and the comments received indicate broad support. I am confident that the civil forfeiture regime will have the full support of the opposition, given the bill on this subject introduced by the shadow minister for justice and customs. The government has gone further and enhanced the existing law enforcement powers and confiscation regime which, together with the initiatives in the Measures to Combat Serious and Organised Crime Bill 2001, now before the parliament, will provide state-of-the-art tools for the fight against serious crime.A detailed explanation of the contents of the bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which I now present.Debate (on motion by Dr Lawrence) adjourned.Bills31082R140731082Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.3108209:48:0031082Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Family Law Amendment (Child Protection Convention) Bill 2001 will amend the Family Law Act to enable Australia to ratify the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children 1996.Ratification of the convention would be of significant benefit to Australian families and in particular to children who are the subject of international family law or child protection litigation. While the consistent theme in the government's reform agenda in family law has been to shift the focus away from litigation as the most appropriate choice for the resolution of family law disputes, it remains a fact that litigation is the final resort for a minority of parents. In these cases, jurisdictional certainty and finality of court orders are important and will be aided by Australia becoming a party to the convention. Existing family law litigation across international boundaries is subject to uncertainty as to jurisdiction and unpredictability in relation to the enforcement of orders abroad. The convention attempts to overcome these uncertainties by providing clear jurisdictional rules and by encouraging cooperation between authorities in different countries to protect the best interests of children affected by disputes over parental responsibility.The complexity of international litigation necessarily leads to complex conflicts of law rules. In examining the provisions of the bill, it is important to keep in mind that Australian courts and authorities already apply highly technical conflict of law rules, most of which have been developed piecemeal over time by the courts as part of the common law. The convention is largely consistent with those existing rules but has the advantage of codifying the rules in a form which is expected to be adopted in many countries. The convention was drafted by family law experts from 48 countries under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the foremost international organisation in development of modern conflict of laws instruments in the family law area.International jurisdictionThe bill lays down detailed rules for resolving family law conflicts in jurisdiction between Australian courts and courts in other countries. Conflict in jurisdiction between Australian courts and overseas courts in children's matters has been a longstanding area of difficulty. The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction has been successful in resolving some of these cases. But uncertainties remain in many cases outside the reach of that convention, resulting in Australian and overseas courts making conflicting parenting orders in relation to the same children. The jurisdictional rules laid down in the child protection convention are designed to remove uncertainty for parents and the courts in determining the appropriate forum to hear disputes as to parental responsibility.The jurisdiction provisions of the convention centralise jurisdiction in the courts of the country where the child in question is habitually resident. The primacy given to habitual residence by the convention is a recognition that the authorities of the child's country of habitual residence are by definition closer to the child and usually better able to assess his or her situation. This is a view that has been approved by successive Australian governments, by courts in Australia and by other common law countries. The bill recognises some subsidiary grounds of jurisdiction, thus for example providing for Australian courts to take urgent measures to protect a child habitually resident overseas but temporarily present in Australia.Applicable law The applicable law provisions of the convention, which are implemented by the bill, will have significant practical benefits for unmarried fathers in Australia. The Family Law Act provides that each of the parents of a child has parental responsibility in relation to the child. However in other countries, like New Zealand and the United Kingdom, a father who is not married to the child's mother has no rights of custody by operation of law. At present an unmarried Australian father who wishes to assert his parental responsibility rights in those countries faces the cost and delay of litigating in foreign courts. Under the convention, the father's parental responsibility established by operation of the Family Law Act will be automatically recognised in other convention countries. Recognition and enforcement abroad of parenting ordersIn the absence of reciprocal recognition arrangements with other countries, it is open to a parent who leaves Australia to ignore family law orders made by the Australian courts and relitigate residence and contact issues in the other country to the disadvantage of the child and the other parent in Australia. Under the convention a parent will be able to send a parenting order made by an Australian court to another convention country for registration and enforcement. As the convention is expected to be ratified by many other countries, the range of countries in which Australian parenting orders will be enforceable in future should expand significantly. The bill provides for regulations to be made to give effect to the recognition and enforcement provisions of the convention. International cooperationIn the interests of protecting the best interests of children, the convention also includes a range of procedures to encourage cooperation between courts and child protection authorities in different countries. The bill facilitates the implementation of these provisions of the convention by providing, for example, requirements:· that Australian authorities notify overseas authorities of any information concerning serious danger of abuse to a child;· that Australian authorities cooperate with overseas authorities in locating children whose whereabouts are unknown; and· for Australian courts to cooperate with overseas courts in the resolution of cases where a parent in one country seeks contact with his or her children residing in another country.Child protectionAnother major objective of the convention is to address the problem of international cases involving protection of children from abuse and neglect. It is in the best interests of children that there be internationally agreed rules determining which child protection authorities have jurisdiction in relation to a child. The absence of agreed rules may mean that authorities in one country fail to act because they assume authorities in another country have taken responsibility for protecting a child.In Australia, the law and policy in relation to the protection of children from abuse and neglect is the responsibility of state and territory governments. A representative of the states participated in the international negotiations on the convention. Subsequently consultation on the question of Australia's ratification of the convention has taken place through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Community Services Ministers Council. In 1999 responsible state and territory ministers agreed to Australia's ratification. Since that time, Commonwealth and state officials have been cooperating in the development of an appropriate legislative scheme to implement the convention in Australia. This bill would amend the Family Law Act to enable the Commonwealth to give effect to that scheme of legislation.SummaryIn accordance with reforms to the treaty making process introduced by this government, the convention will be tabled and subject to scrutiny by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. A copy of the bill will be provided to the committee to assist it in fully considering the implications of Australian ratification of the convention.I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Dr Lawrence) adjourned.Bills31084R141031084Bill presented by Miss Jackie Kelly, and read a first time.3108409:57:0031084Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.In April this year, the Prime Minister and I jointly released the government's new sports policyBacking Australia's Sporting Ability: A More Active Australia. This policy initiative was designed to build on Australia's outstanding sports achievements of recent years, not only on the fantastic achievements of the Olympic Games in Sydney but also on our world successes in cricket, rugby, netball, tennis, golf, and the list goes on.This policy builds on the Olympic Athlete Program, which produced outstanding results at the Sydney 2000 Olympics, with a record haul of 58 medals, including 16 gold. However it goes beyond Olympic sports to assist our best athletes to reach new peaks of excellence by increased support for the athletes of all sports, their coaches, other support staff and those who are involved with competition at the elite level. This policy also increases the pool of talent from which our future world champions will be drawn, by encouraging greater participation at the grassroots level. Through the Australian Sports Commission we will be building Active Australia partnerships with Australian sport and the business sector to deliver new local sporting opportunities, including competitions, events and after school programs. That means more football, athletics, tennis, cricket, gymnastics, baseball, basketball and many other sports will be delivered to many thousands of Australian families.The result is a sports policy for all Australians, one that supports our elite athletes and also encourages greater community participation in sport, including in rural and regional areas, and especially by young people.The government has backed this policy with the necessary funding—we will be injecting an additional $161.6 million into Australian sport over the next four years, bringing our total commitment to sport to a record level of close to $550 million. A key aspect of the government's sports policy is providing incentives for sporting organisations to deliver sporting excellence through self-sustaining, innovative funding arrangements. This is where this bill fits in.This bill amends the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 to grant the Australian Olympic Committee ongoing protection for the expressions `Olympic', `Olympic Games' and `Olympiad' against unauthorised commercial use for promotional or advertising purposes. These are referred to in this bill as the `protected Olympic expressions'.The overall objective of this bill is to help the Australian Olympic Committee, the AOC, generate greater levels of sponsorship revenue from the private sector to fund its Olympic programs by licensing the protected Olympic expressions for commercial use in advertising and promotions. This adds to the support given to sports by the government and allows the government funding at the elite level to go beyond Olympic sports.This bill supports the AOC's special capacity to raise revenue to support the Australian Olympic team's efforts in all future Olympic events. It will help Australia's athletes and support organisations to build on the extraordinary success of the Sydney Games.The AOC is a unique organisation. It is the body recognised by the International Olympic Committee, the IOC, as the Australian national Olympic committee. As such, the AOC is responsible for the protection and development of the Olympic movement in this country, as well as the promotion of its goals and principles. Importantly, as Australia's national Olympic committee, the AOC has sole responsibility for selecting the members of Australian Olympic teams under the IOC Olympic Charter.The AOC's fundraising efforts complement the government's own funding of sport, particularly in the area of elite sport, antidoping programs and, of course, Olympics participation. This is illustrated by the significant financial support the AOC provides to national sporting organisations. Without the AOC's efforts in this regard, it is likely that the call on government funds to support elite sporting objectives, especially for Olympic Games participation, would be significantly greater than is currently the case.This bill will further improve the AOC's fundraising capabilities by providing greater protection against ambush marketing—that marketing practice of associating a business with a high profile event without paying the fee to become an official sponsor. The value of the sponsorship and licensing arrangements the AOC is able to secure is directly influenced by the level of certainty it can provide to prospective sponsors regarding the exclusive nature of these arrangements. This bill will increase the level of certainty by making it easier for the AOC to take action against unauthorised commercial use of the words `Olympic', `Olympic Games' and `Olympiad'.The government is mindful, however, of the need to protect the interests of third parties. We recognise that the words form a part of our common language, and this bill is not intended to prevent their general use. Also included in the legislation are specific provisions clarifying that use of the Olympic expressions for the purposes of criticism, review and the provision of information will not contravene the amended Olympic Insignia Protection Act. Moreover, it is clear that in today's sophisticated marketing environment there will be many, many avenues that will enable people to refer to their Olympic involvement in advertising or promotion without actually having to use the protected Olympic expressions. For example, references to the `Sydney Games', the `Beijing Games' and the `2000 Games' all clearly refer to the Olympic Games and are not restricted by this legislation. I would also like to stress that the word `Olympian' is not protected by this legislation and that this is specifically mentioned in the bill.The bill protects the interests of Olympians in that it provides a specific exemption enabling them, or their commercial sponsors, to use the protected Olympic expressions to make factual statements about their Olympic achievements in any promotion or advertising context, provided the statement does not suggest an ongoing sponsorship of the Olympic movement. This would allow Olympians such as Natalie Titcume, a member of our bronze medal winning softball team and pride of the City of Penrith, to pursue commercial sponsors and promote her achievements unencumbered by this bill.The bill also provides a similar exemption for national sporting organisations, the Australian Sports Commission, which includes the Australian Institute of Sport, and state and territory sports institutes and academies. These organisations play a pivotal role in the training and development of our elite athletes, and the government is keen to ensure that they are able to continue their legitimate fundraising and promotional activities. I am pleased to note that the AOC has already concluded a memorandum of understanding with the Sports Commission regarding the use of the protected Olympic expressions to ensure that the objectives of both the Sports Commission and the AOC are maximised.A further exemption in the bill relates to coaches, physiotherapists and other non-athlete members of an Olympic team who have assisted an Olympian at an Olympic event. These parties will be able to use the protected Olympic expressions in factual statements about that assistance in the promotion of their own similar services.It must be noted that this bill is not intended to affect business opportunities that may arise as a result of an Olympic involvement. Staging the 2000 Olympic Games in Australia has created significant opportunities for Australian business, and the government is committed to assisting industry in capitalising on these opportunities. As well as the obvious tourism boost, the Olympics have provided other benefits. In my electorate of Lindsay, for example, the impressive Sydney International Regatta Centre, at the Penrith Lakes, will be a lasting legacy for the people of Western Sydney. Located only a couple of kilometres from the centre of Penrith, the Regatta Centre is an integral part of Western Sydney, regularly attracting over 40,000 visitors per month. It recently hosted the 2001 Australian Masters Rowing Championships, which was strongly supported by the people of Lindsay.A specific exemption will not apply to venues that have hosted an official Olympic event. Generally, the purpose of this legislation is not to prevent the use of the protected Olympic expressions in place names or addresses in promotions of commercial activity—as long as that use does not suggest an association with the Olympic movement. This means that Olympic venues can market themselves as they seek to utilise their world-class facilities in hosting other events in the post-Olympics environment. However, if venue managements wish to use a protected Olympic expression to suggest an Olympic involvement then, quite rightly, they would need to reach an agreement with the AOC.Those who have supplied goods or services to a past Olympic Games will be able to use the protected Olympic expressions in factual statements about that supply in promotions of their similar goods or services. This exemption complements other government initiatives designed to make the most of the positive publicity from the Sydney Games. Of particular note in this regard is Austrade's recently announced Reflection Sydney 2000 Games program, which will showcase the companies that helped to stage the Sydney Games. This is particularly important to me, as the Minister for Sport and Tourism, in recognition of the government's Game Plan 2006— Sport and Leisure Industry Strategic National Plan. A key objective of Game Plan is an export target of $1.3 billion by 2006. Sport and leisure companies will be able to market their intention to bid for supply of their world-class goods and services to future Olympic Games—as long as it is clear there is no ongoing sponsorship association with the Olympic movement. I would add that this type of prospective use of the Olympic expressions would also be available to athletes, teams and support organisations.I would emphasise, however, that the legislation will not override any commercial arrangements or contracts relating to the use of the protected Olympic expressions.Certain existing legal rights to use the protected Olympic expressions will continue unaffected—this means, for example, that a business name which includes the word `Olympic' can still trade under that name. This means that businesses like Olympic Locksmiths at Penrith, in my electorate of Lindsay, will be able to continue using their name unaffected by this bill.However, if a business name or a trademark or design includes a protected Olympic expression and has a registration date from today onwards, or a company name incorporating a protected Olympic expression was used today or after today in relation to a business, the owner of the registration or company name will need to ensure that its use does not contravene the provisions of this bill. That is, it must not be used in an advertising or promotion type activity in a manner that would suggest a sponsorship association with the Olympic movement without the AOC's authorisation.To ensure the smooth implementation of this legislation over the long term, the government intends to undertake an evaluation of its effectiveness immediately after the 2004 Olympic Games. The review will identify any finetuning necessary to ensure that the legislation meets the government's objectives without impacting on the legitimate rights of third parties.The attainment of sporting excellence is a national priority. This is well illustrated by the Australian public's response to the Sydney Olympic Games. The government is committed to a sports policy that continues to deliver the kind of world-class sporting performances that we are becoming used to seeing from our elite athletes. The AOC, because of its special association with the preparation of Olympic athletes and the administration of Olympic related competition in this country, is a major contributor to the achievements of Australian sportsmen and women. The measures included in this bill will help ensure that Australia's current high status as an Olympic competitor is enhanced and that Australia's position as a supporter of the world Olympic movement is also protected and extended.This bill strikes the right balance between ensuring the AOC is able to support Australia's Olympic efforts and enabling our Olympic athletes, teams, support organisations and other sporting interests to attract valuable sponsorships to further the development of sport in Australia.I would like to thank my department, the Australian Sports Commission, the AOC and the SIA for their role in the implementation of this bill. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Dr Lawrence) adjourned.Bills31087R141131087Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.3108710:11:0031087Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Fuel Legislation Amendment (Grant and Rebate Schemes) Bill 2001 contains amendments to the Customs Act 1901, the Excise Act 1901 and the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Act 1999 to extend the sunset provisions of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme and the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. The bill also extends eligibility for emergency vehicles under the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme as well as making a number of administrative amendments to the scheme. These amendments will extend the schemes until 30 June 2003 allowing the government to incorporate the findings of the Fuel Taxation Inquiry into the development of the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme.The amendments to the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme will extend the scope of the scheme for emergency vehicles of 4.5 tonnes or more gross vehicle mass to provide a grant for all fuel used in these vehicles and associated auxiliary equipment whether the fuel is used on road or off road. This amendment will benefit emergency services organisations, particularly rural fire service providers, and will reduce the administrative workload on rural fire service volunteers in calculating the amount of fuel eligible for a grant.The administrative amendments to the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme make changes to the grant period provisions; extend the period for reconciling and repaying advances; insert a provision allowing claimants to authorise a third party to make claims on their behalf; and replace the statutory formula for calculating eligible fuel use with a regulation making power. The amendments are intended to reduce the cost of compliance for businesses by simplifying record keeping requirements and claiming arrangements.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Dr Lawrence) adjourned.Committees31088310883108810:14:0031088Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10— On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following report entitled Report 385—Australian Taxation Office internal fraud control arrangements; Fraud control in Defence; Defence Estate facilities operations—Review of Auditor-General's reports, 2nd and 3rd quarters, 2000-2001.Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—The committee held a public hearing on Friday, 2 May 2001 to discuss these ANAO reports with the relevant Commonwealth agencies. I will briefly discuss issues in each of the selected reports in turn.Audit Report No. 16 examined the Australian Taxation Office internal fraud control arrangements. The audit of fraud control arrangements in the ATO forms part of a series of performance audits by the ANAO on the management of fraud control in Commonwealth agencies. The prevention and detection of fraud within the Commonwealth public sector is not only important to protect Commonwealth revenue, expenditure and property but also to maintain the parliament's and community's confidence in the staff and operations of public sector agencies.The committee acknowledges that the ATO is moving positively in the areas of fraud control planning and staff education and training. This is especially relevant for outsourced programs. The committee believes that when work is contracted out by an agency, the contractor's staff should be put through the same security checks as the agency's own staff and should have the same level of fraud awareness. The ATO must actively manage the risks of change and should have a high awareness of what those risks are.The committee is aware that the attorneys-general have been working with agencies to reach an agreed definition of fraud. The community understanding of fraud, both in Australia and overseas, would not generally encompass acts such as inappropriate accessing of taxpayer files. The committee considers that it would be useful for the ANAO in its preparation of a better practice guide on fraud control to develop subcategories of fraud to clarify the nature of the fraud for the purposes of fraud reporting. The committee has recommended accordingly. In the second report selected, Audit Report No. 22, the committee examined the strategies developed for fraud control in Defence. It was cognisant of the fact that there was scope for improvement in Defence's corporate governance with reference to fraud control. For instance, Defence's Chief Executive Instructions did not comply with the Commonwealth fraud control policy requirement to review its fraud control arrangements every two years. The audit found that Defence lacked a suitable fraud intelligence capability, thereby making it difficult for Defence to estimate accurately the extent of fraud in, or against, Defence.Although the committee accepts that the amount of fraud detected in Defence has been fairly consistent over the past five years, the committee questions whether Defence has been as diligent as it could be in detecting fraud given that its asset register is not in good shape and fraud investigation is undertaken in four separate areas: the Inspector General's division and the military police in each of the three services.The committee is not convinced that the financial and administrative systems that Defence has in place are sufficient to obtain an adequate organisational view of the occurrence of fraud in Defence. The committee recommends that Defence address the shortcomings in its asset registers and develop a fraud intelligence capacity.I now turn to the final ANAO report the committee reviewed in this quarter, Audit Report No. 26, Defence Estate Facilities Operations,which sought to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of the Defence estate given its importance in supporting Defence in the achievement of its mission. The committee was told that, following its creation in 1997, the Defence Estate Office had made a significant effort to develop and implement a strategic corporate focus framework for the delivery of maintenance work through its facilities operations program. Initiatives such as the comprehensive maintenance contract focus on the economies and efficiencies that earlier approaches and/or methods lacked. Having considered the evidence, the committee is not satisfied that all the problems have been addressed effectively. Defence's poor record in contract and project management shows that Defence still has a long way to go before DEO staff are able to effectively exercise their responsibilities for properties and assets with a gross replacement value of $14.8 billion.I conclude by thanking on behalf of the committee the witnesses who contributed their time and expertise to the committee's review process. I am also indebted to my colleagues on the committee who dedicated their time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. I would also like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the inquiry. I commend the report to the House and I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.310893108910:20:0031089May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the report of the committee entitled New faces, new places—Review of state-specific migration mechanisms, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.83BMay, Margaret, MPMrs MAY—by leave—There is a continuing concern about some areas of Australia losing population or their economic growth slowing. The federal, state and territory governments have together examined how those areas might be assisted to revitalise their population, their employment and skills base and their economic prospects. One approach decided on was to attract overseas migrants to places in Australia where they had not traditionally settled—to bring new faces to new places. To allow this, state and territory governments were given the opportunity to use some of the migration programs to meet their own policy objectives, particularly through offering migrants incentives or concessions to settle within specific areas. The committee reviewed these state-specific migration mechanisms at the request of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The schemes are intended to address skills shortages, encourage a more balanced dispersal of the skilled migrant intake and attract overseas business people. The committee made a point of gathering first-hand evidence about the needs of localities across Australia. It appreciated the welcome given to it in Kalgoorlie, Smithton, Mount Gambier and Townsville when it visited to hear first-hand evidence of the challenges facing those areas. In addition, the committee received submissions from people in Ipswich, Cairns, Toowoomba and McKinlay Shire in Queensland; the Riverina, Griffith and Port Macquarie in New South Wales; Boroondara, Edenhope, Swan Hill, Telopea Downs and Warrnambool in Victoria; and Geraldton in Western Australia.The committee examined the adequacy of consultations between the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments concerning the schemes. It looked at the level of utilisation of the schemes and how that might be improved, and sought other options to meet the overall aims of the schemes. The committee has made 20 recommendations concerning the schemes in its report. Most of these relate to details of the operation of the individual schemes.The committee also made some general observations about the schemes. On the question of consultation, the committee found that there had been continuing and detailed consultations between the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments. Most of the schemes had arisen from such consultations and had also subsequently been adapted through further negotiations. Indeed, the continuing consultations meant that the migration schemes were changing even as the committee was reviewing them. The committee concluded that the existing consultation mechanisms were adequate, well used and productive. The committee also considered that the consultations would benefit from a more direct local input and recommended that this occur in future.Of the four main schemes which the committee reviewed, the regional established business in Australia had only recently begun to operate, leading to the arrival of 41 migrants in 2000-01. The most used scheme was the Regional Skilled Migration Scheme, which brought 1,021 migrants to Australia that year. The next most popular scheme was the skilled designated area sponsored category, which began operation in its current form in 1999 and which attracted 1,002 migrants last financial year. The state/territory nominated independent scheme attracted 85 migrants in the same year. These are not large numbers compared with Australia's migration intake of more than 80,000 last financial year. However, the committee discovered that what was small-scale migration from a national perspective could be crucial locally. Most migrants under the schemes brought their families, boosting not only the local population but also the local economy.The committee considered that the utilisation of all the schemes could be increased if there was more targeted publicity inside and outside Australia. To maximise local use of the schemes within Australia, the committee recommended that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs improve its liaison with the peak organisations representing regional Australia.The committee was singularly impressed by the energy and initiative displayed by local authorities and organisations in maximising the benefits of the schemes. For example, representatives of the Greater Green Triangle Region Association from South Australia and the Ipswich City Council have visited China, Narrandera in New South Wales had provided video taped information to prospective migrants and the Goldfields Esperance Development Commission in Western Australia had arranged local inspection visits for potential settlers.The committee has made recommendations about opportunities to maximise the international exposure of the schemes. The committee considers that the numbers participating in the schemes could increase in future as knowledge and experience of their operation increased. The committee therefore recommended that the schemes' operation should be reviewed again in 2003. I would like to thank those who provided the committee with submissions and evidence, and the members of the committee, who have maintained their commitment to this review despite a number of interruptions. As well, I would like to extend my thanks for the contributions of the committee's secretariat of Richard Selth, Gillian Gould, Steve Dyer, Vishal Pandey and Emma Herd, as well as those of Rachel Carew, Rohan Tyler and Anna Gadzinsky. I commend this report to the House.10:26:0031091Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—by leave—It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this report. This committee report from the migration committee on the state-specific migration mechanisms, New faces, new places, is a timely and very welcome report. In fact, I think it is an excellent report that goes to the very heart of some of our regional issues and some of our most important migration issues. Given that migration seems to be such a hot topic and such an area of interest for most people, I think this report highlights some of the good and some of the benefit that can be brought not only to Australia but to regional areas, and in particular to my city of Ipswich.While a number of recommendations have been made and mechanisms have already been picked up by the government and changed, it is appropriate to mention that the Ipswich City Council made a very good submission to the committee. At this very moment, the Ipswich City Council has a delegation in China talking to businesspeople and people with certain skills who would be interested in coming to the Ipswich region based on some of the changes and some of the recommendations that this report has made possible.The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has increased its activities in direct consultation with regional representation, with area consultative committees and also with Australian local government associations. There has been unprecedented consultation between DIMA and the state governments on this very matter. It is extremely important within regions, particularly regions like mine where there are skills shortages and a lack of investment, that you encourage people to come in who have those skills and who have money to invest. This will create jobs and employ Australians. Not only is it very important but it is something that most people accept as something that is needed.I commend the report. I want to thank the committee secretariat for their hard work and I want to thank all those involved, particularly those people who made some excellent submissions. As we have heard, there were submissions from right around Australia. I again congratulate the Ipswich City Council for their fine submission. In part, they helped us in determining—through their evidence— some of the needs of people going to those regions and some of the needs of local government authorities.10:28:0031091May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.310913109110:29:0031091Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Australia's relations with the Middle East, together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.MH4Jull, David, MPMr JULL—by leave—Almost 20 years have elapsed since the committee's last comprehensive review of the relationship between Australia and the Middle East region, which culminated in a report entitled The Gulf and Australia, presented in 1982. However, the passage of time has certainly not diminished the committee's interest in that part of the world. In February 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to the committee the matter of Australia's relations with the Middle East. The terms of reference were particularly wide ranging, and required the committee to consider all major aspects of the political, strategic, economic, social and cultural links between Australia and the Middle East region, which includes the states surrounding the Persian Gulf. Generated principally by the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict and the virtual collapse of negotiations between the Palestinian leadership and Israel, tensions in the Middle East continue to have international repercussions. Together with other responsible members of the international community, Australia has viewed with concern the escalation of violence and the relentless cycle of revenge, particularly in the `occupied territories' and very recently in Israel. When the committee concluded its deliberations in August, no-one could have foreseen the enormity of the worst terrorist attack in history—against the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon—on 11 September. It is still difficult to come to terms with the horror and scale of the attack and the huge loss of innocent lives. While the committee's observations in chapter 4 on international terrorism and other forms of extreme political action have been completely overshadowed by last week's events, the committee strongly reiterates its total condemnation of terrorism in all its forms. Australia supports all efforts by the international community to prevent acts of terrorism everywhere and to bring to justice those responsible for perpetrating such hideous crimes.Given the tensions prevailing in many parts of the Middle East, it would be surprising if members of the various communities in Australia did not hold strong views about the events unfolding in the region. While acknowledging the strong emotions which have been generated by the ongoing and escalating regional disputes, the committee has sought to achieve a balance in assessing the views presented in submissions and other evidence to the inquiry. In a region where complex and highly sensitive issues are in dispute, there is no single cause which is right and just above all others. The various Middle Eastern communities in Australia cannot expect unqualified support for their particular points of view, only the opportunity to express and to explain them.The strategic importance of the Middle East to the world, and to Australia, scarcely needs to be stated. A stable Middle East is important to Australia and, within the limits of Australia's influence, promotion of regional security is a primary concern. Australia has clear interests in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in reducing possible threats to lines of communication between Europe and East Asia, and in seeing the continued flow of oil essential to many of our trading partners as well as to Australia itself. The two-way trade and investment relationship is important to Australia, and it has therefore warranted significant attention in the committee's latest report. Against the background of Australia's established commercial interests in the Middle East, the committee has made several recommendations that would, we believe, result in increased exports from Australia. A radical new approach is needed, however, to lift Australia's disappointing share of total imports to the Middle East. Among other suggestions, the committee has recommended the establishment of a business advisory group to coordinate an effective `team Australia' approach, with a sharp trade focus.Major sections of the report have also been devoted to examining the following key issues: promotion and protection of human rights in the region; migration from the Middle East; the enhancement of the social and cultural links between Australia and the region and Australia's response to asylum seekers, particularly from the Middle East. The committee has made a number of recommendations designed to increase the effectiveness of Australia's contribution in all these areas.The report concludes with a detailed discussion of Australia's overseas aid program to the Middle East, and suggests ways in which it might be improved. The longstanding priorities of supporting the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the projects managed by Australian and local non-government organisations continue to be important. In addition, the committee has recommended that Australia's aid program for the Middle East include a forward commitment of at least $10 million per annum in non-food aid to the region. In conclusion, I would like to thank the members of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee for their commitment and contribution over many months to the completion of this review. My thanks are also extended to the secretariat staff who provided excellent research, procedural and administrative support for the committee both during the inquiry and in the production of this comprehensive report. I commend the report to the House.10:35:0031093Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00— by leave—In speaking to the report entitled Australia's relations with the Middle East of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, I would like to put on the record that the inquiry was referred to the subcommittee in February 2000, seven months before the visit of then General, now Prime Minister, Sharon to Al-Haram Al-Sharif. The report covers strategic and political issues re the Middle East conflict, as well as the role of the United Nations and the impact of sanctions, particularly in relation to Iraq. We also covered Australia's developing trade relations in the Middle East, as well as people-smuggling. I too pay credit to the staff of the subcommittee: to Cliff Lawson, to Inga Simpson who was then with us, followed by Alex Olah, to Belinda Stewart and to Richard Haureliuk. It has not been an easy task to present the history and the representations in a fair and even-handed way. Many people on both sides of the Middle East conflict will probably say that we have not gone far enough, and from their own point of view they could be absolutely correct. But I say to them that we have tried to collate and record in this report what is continuing to be a never-ending saga of political conflict. We have recommended more input from the Australian government, including the revival of the multilateral working groups in which Australia was very prominent. They seem to have slipped away a little bit. I am referring to the arms control regional security working group and the water resources working group. We have also recommended that the Australian government make preparations to establish a permanent Palestinian mission with full diplomatic status as soon as significant progress has been made in the `final status' negotiations between the parties.The section on Australia's trade relationship with the region covered by the chairman of the subcommittee has a number of recommendations that we believe it is imperative for the government to act upon. In the chapter on Australia's response to asylum seekers from the Middle East, paragraph 9.67 recommends that the Australian government increase its efforts, in conjunction with other members of the international community, to focus world attention on measures to reduce the huge burden placed on countries of first asylum, which are supporting large numbers of asylum seekers from the Middle East.World Vision Australia have stated in their submission to us that the Palestinian refugees constitute the largest refugee population in the whole of the world today. A permanent peace process will require action from both sides in the Middle East with support from the United Nations. It will be difficult to achieve if there is no halt to the building and the expansion of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. In fact, former US Senator George Mitchell released an interim report in May 2001 which said in part that what is required is an immediate cease-fire and renunciation of terrorism; an agreement on confidence-building measures; the resumption of discussions of security issues; the cessation of construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories; and the lifting of Israel's economic restrictions on the Palestinian controlled areas. That was in May. Nothing has changed, as that is still required and needed.Since September last year, many hundreds of people have lost their lives, and thousands of civilians have been injured. Let us hope that agreement will be reached and that in some small way this report will assist in overcoming some of the perceived anomalies that exist in the relationships between Israel, Palestine, Australia and the Middle East. Violence does beget violence, and we as a nation must continue to support an enduring and comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East. We must continue to denounce all acts of terrorism, but there is an urgent need for the international community to develop a more humanitarian approach to sanctions and to the persecution of people because of their religious or political beliefs. We must continue to condemn it. As of right with every group, we have a dissenting report, as indicated by the chairman. I say to the members who put in the dissenting report, as I repeated in the committee, in reference to page 339 of that dissenting report regarding chapter 3, paragraph 3.33, `Australia's contribution to the Middle East peace process', the Friends of Palestine's submission was in the report because they actually took the time, effort and trouble to put a submission to the committee. Other delegations that were made covered that ground but did not take the time or effort to put one in. If we are going to have dissenting reports, we should have factual reports, and I believe that has to be said for the record. Again, I congratulate the chairman and the committee. It was not easy, at times. It was also very emotional at times. It is a superb report for reading, and I commend and congratulate the staff for a job well done.10:39:0031094Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.310943109410:40:0031094Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10— On behalf of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs I present the committee's report entitled Human cloning: Scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning and stem cell research, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—by leave—In 1999 the minister for health asked the committee to review the 1998 report by the Australian Health Ethics Committee, Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Considerations Relevant to Cloning of Human Beings. The committee has examined the many complex issues surrounding human cloning and stem cell research and has heard from many people with a wide range of opinions and expertise. On the one hand, the committee has been told of the wonderful possibilities that the research offers for people who suffer from diseases such as Parkinson's. We have also been cautioned about raising hopes prematurely and reminded that the harvesting of embryonic stem cells destroys the embryo.The committee has sought answers to a number of fundamental questions. The first is whether there is any benefit in conducting this research or in applying cloning technologies to human beings. If so, then what use of cloning techniques should be permissible in order to achieve those benefits and for what purposes would these uses be permitted? Finally, is it ethical to conduct research involving cloning techniques that destroy embryos? If so, then what limits are appropriate?There was almost universal opposition to cloning to produce a child, and the committee proposes a ban on it. There was clear support, however, for cloning techniques that involve adult stem cells. These cells may provide the key to advances in medicine and they have the great advantage of not posing the ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells. The committee supports continued research involving adult and placental stem cells.Great contention surrounds the use and destruction of embryos to obtain stem cells. The committee considered the following five possible outcomes: (1) prohibiting all destructive experimentation on human embryos and the use of embryonic stem cell lines; (2) permitting the use of existing human embryonic stem cell lines but prohibiting all further destructive experimentation; (3) permitting research on embryos surplus to assisted reproductive technology programs (and so destroying these embryos) but in defined, limited circumstances—the creation of human embryos for research would be prohibited under this proposal; (4) permitting the production of human embryos by somatic cell nuclear transfer in order to obtain embryonic stem cells for research—provided they are destroyed before they pass the stage of forming a blastocyst; or (5) permitting the creation of human embryos for any destructive experimentation. Determining the most appropriate outcome called for consideration of beliefs about human life, the appropriate limits of science, and the way in which our society should regulate such important issues. It was inevitable that the diverse opinions in the community would be reflected amongst the committee. All members seek a ban on the deliberate creation of embryos for experimentation and all support a three-year moratorium on the creation of embryos by somatic cell nuclear transfer—the so-called Dolly process. Six members support research, in defined, limited circumstances, on embryos surplus to assisted reproductive technology programs. They also support research on existing stem cell lines and lines newly created from surplus embryos—within defined parameters. The other four members would restrict research to existing human embryonic stem cell lines—if these stem cells cannot develop into an embryo. If they could so develop, these members would prohibit all destructive experimentation on embryos, including the continued use of existing embryonic stem cell lines.If Australian parliaments decide to permit human cloning involving stem cells from embryos surplus to assisted reproductive technology programs, then all committee members agree on the regulatory framework outlined in the report. This would feature a national, uniform legislative approach; a ban on cloning for reproductive purposes—that is, to produce a child; one system of regulation for research—whether it is funded privately or publicly; any attempt to undertake reproductive cloning being liable to a criminal penalty, and the withdrawal of a licence to undertake research in this area; research using cloning techniques to be subject to clear legislative parameters, including— subject to a moratorium on somatic cell nuclear transfer—a ban on the deliberate creation of embryos for research; a national licensing body to regulate human cloning and research using cloning techniques; and a regulatory framework that is transparent, accountable and responsive.The subject of human cloning is a fundamental one and should not be left to any one sector of our community to determine. The committee hopes that this report will contribute to informed debate and consultation. I thank the many individuals and organisations who have contributed to the inquiry. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has a tradition of constructive debate and goodwill. I thank all members for the respect they have shown for opinions they may not necessarily share. I also thank the staff in the secretariat, particularly Catherine Cornish, the acting secretary, Deborah Nance, Barbara Eckersley and Frances Wilson. The committee is grateful to its scientific adviser for this inquiry, Professor John Hearn, for his scientific advice and the time he has spent in supporting the committee. I commend the report to the House.10:46:0031095Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00— by leave—Firstly, I would also like to express my very sincere thanks to those who provided secretariat and specialist support for the writing of this report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled Human cloning: scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning and stem cell research. Without Catherine Cornish, Deborah Nance, Professor John Hearn and Dr Barbara Eckersley, I really do not think this report could ever have been written. Their patient explanations, redrafts, diagrams, good humour and very, very hard work went well beyond the call of duty and they should be commended for that. They should share our pride in having created a comprehensive and challenging resource which will hopefully further this complex debate. I would also like to specifically thank the chair of the committee. This has been a demanding inquiry, grappling with the science, the ethics, the current research and our personal beliefs. Managing our differing views, differing levels of understanding and differing temperaments over the two years was quite a task and one that he definitely managed with grace. We have all agreed and made strong, unanimous recommendations about the need to regulate cloning research and how to do it. The committee's key recommendations seek to establish a single national regulatory system, using a licensing regime, to cover all types of cloning research, public or private, throughout this country. We rule out any cloning procedures being undertaken which could produce a whole human being—often called reproductive cloning—and propose effective and enforceable sanctions. We all support research into adult stem cells. We were not convinced, however, that this potential could properly be fulfilled without allowing research on embryonic stem cells at the same time, increasing our chances of finding the key to how our bodies and cells develop and regenerate. We believe that to prohibit embryonic stem cell research would be to turn our backs on hundreds and thousands of Australians suffering from debilitating diseases. I was not prepared to do that. The research has the potential to find a cure and effective treatment for people suffering from terrible degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. I want them and those with diabetes or spinal cord injuries, and their families, to have some hope of treating those conditions, and I want our scientists to have the best chance of finding a cure to do just that.A national regulatory system would encourage and allow our scientists to work cooperatively across the states. It would also allow the international scientific and investment community to clearly understand what their colleagues in Australia are, and are not, permitted to do. Clear regulation and tight parameters will hopefully further Australia's position amongst world leaders in the field of biotechnology. It would also give the community certainty about what is happening in our laboratories and confidence in the protections that are in place.The majority decision does go a step further and allows, or recommends the use of, a very small number of existing surplus IVF embryos, to obtain new embryonic stem cell lines needed for this research. This will be controversial for some. For some, their strongly held religious views will help marshal their thoughts. Yet an awareness of the pluralist society in which we live also cautions against imposing one view upon others or being too restrictive.So how do we weigh the value of a bundle of early cells in an embryo in its first days of development against the quality of life of a 19-year-old boy with a spinal cord injury from a workplace accident? If this research might provide treatment for that young man, don't we have an obligation to try to discover it? Try as I might, I personally cannot feel the same sympathy or hope for those cells, especially if the cells are found in one of thousands of surplus IVF embryos destined never to become a child and in fact ultimately to be destroyed. This issue is extremely complex, and I refer to the committee's thorough discussion on the ethical issues of research involving embryonic stem cells—paragraphs 7.99 to 7.125 of the report—and in particular paragraphs 7.109 to 7.111, which set out the majority's reasoning to allow the use of excess IVF embryos for this purpose, with the necessary safeguards.Still there must be caution to temper this hope. We are convinced of the value and potential of this basic research using cloning techniques, but we are uncertain of the therapeutic applications. We therefore all agree to a moratorium on one type of cloning procedure called somatic cell nuclear transfer. This particular procedure, rather than using an embryo, takes an egg and fuses it with an adult cell to create a cloned embryo. This procedure was used to produce Dolly the sheep and could in future be used to create personalised cell lines for the treatment of individual patients. At this stage, without the basic research being further developed, we are not convinced of the current need to allow the somatic cell nuclear transfer process to be used and can see reasons for caution. Obviously, as the science develops, this decision will need to be revisited, and I would hope that the regulatory structure we propose could then deal easily with any future developments. We therefore all agree at this stage to a ban on the deliberate creation of embryos, by whatever method, specifically for this research. For some, this is an ethical decision; for others, there seems simply no reason or purpose at this stage for such a step. The package we recommend makes us more cautious than the United Kingdom, whose licensing model we use and whose regime permits the deliberate creation of embryos and the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer. In contrast, we recommend a more permissive position than that recently announced by President Bush to limit research to existing embryonic stem cell lines. At the same time, our recommendations to cover all research in Australia mean our proposals have much further reach than those in the US, which are limited to only publicly funded research. I believe that we have found a sensible balance between the two. This is not an easy issue, and I commend the report to the House and urge the government, the interested media and the public to consider this report fully and carefully. By setting out in detail the current state of the science, the range of ethical arguments and much more, I believe we will save the need for repeated inquiries into this issue. However, the debate that must now follow will need to be thorough and respectful of a range of views. Calm and thoughtful debate can lead to a clear and sensible resolution as shown through the work of this committee.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Does the member for Menzies wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?31097Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.Leave granted; debate adjourned.310973109710:53:0031097Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services, I present the committee's report on its inquiry into development of high technology industries in regional Australia based on bioprospecting, entitled Bioprospecting: discoveries changing the future, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEY—by leave—`Bioprospecting' is an unfamiliar term to many people. It involves searching for valuable chemical compounds and genetic material from plants, animals and micro-organisms. Bioprospecting has given us painkillers from animal venoms; bacteria that extract minerals from ore; and sunscreen from the chemicals that protect corals from sunburn.There are many possibilities for Australia to develop industries based on bioprospecting. Our nation has immensely rich and unique flora and fauna. We are one of only 12 mega-diverse countries, and we are the only developed country among them. Our universities and public research bodies, like CSIRO and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, are already carrying out work in this field. But it is clear from the evidence the committee received that more could and should be done to seize the opportunities available.The committee has recommended that a well-funded, 20-year national strategy be developed to promote bioprospecting, bioprocessing and industries based on these activities. The committee regards this as an extremely important initiative that will ensure that Australia maximises its advantages in developing new industries and industrial methods.Bioprospecting offers very exciting possibilities for regional Australia. New bioindustries will be established based on cropping, aquaculture and fermentation. The committee recommends researching and promoting new regional activities based on bioprospecting. Biotechnology Australia, AFFA and the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation have an important role to play here.The committee has also made more specific recommendations that focus on different stages in the development of bioindustries. Successful bioprospecting relies on knowing about Australia's biological resources. More effort must go into studying, recording, collecting and disseminating information about our resources. Funding is needed to carry out surveys and to build, study and maintain collections and databases. Support for taxonomy and bioinformatics is important in this context. In many submissions to the inquiry, getting access to Australia's biological resources was identified as a problem area. There is uncertainty about who owns the resources, and the process of obtaining permits to access them is often complex and time consuming. To promote bioprospecting in Australia, better information must be available about ownership and how to obtain permits in different jurisdictions. A simplified, streamlined permit system should be established. Above all, a nationally consistent regime is needed for accessing biological resources and sharing the benefits. Work on establishing a nationally consistent regime has started, but it needs to be pursued more rapidly. The committee has made recommendations to this effect.It is important that resource owners share any benefits flowing from industries developed from the results of bioprospecting. At the same time, the requirement for sharing must not be so onerous that bioprospectors are deterred. The committee has spelt out some principles to help ensure that the right balance has been struck between encouraging bioprospecting and ensuring that benefits flow to the owners. The committee recommended a review after 12 months of the operation of the regulations to be put in place under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to govern access and benefit sharing. Later stages in bioindustry development also need more support in the form of facilities and equipment.The committee also made a number of other recommendations to strengthen Australia's opportunities to benefit from bioprospecting. Export controls should be extended to microorganisms, which are a rich source of chemicals and genetic material. Commercial users of biological collections and databases should contribute to building and maintaining these publicly accessible information bases. We need to increase the public's awareness of the opportunities that bioprospecting offers for economic development. We also need better disseminated information about the grants available to support the development of these opportunities.The committee sees great possibilities for Australia to make better use of its biological resources in building the biobased industries of the future. The recommendations in this report will contribute to our developing these industries. I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to all of the committee members, and in particular to my deputy chairman, Dick Adams; and for the work done by the secretariat, and in particular to Dr Sarah Hnatiuk. I commend the report to the House.10:59:0031098Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—by leave—The work leading up to the report of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has been most exciting and very stimulating. To my mind, the term `bioprospecting' is the door to a huge and infinitely varied series of opportunities that will be available to mankind over the next millennium. I see this phenomenon as the beginning of discoveries far bigger than the information technology development we have seen in the last decade. I see it as a hundred times bigger and affecting us a hundred times more than the information technology development. Once we dip out of sight of the naked eye, the world beneath is so vast, so unexplored, so amazing, that this report takes a moth's wing's gentle touch over its surface. Unless one is a scientist who takes the sort of infinite universe concept for granted, the exploration of this ground is mind-boggling.The committee has taken the broader definition of bioprospecting which includes the search for valuable chemical compounds and genetic material from plants, animals and micro-organisms. It goes far beyond some people's interpretation of bioprospecting as finding bush tucker. The technology required to go bioprospecting can go from great technological sophistication, where genetic material might be removed from an organism to produce a useful chemical placed into a micro-organism that can be cultured to mass produce the chemical, to the other extreme where plants might be grown for their nutraceutical value or for the essential oils that can be extracted from them. And there is a huge ground in the middle. This report has identified that bioprospecting, its development and surrounding activities have a huge potential for regional development in this country. The committee received 39 submissions; eight exhibits were taken, and five public hearings were held in Canberra. The committee also met and held discussions with individuals and organisations from around the country. I was pleased to have included witnesses from the Tasmanian university during an audiovisual connection especially since, during the late 1970s South West Conservation Study which undertook a very intense investigation of the south-west of Tasmania, millions of specimens were collected—this was pre debate on the Franklin Dam and the establishment of the south-west conservation area. Some of the specimens have been only roughly stored and have languished in the University of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Museum waiting for some energetic soul to come along and discover their secrets. This is an enormous opportunity for many Tasmanian scientists because they will not even have to venture out into the bush to look for their specimens. Who knows what value is hidden in this treasure trove of information?This is a vast subject to undertake, and the recommendations reflect a little of the enormity of the task. One of the most important is reflected in recommendation No. 10 in which the committee recommends that when granting access to biological resources we ensure access for non-commercial activities and, with commercial activities, ensure a balance between open competitive access and restricting access by granting exclusive use. Exclusivity should be restricted by permit conditions such as duration, area or species collected, and uses to be explored. There are many that relate to resourcing and I think that with any new industries, especially one that has as far-reaching an effect as this one, proper and long-term resourcing at this stage is extraordinarily important.The other important aspect of these recommendations deals with property rights and ownership of both the raw materials and the development of the products. We see too much drift overseas because of lack of resourcing, and these sections of the recommendations dealing with resourcing are very important if we are to encourage and extend bioprospecting as a home-grown and developed industry. We have been at the cutting edge so many times in the past, particularly in science, only to find the ideas are whisked away just as they are becoming commercial. All Australians should be keen to keep these ideas in Australian hands even if we have to use private funding to continue the development processes.Training was another area touched on in the recommendations. Once again, a vital part of our infrastructure is to have trained bioprospectors and scientists who can recognise a new property or molecule when they are searching the materials. This is another area in which Australia is very good and should be encouraged. And, of course, a national strategy is enormously important to the development of this area.This has been an exciting inquiry in which to participate. I thank the staff of the committee for putting the report together, particularly Dr Sarah Hnatiuk, and my other committee members for their involvement, especially the chair who has just launched the report. Thanks, too, to my fellow Tasmanian Sid Sidebottom. I hope the report's findings will be universally accepted in this House and of great use in our debate and in informing people of this exciting new subject.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYI move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Before we call on the next business, I remind the House of the Speaker's advice that there is an arrangement that presentation of each report take no longer than 10 minutes.311003110011:06:0031100Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10— On behalf of the Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts, I present the committee's report entitled Covering your arts: art indemnity in Australia, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—by leave—The report I have just tabled entitled Covering your arts: art indemnity in Australia is a result of an inquiry of the House Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts into the Commonwealth scheme to indemnify major artworks against loss or damage when touring Australia. The scheme known as Art Indemnity Australia was established in 1979 and has allowed Australians to see first-hand, priceless works of art. Exhibitions such as Gold of the Pharaohs, Monet in Japan, The Book of Kells and Rembrandt would not have been possible without the indemnity provided by the scheme. In essence, Art Indemnity Australia removes the burden from art galleries of having to seek commercial insurance to cover the risk of loss or damage, the premiums for which would be exorbitant.The success of Art Indemnity Australia is due in no small measure to the professional expertise of the two organisations that manage exhibitions under the scheme—namely, the National Gallery of Australia and Art Exhibitions Australia. The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the two managing organisations have developed strict guidelines for the transport, security and safe handling of works of art. These procedures and the manner in which they have been implemented represent world's best practice in exhibition logistics. In more than 20 years of managing major exhibitions of international art there have been only two relatively minor instances of damage, resulting in $380,000 worth of rectification.Three main issues arose out of our review: access by the state galleries to the indemnity scheme, the geographic distribution of exhibitions covered by indemnity and the government's recent move to seek commercial reinsurance of Art Indemnity Australia. On the first issue, the committee is of the view that it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to manage its exposure under the scheme extremely carefully and to limit access to indemnity to the two current managing organisations. If the state galleries wish to further develop their international ambitions, they can do this either by continuing to enter into partnership with either of the two managing organisations or by continuing to rely on the various state government backed indemnity arrangements, which have supported a number of excellent exhibitions. One recent exhibition at the Art Gallery of New South Wales was Cezanne.We do, however, agree with those who submit that more should be done to tour Commonwealth indemnified exhibitions beyond the eastern seaboard to venues in the other states. This is a matter that is being considered by the Cultural Ministers Council and we consider that, within the constraints of venue capacity and security and having regard to the availability of borrowed works, the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation should ensure equitable distribution of exhibitions. We recognise also that there is demand for an increase in the number of one-venue exhibitions to celebrate special events of state significance, perhaps involving Australian cultural treasures.The third and perhaps most significant issue we canvassed was the appropriateness of new reinsurance arrangements for Art Indemnity Australia. Since 1979, the Commonwealth has self-insured against risk of loss or damage to indemnified works of art. As of July this year, and consistent with the general policy position of the government, commercial insurance has been purchased to cover the risk. The move to purchase insurance means that the Commonwealth will now have to pay premiums estimated at $1.5 million per annum to achieve what has been achieved at no direct cost, other than the prudent management of these exhibitions, over the last 20 years. Looking at it another way, the $380,000 in claims against the scheme, when amortised over the life of the scheme, amount to only $17,300 per year. In our view, it is very difficult to assert confidently that the new purchased insurance arrangements represent good value for money for the Commonwealth. Moreover, we are gravely concerned that in future an overzealous application of the user-pays principle through the annual budget process will result in the abolition of the current budget supplementation to cover the cost of the premium and pressure to pass on to the managing organisations the cost of the premiums. This would dramatically increase the cost of bringing major international works of art to Australia, undermine the viability of such exhibitions and, ultimately, defeat the original purpose of the scheme, which is to ensure that Australians have access to exhibitions that they might not otherwise have seen.Accordingly, we strongly recommend that the former self-insurance arrangements be restored and call on the Minister for Finance and Administration to exempt Art Indemnity Australia from the Commonwealth's general policy of taking commercial insurance to cover exposed risk. I commend the report to the House.11:12:0031101Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—by leave—As a member representing an electorate in regional Australia I am particularly sensitive to arguments and issues relating to any inequities between the levels of services and opportunities that exist in the major capital cities, compared with those in regional areas. That is why I took a great interest in the issues before this inquiry. Access to the cultural life of our country is important to country people in just the same way as health, education and other government services.Although the inquiry was initiated before I joined the Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts, I believe that it came about as a result of concerns voiced by representatives of state galleries about the obstacles to their staging major exhibitions featuring significant international works of art. It came up that one of the factors believed to be impeding the state galleries is their lack of access to the Commonwealth government's Art Indemnity Australia scheme. The scheme has been operated by the Commonwealth government for 21 years and provides indemnity of up to $2 billion for exhibitions managed by two approved organisations—namely, the National Gallery of Australia and Art Exhibitions Australia.Throughout the inquiry the question for me was whether in fact the indemnity scheme was a major impediment to the broad distribution of art exhibitions, something that is very strongly supported by the committee, and, if so, whether to allow the scheme to be broadened so that other managing organisations could qualify for access to that indemnity scheme. The committee's recommendations reflect the evidence received in respect of those questions. On balance, the committee does not believe that the eligibility for the Art Indemnity Australia scheme should extend beyond the two current managing organisations. There are a number of reasons for our coming to that conclusion. The indemnity is a risk that the Commonwealth carries and it is therefore reasonable for the Commonwealth to control the management of activities protected by the indemnity. It has done that over the past 21 years by developing its own expertise in this very specialised area of risk management. That expertise is enhanced and complemented by the expertise of the two managing organisations. There is an understandable reluctance to tinker with something that has attained an industry reputation for international best practice. The Commonwealth government has very good reason to be confident in the experience and professionalism of the two managing organisations that have ensured the successful operation of the Art Indemnity Australia scheme for 21 years.As I said at the outset, my interest is always to even up the imbalance between metropolitan and regional Australia. I was quite prepared throughout the inquiry to be convinced of the need for a trade-off between the incredibly high standards imposed by the Commonwealth scheme and a real increase in the reach of exhibitions. It was not clear from the evidence, however, that an expansion of eligibility for cover under the AIA scheme would result in more, or more widely travelled, exhibitions. There are many factors that determine the availability of exhibitions to tour throughout Australia, not the least of which are the demands of the originating foreign gallery, which normally dictate that the works can only be in Australia for an average of seven months. Realistically, that translates to two venues within Australia to make the exhibition viable. The recommendations of the committee have addressed the concerns of state galleries within those industry dynamics and suggested practical ways to meet the objectives of the state galleries and consequently the entitlement of people outside major cities to enjoy significant cultural events.Another crucial issue raised in the inquiry was the change from a self-insurance scheme to the Comcover arrangements implemented by the government on 1 July 2001, pursuant to new government policy regarding insurance for all the government's exposed risks. The committee has recommended that the Art Indemnities Australia scheme be exempted from the overall insurance arrangements and returned to its previous self-insured status. We believe that a clear distinction can be drawn between AIA and other Commonwealth risks that are no doubt properly insured on a commercial basis.As identified by the Auditor-General, the majority of Commonwealth indemnities relate to either the business operations of government enterprises or Defence acquisition programs. For many, the precise exposure of the Commonwealth cannot be specified. This program, on the other hand, has a precise limit and its very purpose is to manage and minimise risk to the Commonwealth, a job it has done to a very high level for 21 years now. Our recommendation is motivated by a concern that the present budget allocation to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to cover the cost of premiums paid to Comcover will be under pressure to be replaced by a user-pays system. The insurance costs will be passed on to the managing organisations for them to recoup out of the proceeds of exhibitions. The evidence given to us about the marginality of many exhibitions means that any increase in overheads could not be sustained, meaning fewer exhibitions over time. We do not want to see wrangling over who pays the insurance premiums undermine what has been an important and successful cultural policy initiative bringing the best of art to all Australians. Before I conclude, on behalf of the committee I would like to thank the staff of the committee secretariat: the secretary, Grant Harrison, Susan Cardell and Katy Hobson. I also thank the chair and my fellow committee members, who are a great team to be with and to work with.11:18:0031102Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills31102R139131102Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.11:18:0031102Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00— The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 seeks to amend the Migration Act by introducing a raft of new measures designed to clearly define and prescribe into Australian law the principles guiding the determination of refugee status as outlined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Currently under the refugee convention, a refugee is defined broadly as a person who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for the reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or membership of a particular political opinion group.The above elements to this test are not further defined in the convention. Interpretation of these elements for the purposes of determining refugee status is a matter for each convention member. When considering this bill, the opposition was concerned, and accepted government concerns, that over the years the interpretation of the definition of `refugee' by various decisions of courts and tribunals has expanded the extent protection is provided in circumstances that can be argued to be clearly outside those initially intended. There have been instances where the courts and tribunals have included, for instance, circumstances of economic hardship or serious inconvenience through other liberal interpretations of the criteria as reasons for granting protection which it would seem would otherwise fall outside the intended or original meaning of the refugee convention of 1951. In other instances, circumstances have arisen where the provisions within the convention excluding from protection people of serious character concern have been interpreted in such a way that could lead to refugee status being granted to persons who clearly do not deserve it. The opposition therefore believes that refugees over the years have made an enormous contribution to our society and will no doubt continue to do so. There is room for a humanitarian attitude to be taken by Australians towards people that require asylum from this country. Indeed it is true that we have a refugee and humanitarian program of some 12,000 each year, which has been at that number for some years under successive governments. We accept a large number of refugees for resettlement—as I said, some 12,000 a year—and as world events, sadly, are likely to deteriorate in the near future there will even be more pressure on us to ensure that those refugees we accept are the most needy, the most desperate and those who require our help the most.This bill aims to ensure that the refugee convention provides appropriate protection to genuine refugees that is consistent with Australia's international obligations that were assumed when it became a party to the convention. Because of the complexities of the measures introduced in this bill by the government, attempting to clarify the original intent of the convention and restrict liberal interpretation of the convention's key principles by Australian courts, the opposition supported a Democrats motion to refer this bill for scrutiny to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee. The opposition's main concern was that the urgency of this bill should still not overshadow good policy making and should assure that our long tradition of meeting international obligations to those in need, such as refugees, will continue. To this end, the opposition have conducted a number of discussions with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees here in Canberra. We have sought their comments, and those of the UNHCR's representative in Geneva via their local office in Canberra, as to the adherence of these measures to the refugee convention. Indeed, we are aware that the government, through Minister Ruddock, has been in constant dialogue with the UNHCR with respect to this matter.We are also advised by the office of the UNHCR that, whilst they had a number of concerns with the proposed bill, they have in fact worked through a lot of these concerns with the government. In most instances, I understand, they have been satisfied. It would be fair to say that they do not exactly love the bill. It is not as if they are going to jump up and down and say that it is the best thing since sliced bread, because clearly it is not. By the same token, it is my clear impression from my discussions with them that they certainly are not going to be jumping up and down and saying that it is no good. Whatever the minister has done, he seems to have convinced them that in fact it does not—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—Breach our international conventions.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—breach our international conventions. Thank you; you have given me the words—not that I need you to.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— He is very helpful.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—For once, he is being helpful. We did have extensive consultations with the UNHCR in my office here in Parliament House in Canberra and we did speak to them over the telephone. It does seem that the government has taken a fairly conciliatory attitude towards some of their concerns, to the point where even today, I understand, the minister has agreed to an amendment that they are seeking to the definition of persecution in terms of its overarching meaning. I take it that the minister is doing something on that. 0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—I will circulate that now.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—Okay. I mention the urgency of this bill because to some extent the measures contained in this bill are relevant to the events of the past week and to the heightened need for us to be vigilant about who enters our borders, and specifically their true identity and purpose. I know that our colleagues in the Senate minor parties will not be very happy, because I understand the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs wants to take the bill away from the committee hearings. He wants to get it debated, passed and out of the way before parliament gets up next week. We will support him on that, and we have said that we will give him that support. We are concerned of course that the minor parties will not be able to have their Senate committee hearing. To be absolutely frank, the major reason we supported it was that we wanted the UNHCR to have their opportunity to give their submissions to the committee. Given that we have had these extensive discussions with them, given that we are satisfied that they are perhaps not 100 per cent satisfied but nevertheless believe that it does not in any way impinge upon our obligations, we are prepared to go along with the government.One of the measures contained in the legislation will allow the minister under certain circumstances to draw adverse inferences about unauthorised arrivals or protection visa applicants who fail to provide identity, nationality or citizenship documents or who fail to provide information under oath or affirmation about their identity or about the absence of such documentation. I do not want to talk too long on this bill, because a lot of colleagues want to speak; I will not be taking up all my time. That particular provision sounds quite reasonable. The opposite argument is that there are people who are escaping tyrannies and regimes and who cannot get valid documentation. By the very nature of their circumstances, they cannot get valid documentation. But I think it is reasonable for someone who is deciding whether or not a person is a genuine refugee to draw adverse inferences if they have false documentation. It is obvious to me that at the very least you can draw an adverse inference, particularly, for instance, if someone says, `I am not who those papers indicate I am; the documents there are false.' They might explain why the documents are false. The problem with all of this is the fact that there are people smugglers involved. In the main, these people have paid for these passages. There is certainly within the Australian public an expectation that people who do come here come in an orderly fashion if they can. As desperate as the circumstances can be for some of these people who in fact find it necessary to pay, the reality is that it is not unreasonable for governments to make an adverse inference from something which is not right. The provision is designed to address growing concerns, particularly in relation to unauthorised boat arrivals, that individuals are disposing of their documents and often engaging in research or schooling of claims in order to mislead Australian officials about their identities, nationalities or real needs for protection. It is sad that we have reached the stage where we have to doubt the claims of people who in many instances are trying to escape evil regimes and persecution. However, Labor believes it is our responsibility and, indeed, our duty, more than ever in difficult times such as these, to ensure that the integrity of our borders is maintained.Similarly, the bill provides a clear definition of a particularly serious crime, for the purpose of excluding people who are convicted of such crimes and who constitute a danger to the Australian community. That provision is for the benefit of Australia's protection under the refugee convention. For the purpose of this bill, the definition of a particularly serious crime is an offence which in the applicant's country of origin carries the death penalty, life imprisonment or a maximum sentence of at least three years imprisonment. Again, the opposition believes that such measures are warranted to ensure that our refugee and humanitarian program is used to assist those people most in need.There is a number of other provisions which I will not go through one by one; I am sure some of my colleagues will during the course of this debate. But I particularly mention a very important measure in this bill, and that is that the minister is given the power to use his or her discretion and wisdom in these areas where the UNHCR has indicated that prudence is needed. Indeed, I am sure they would not be unhappy for me to disclose that, as part of our discussions, they said to me it was this overarching ministerial discretion that satisfied them that the minister could step in in the event that officials were perhaps interpreting these provisions too strictly and where people were falling through the net. They seemed to be a lot happier about what was being proposed in this bill because that safety valve was there. We certainly support that. As I have indicated, the opposition will support the bill. We have agreed as well to the government's request that it be put through the Senate notwithstanding that the Senate committee has not met. I confirm and repeat: the reason that we agreed to it going to a Senate committee was because we were very keen on knowing the position of the UNHCR. We now know the position of the UNHCR. I just say again, so that the comments I have made are not misconstrued under any circumstances, that I am not saying that the UNHCR has said to me that they are happy with this bill. I am simply saying that I am satisfied that they are not going to be making a song and dance about the provisions of it and that, to the extent that they have been able to get concessions from the minister, they are happy with that. On the basis of what the UNHCR has said to the opposition, we will support this bill.11:31:0031105Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am delighted to stand and support the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001. Noting that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is in the chamber to be part of this debate, I take the opportunity to congratulate him on the safe set of hands that he has brought to a very difficult set of circumstances in our nation's history. People in my electorate are very supportive of the minister's very sober and direct concern for the importance of the integrity of our immigration system.As you may know, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the last decade a lot of people in my electorate have come to this country through the immigration system in various categories: free migrants of one form or another, family reunion migrants and, importantly, refugee and humanitarian settlement migrants. To a man and woman, they have come to me and said, `We need to ensure that our immigration system is very pro-Australian in its logic and very supportive of those who come through it in its execution, because we need to know, as refugees, that our position in Australia is enhanced, not detracted from, by the developments that have been occurring with criminal elements trying to force people onto us, as they have been doing in increasing numbers in recent years.' Let me say that another way. Refugees in particular that have come through the system, received UNHCR qualification as a refugee and come as one of the 12,000 per year to this country to be settled, are very supportive of government efforts to enforce our right to choose the type of people we want to settle here: to choose not on the basis of race, religion or political affiliation but on the basis of their integrity, on law abiding and criminality factors, and also on health matters.People in my electorate who are refugees are also very supportive of measures which say that people who want to come and settle in this country but who, before they even arrive, have shown they have no regard at all for the laws of this country are not the sort of people they want to see coming into this nation to receive the same status that they have. They do not want to see people forcing themselves onto us, paying heaps of money to criminal elements to float them to us, and receiving the same status as genuine refugees who have done the hard yards that the system we have in this country dictates. They are concerned—as I am and as I am sure all Australians are who genuinely have the best interests of genuine refugees at heart—about Australia being seen by some as a soft touch, being seen by criminal elements to our north and west as being incredibly vulnerable because of our good nature, and therefore able to be exploited. They are very concerned that government must act and they support the action that this minister, this government, is undertaking. We are facing now in this country a real understanding, perhaps for the first time, about the extent of the commitment that Australia and Australians have undertaken towards genuine refugees. It is extraordinary to me that, if any good thing has come out of media hyperbole in the last few weeks, it is that more and more Australians actually understand what we do. More and more Australians have a good understanding that when you have come through the system, when you have come through the UNHCR and fronted here as a person of good character and good health and are given the opportunity to settle here, Australia does the right thing by you as a settling refugee. Australia does in fact have, on a per capita basis, the second largest intake of refugees in the world. People are celebrating that commitment. I am finding that people are more and more enriched in the knowledge that we, as a generous nation, are doing our bit. There are some who would like to see us do more, and I can certainly say that there are a lot of people with the right attitudes wanting us to do more. But, at the same time, if we do not have in place a series of conditions, then we are letting down those who come here. We have not just simply given refuge to people; we have taken on a responsibility.In the past 5½ years that I have been a member of this place, I have met and dealt day to day with people who have settled here from difficult parts of our world—nations such as those in the Horn of Africa: Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia and the Sudan. They are people who have stood and waited patiently—maybe not so patiently some days— in places like the Kakuma refugee camp outside Nairobi. I have come to understand a little more about what a wonderful country we live in and how much we as Australians who were born here—not Australians by choice but Australians by birth—have to love and nurture what we have in this country perhaps more than we have before. That people would aspire to come here is very understandable. Many families have told me stories that simply horrify me. Without wanting to name names, I have told the minister a few of these stories. He understands some of these examples, because what I see he sees 300-fold, and his experience in this place dictates that it is probably many thousand-fold. He understands exactly the circumstances and conditions.The places with the turmoil that has been left behind may change, the faces of the individuals involved may change, but the stories are true. I know of people who have come here—people in crisis who have watched their father killed before them. I see people who have come here, having been assaulted and raped because they have been in a different political circumstance from another. I see people who have come here with virtually nothing to their name. I know they are refugees and I am proud that this country gives them a place where they now can find some chance to gain the footing they need to get back the dignity that they have lost and to create a future that they want for their children and grandchildren. They are the refugees. I am proud to be part of a country that does its bit to try to create a good circumstance for those shattered individuals.I read an article in today's Australian about Afghans on board the MV Tampa. Afghanistan is a shattered country. It is a nation that will face, I suspect, some form of terminal turmoil in the weeks ahead. It is a nation that has been racked by war and by political divisions. I understand all of that, and everybody on this side understands it too. That article about `Ali' in the Australian states:His uncle paid an agent to get him to Australia. He doesn't know how much, but he knows Australia was the cheapest destination. He walked about 20km over the border to Pakistan, from there he flew to Bangkok and then to Singapore, and finally travelled to Malaysia.From Malaysia he sailed to Jakarta, where he met many others ... and they began the journey to Australia ...That is after having paid criminals to get him on board an Indonesian boat to float him to Australia. I do not suspect that he fits into the same category that exists for people whom I know in my electorate who have not faced the ease with which that chap was floated to Australia. I have no idea whether `Ali' will ultimately be judged by the UNHCR to be a refugee. I have no knowledge of whether `Ali'—it is a pseudonym— will finally find settlement here in Australia. But he has enough money to pay people and fly from this country and fly to that country—not `flees' but `flies'. There is a distinction between him and a number of people that I know in my electorate. It is important that that distinction is enforced in legislation. If we do not have distinctions that say that if there is no order there is chaos, we are letting down the genuine refugees. Those of us who have been raised as Christians—it is not true just for Christians, it is true for all the great religions of the world such as Islam, the Jewish community, the Hindus and the Buddhists—have a care and concern for others. But how can we exercise properly a care and concern for others if those who deserve our care and concern most of all are kept out while those who have the capacity to do something for themselves are pushing or buying their way in? How can we legitimately say that we are taking the worst set of problems and dealing with them? How can we honestly say that we are helping the most needy if we allow a system whereby money dictates that some jump ahead of the queue? How can we? How can we honestly say that we are doing our very best by the genuine refugees of the world? At the end of the day, this legislation, which is all about winding back some of the judicially inspired softening of our standards over the last 12 years, is all about trying to target the most needy first. This legislation, the border protection bill and other matters that the government has been working on to try to deal with the flood of criminally motivated, criminally sponsored asylum seekers coming to this shore are about making sure that we help those who need the help most of all get it first of all.I welcome the fact that the Australian Labor Party have revised their circumstances and their standing on these matters, probably after having received the shock phone calls in their electorate offices that I would expect them to receive from Australians who were outraged when they saw money buying a way around the queue. They have revised their circumstances and are looking at ways of trying to assist the government with the passage of the legislation. I welcome that. I worry, though, as the minister highlighted in question time the other day, that their support would dissolve if they were elected to public office, to run the government of this country at the forthcoming election. I worry that Labor's current position is more about managing the politics until an election than dealing with the reality of trying to run the country. I worry that Labor's commitment to the government's efforts to deal with this to make sure that those who need the help most get it first of all extends only until the polls close at 6 o'clock after the election is called. I worry that Labor, given the chance and the usual nod and wink that they give to different groups in the community, will look at ways to wind back what the government is doing. Therefore, for genuine refugees in this country, I worry that their position, their status and the care and concern that should be prioritised to them may be watered down by Labor's cynical approach. Let me walk away from that argument because I do not want those opposite to think that I will not give them the benefit of many doubts or that I will not give them the benefit of thinking that they may have realised that, on reflection, their rush to oppose has been rescinded. I welcome their support.In all matters to do with immigration policy and legislation, it is extremely important—and it is a hallmark of the legislation which has been brought into this place by this minister—that the integrity of the system that governs immigration is upheld. It is vital. It is important that Australians by birth, Australians by choice or Australians who have sought refuge here are all well satisfied that the system is getting the very best set of outcomes for this country. It is important that the system is offering support to those who need it most of all, first of all. It is important for those who have come here as refugees, who may have been involved in some political activity in their own country. We are a nation that believes in free speech, but there are nations around the world where free speech results in persecution and death. I know people in my electorate who have been given refuge here because of their activities in their old countries. They were involved with a different viewpoint in the operation of their nation's national debate and they were persecuted. It is important that we ensure that those people do not face any form of threat from some who may happen to present a reasonable case, come to this country and perhaps operate as sleepers for a different point of view from theirs. There are people in this nation today who worry about those sorts of things. It is important that valid documentation be expected and demanded. According to the standards of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are 23 million people around the world who are refugees. Under the Australian standards, which have been broadening the categorisation of refugees, there are between 150 million and 200 million refugees, such is the extent of the judicially inspired softening of our standards over the past dozen years. According to the UNHCR, there are 23 million refugees, as opposed to between 150 million and 200 million if you apply the current Australian standards to the world.No doubt each of those people has their own story, set of horrors and set of reasons for seeking refuge somewhere else. However, by definition, refugees get away from danger and from a place of persecution, and find a place where they are safer. Refugees should not be in a position where they are paying agents to fly them around several countries and make lifestyle choices that bring them to another country. I would expect refugees to seek the opportunity, if at all possible, to go to the nearest place of refuge or to wait their turn through the UNHCR to test their credentials beside all the others who are waiting and to find how they are positioned.It is extraordinary to think that some are so lacking in confidence about how well they would qualify under the UNHCR standards, which are tougher than our own standards, that they would pay money to go around the UNHCR queue and just lob here and demand that they be treated with the sort of support, respect and concern that genuine refugees who come to this country get. I find it sad to think that anybody would suspect that that was the right way to run a system. What they are really saying is, `Forget the standards. Forget the tests. Forget the paperwork and the documentation. The only paper we want is the folding stuff. We want a system that says dollars buy you passage and dollars buy you refuge.' I do not understand how anybody can think that that is a legitimate way to run a proper system of refugee and humanitarian support. In that regard, this legislation ensures that this country continues to prioritise those who deserve the help and that we do our part, and there is no way that we can possibly look at trying to expand our contribution to assistance for genuine refugees when the system is under such threat from those who try to claim their own importance by hiding behind a tag of refugee and a standard for which they do not rightly qualify.As the debate about this legislation continues, I will be interested to note the level of commitment to those who are already here in this country who have qualified under the UNHCR standards under which Australia takes 12,000 each year. As a country, we have a responsibility to give those people the support they need and the encouragement to grow. We have a responsibility to give them the opportunity to realise something for their families and that should be at the forefront of our thinking. We can take more people on— and we will—but we cannot walk away from the commitment we already have to those who have come here. In that regard, this legislation is important for another reason: we must concentrate our efforts on those who are here and who we have taken on already. I will echo another set of words from the member for Bowman. He observed that if the minister has some discretion over those who finally come through the door, that is another reason to feel well satisfied that this legislation is a good thing. I welcome the support of the Australian Labor Party and I again congratulate the minister on his ongoing efforts and his commitment to this nation and all its people, no matter where they have come from and no matter under what circumstances.11:51:0031108Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I am ple-ased to finally take part in a debate concerning migration, having had my name down to speak on several bills over the last couple of weeks and being always shunted off the end of the speaking list. It is interesting that this bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001, is one that in the main I am in agreement with. Perhaps that is why I got a spot today. Some of the bills that have been debated over the last couple of weeks I most certainly was very opposed to; indeed, I was opposed to some of the views of my own party. Perhaps that is why I did not get the opportunity to voice my view on some of those bills. In the main, this one I have no great difficulty with—I have some concerns but no great difficulties. There has been much debate on migration over the last few weeks and especially during the last few days. People are saying that, with this debate we have been having on migration, we have suddenly got a challenge. We have got a challenge because people are moving across borders. It is a new phenomenon; a thing that we have never experienced before. Even the great waves of migration in the last century were nothing as compared with the people movement today. People are moving for all sorts of reasons, from ethnic cleansing and civil wars and, God forbid, to look for a better economic future. So the world is experiencing this new phenomenon.I must say that sometimes I am immensely proud to be a member of this place and hear some of the speeches made. An example of that was on Monday. But there are other times when I am quite embarrassed at some of the nonsense that is spewed out in this place as people wrap the Australian flag or the banner of Christianity around themselves. I noticed that the honourable member for Moreton was parading his Christianity. Some of the most bigoted and ill-informed comments I have heard on this whole migration debate have been from people professing their Christianity. A good example appeared a couple of weeks ago in the IllawarraMercury. That great Christian, Fred Nile, wrote an article urging the minister that the only refugees he should ever take should be Christian refugees. It does show a certain amount of compassion, and I suppose one should be pleased that Christianity is so alive and thriving in this country!There has been an unbelievable lot of nonsense spoken during this whole migration debate. One thing we ought to get clear is that we are not facing a flood of people. Britain may be facing a flood of people, Germany may and Holland may, but we most certainly are not.I must say in all honesty I am not as upset and concerned about people paying to get away from an oppressive regime as some of my colleagues appear to be. Do people really think that you have to be poor and have absolutely nothing to be a genuine refugee? What about the Jews in Nazi Germany? Not all of them were poor; many of them paid to get out of the country. And who would blame them? If I had a couple of kids or even a couple of nephews in Afghanistan and I could not leave but I was a shopkeeper there or I could sell a few things and get the money to give these young people the opportunity to leave that area, of course I would do it. What father wouldn't? The honourable member for Moreton was somehow saying that just because these people paid their way they were not genuine refugees. I have been into the detention centres and Senator Ferguson and I met a couple of young guys at Woomera, and Senator Ferguson said, `How did you get here?' They said, `My uncle or my grandfather paid my way.' I did not think that was a problem.Put yourself in any parent's place: if the choice was staying in Kabul—which is probably going to have the smittens blown out of it over the next couple of weeks—or taking the opportunity by selling a few goods to get part of your family out of that country, wouldn't any parent take that chance? Now these people are being demonised. Because they paid money to escape that regime, people are saying that they are not genuine refugees. What is the definition of a genuine refugee? The definition of a genuine refugee is a person who has got a well-founded fear of persecution in their own country. My God, if you are not part of the Taliban in Afghanistan today you would have a well-founded fear of persecution in that country. If you were a woman under the Taliban regime who happened to be attracted to a male of a different country you would have a well-founded fear of persecution. If you were a woman who had been raped in one of these countries you would have a well-founded fear of persecution. Wouldn't you want to get out? Of course you would want to get out. What I do agree on very much with the minister and others is that we have got to do something about the people smugglers— those who are playing on the fears of other people. But we are not going to solve it on our own. It is an international problem. Just as we are seeing an international coalition against terrorism today, we are going to have to have an international coalition dealing with the people smugglers. You hear so much said in this chamber and people get so carried away—we all do; we are all politicians. But this business that we are constantly putting out about us not being a soft touch and that we have to `send the red signal to all these people that we are not a soft touch' goes too far. And to allay our fears, we always say, `How good we have been: we take 12,000 genuine refugees.' If I hear `genuine refugee' again, I think I am going to be sick. All we hear about are genuine refugees. The truth is, Australia has always been hostile to people coming here. Malcolm Fraser made this point a couple of days ago in the SydneyMorningHerald and the Melbourne Age, and it is true.If you want to look at how paranoid Australia was, read O'Farrell's book on the history of the Irish in Australia. Back at the start of the 18th century the demonised people were the Irish. Now, around this parliament and everywhere else, we trot out our Irish ancestry, real or imagined. One of the biggest parliamentary friendship groups in this place is the Australian-Irish one. The Irish Ambassador comes in here and is treated like a brother. We all search through our family histories trying to see—if we did not come out as a First Fleeter—whether we have a little bit of Irish there somewhere. And these were the people we were demonising in Australia!I am old enough to remember us talking about wogs and dagos and people living on the smell of an oily rag. Then we had the domino theory: how all these dominoes would fall and the yellow peril would come down to Australia. We have always been frightened of the north. We have always been frightened of people coming here. Today everyone talks about how great we were towards the Vietnamese. Ask a few Vietnamese who came here in boats and landed in Darwin 20 or 25 years ago about the great reception they got! Unlike Nauru, there were not people there in hula dresses presenting them with flags. Go back and look at some of the articles in the papers when the Vietnamese came here in boats 20 years ago and at the xenophobia that was exhibited then. So it goes on. Always in this country there is a competition as to how far we can demonise people. That is what we are doing today. That is what we are continuing to do in this country.This is the strange paradox about Australia, perhaps the most multicultural nation on earth, a nation where people do live in harmony. I represent the Illawarra area, one of the most multicultural electorates in Australia. We do not have the tensions that many other societies have. We could be seen as a beacon by the rest of the world in regard to how we are able to bring people here and absorb them into our society from all sorts of backgrounds. But what do we do? We always put up these barriers against people coming here. We demonise them.This has been a very emotional debate, not only here in the chamber but also out there in the community. Last week or the week before for a while I was, if not a celebrity, someone that the media suddenly wanted to speak to. I was interviewed on one of the talkback radio shows, to my eternal shame. I will not say who it was but it was quite a well-known commentator, who said to listeners, `I have got a Labor politician on who is opposed to detention centres.' Then he said, `Look, I don't want to play the race card'—and this is all on air as I was waiting with my earpiece on to go on—`but when those Muslim Lebanese rapists went into the detention centre they got a hero's welcome from the other Muslim Lebanese rapists there.' Then he turned to me and said, `Mr Hollis, you want to open up those detention centres.' That is the sort of misinformation that is out there in this very emotional debate. People should be calming the whole debate down. We have shock jocks and other people out there inflaming the debate. When you talk to anyone about the debate—especially from New South Wales, as it is all wrapped up with that unfortunate rape incident in the western suburbs of Sydney some time ago, or more particularly the prison sentence—you find that it is also linked in now with the dreadful events in New York last week. I have heard it said in this chamber by the honourable member for Fisher and others that the people coming here on boats are linked with terrorism. To be realistic, if you were coming here as a terrorist, would you come here in sinking, leaking boats with the likelihood of spending the next two years in the harshest and most inhospitable part of Australia? It is absolute rubbish. You would be coming in the business class end of an aeroplane in a suit with a briefcase if you were a terrorist. All the studies show that is how terrorists get into countries. They do not come in in leaking boats. Even the minister himself, or the Prime Minister, identified that there had only been, I think from memory, 11 people who had been found in this way. We really have to bring some rationality and sense into the debate and take the emotion out of it.I hear members of parliament in here talking about how many messages and phone calls they get in their electorate. Maybe my electorate office is different: I do not know. I have had a couple of calls about my stand on the so-called asylum seekers. A couple have said I should be shot and one said I should be taken out to sea and drowned. A few people have accused me of being un-Australian. Let me tell you this: I have been around this place for over 18 years, and in the last week I have had over 1,000 emails, all supportive of my stand on the asylum seekers, all critical of the government—and, indeed, many times critical of the opposition as well for going along with the government. The speeches being made in this place assume that everyone out there in the community is 100 per cent behind the minister and the government on this issue. Everyone is not. We all want secure borders. I resent it immensely when people say, because you take a different point of view, that somehow you are a traitor—the member for Fisher has accused those who take a different point of view of being traitors—or that somehow you are disloyal or un-Australian. I am as loyal and patriotic as any other Australian, but let me say this: I do not wrap myself in the flag or Christianity to make a point. I always think that is a very weak argument, when you have to wrap the flag around yourself or parade your Christianity. Let me make this point, though: there are people of goodwill on both sides of this argument. People hold genuine concerns and genuine views. Many of us have not come to this issue latterly. Many of us have been involved in the refugee issue, human rights and such things for very many years. In my own case, it goes back to my university days. I resent that those who take one point of view assume that not only God—whatever God may be, or whatever faith you may belong to—but the flag and the whole patriotic thing are on their side. This debate is incredibly complex. I do not envy the minister his job, and I have said so to the minister. He has a very difficult job to do, and it is a very complex issue.The answers we are getting around this place are, `Just put a few more fences up and, if we get an overflow of asylum seekers here, give Nauru $20 million and convince them to take some. When Nauru starts to be over-full, okay, have a go at Kiribati and it will take a few.' This country under European settlement started off as a penal colony. We are going to be surrounded by islands around us with penal colonies. That is what they are. You are going to have them in Nauru. The real thing is that New Zealand has, as always, been a little too clever for us. They will take their 180, the doctors and the professional people of that group—and we will take a few—but there will be a whole lot of people on Nauru who do not meet any requirements. And sooner or later, well after the next election, people will wonder what they are going to do with the 400, 500 or 600 people who are languishing on Nauru. Then you have to wonder, when Nauru and Kiribati are full and you cannot build any more detention centres there and you have little island prisons all around Fortress Australia, what we are going to do. It is, as I say, an incredibly difficult thing. I would ask that we have a little compassion and thought for some of the people who pay to get away from some of the harshest and most repressive regimes in the world. A Four Corners program the other night showed Afghanistan, and people said, `What a terrible place to live!' Of course it is a terrible place to live. Iraqis and Iranians and a lot of those other people are not exactly attending village vicarage parties either. We say that they are awful places to live but, when people seek to escape those regimes, we put all sorts of barriers up.I have been very concerned over recent weeks about the image Australia has sent to the world. We have always had a good image on human rights issues. During the break, I went through about eight European countries, having a look at their detention centres and talking to various officials about how they deal with this worldwide phenomenon of people movements. People constantly raised with me what the concern of Australia was and they always expressed surprise to me that Australia, which for so many years had had such a good record, was now overreacting to a problem that many other countries have dealt with in a much more sympathetic and humane way. Having said all that, along with my party, with reservations, I will support the bill before the House.12:11:0031112Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I note that the member for Throsby, so strongly supporting the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 in the House today, is supporting the coalition but clearly was one of those in the party room this week who expressed strong reservations against the leadership decision made by Kim Beazley—which just indicates that the Labor Party are only supporting this bill because they feel they have to. Their heart is not in it at all. As indicated in the press this week, they feel they are being wedged and will roll back at the first opportunity if they win the next election, and the Australian people need to recognise that.He said in his speech today that the question of being able to pay to get oneself into a position to catch a boat to Australia should not be seen as a negative, should not indicate whether someone is a refugee or not. I agree with him about that. I do not think the government is proposing that at all, because the question of cost does not go to whether somebody is a refugee or not. It goes to whether they are able to put themselves in a position to jump the queue as a refugee over someone, say, who cannot afford to fly to Malaysia or Indonesia, like a person in a Kenyan refugee camp, say, a Sudanese Christian who is stuck in Kenya. The only question of cost and wealth goes to that: whether they can get themselves in a position to jump the queue. It has never been said that if you can fly to Malaysia or Indonesia that is indicative of whether you are a refugee or not. What it is indicative of is that you are able to jump the queue, and that is what we, and I think most Australians, think is quite wrong. I am one of the many members of this House who actively advocates a robust and vibrant immigration program to build our nation. Immigration made our country great. Australia's immigration program in the fifties and sixties was a positive nation building exercise that set Australia on a stable and prosperous economic course and ensured our continued survival under the mantra of `populate or perish'. A robust immigration policy is good for our country because it grows the economy by expanding the labour supply and therefore generating higher levels of demand for locally produced goods and services. Skilled immigrants who have qualifications and a high level of education will improve the quality and flexibility of our labour force, help reduce labour shortages, and do all this without the cost to industry and the Australian taxpayer of the education and training that they have had in their home country. Because immigrants increase our population, they help generate economies of scale, enabling Australian industry to produce a wider range of goods and services using more capital intensive techniques, making it viable for Australian businesses to expand overseas. Many of our risk takers, such as Sir Arvi Parbo and others, have been drawn from the ranks of immigrants in creating new businesses, jobs and export markets. They have brought capital from overseas to invest in Australia and they encourage their former compatriots back home to similarly invest in Australia. Because immigrants increase our population, they create a larger base of people from which to draw public revenues, creating resources for Australian, state and local governments to build facilities like schools, hospitals, universities, roads and other public infrastructure and, while it is hard to quantify, immigrants have expanded horizons of Australians, creating a tolerant and more intellectually and culturally rounded people, in a country that can genuinely take its place as one of the most successful and harmonious nations in the world.A report by the Australian Financial Review indicates that, in the first year of migration to Australia, there is an estimated cost to taxpayers of $61.27 million. Then there is a massive turnaround. In the second year the Australian economy benefits by only $1.8 million, but by the fifth year our economy benefits to the tune of $103.41 million. The Housing Industry Association, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry have all endorsed a balanced immigration policy as a useful tool for encouraging growth in the Australian economy. Business and community leaders know that, for every individual who immigrates to Australia, four new jobs are created. It is widely accepted that Australia's population is ageing. The Bureau of Statistics has released a report which shows that the Australian birth rate plummeted yet again in 1998. This report confirms fears that, if Australia's population does not increase at a steady rate, during the early part of the next century the natural increase in our population will be reduced to zero. If Australia's population ages without the adequate replenishment of our work force, we will face a significant if not unsustainable strain on our social security and public health systems.The recent influx of illegal immigrants penetrating Australia's border threatens to undermine the integrity of Australia's immigration program. Indeed, the growth crime of the new century is the insidious practice of people-smuggling. According to Interpol, people-smuggling is now the third largest money maker for organised crime syndicates after drug and gun trafficking. A recent United States report estimates that global profits from people-trafficking have grown to $US9 billion and will soon exceed international drug profits. As we debate this bill, there are approximately four million people being smuggled around the world. Like most developed countries, Australia is experiencing a boom in the number of illegal immigrants penetrating our borders. People in countries with fewer opportunities than in Australia are motivated to migrate here because of our prosperity and our economic and political stability. The business of illegal immigration and people-smuggling is not a problem confined to Australia, as the member for Throsby pointed out. The deputy director of the United Kingdom Immigration Service claims that the European Union had up to 800,000 illegal arrivals in 1999-2000, a 20-fold increase on the 1993 estimate of 40,000. The reason for the dramatic increase appears to be the proliferation of sweatshops throughout Europe, and the activities of transnational organised crime syndicates. In 1999, a distressed Chinese man appeared at a military police headquarters in the Italian city of Milan, begging for help. His wife, an illegal immigrant, had attempted to escape slave-like working conditions in a garment sweatshop near Milan, but the Chinese gangsters who had arranged her illegal passage to Italy captured her at gunpoint. Her husband's complaint led to raids on sweatshops in 28 cities from Milan to Rome, and broke up a criminal network of about 200 gangsters in China, Russia and Italy. The biggest wave of illegal immigrants is by far and away from China. Conservative estimates say that the number of illegal immigrants from China is around 100,000 a year. It is believed that, in the United Kingdom, tens of thousands of asylum seekers have disappeared into the community. It is understood that, in 1998, 19,000 applicants vanished in the United Kingdom, with this figure projected to rise to 115,000 in 2002. The US Immigration Service estimates that there are over five million illegal immigrants living in the United States and that approximately 275,000 illegal immigrants enter the United States each year. The flow of illegal immigrants across the United States-Mexico border is a continuing problem for the United States government. Cuba is another border management problem for the United States. The US grants asylum to 20,000 Cubans every year and yet the number of illegal immigrants from Cuba is presently on the rise.Transnational people-smuggling syndicates are using the hope of a better life to induce people to illegally migrate to more prosperous countries. They harness the hopes of their victims with false promises. Assurances of instant employment upon arrival are common, as well as the promise that they will earn above average wages. They allay their fears of being caught by falsely assuring them that authorities are powerless to extradite them and that it is easy to qualify for permanent residency. With no contradictory information available, those desperate for a better life submit themselves to the terms and conditions imposed on them by organised crime smugglers. In effect, they are unwittingly committing themselves to a life of slavery. For the organised people smugglers, it is all about debt bondage—the practice of smuggling people into a country such as Australia and making them pay off that debt when they arrive in the country. Debt bondage repayments can be made only by slowly working off the debt, usually through illegal activities such as prostitution and drug smuggling on behalf of the transnational crime syndicates that organise their illegal entry to Australia. Their servitude can also take other forms, such as loan sharking, protection rackets, money laundering operations, importation and distribution of narcotics, kidnapping, fraud, vice, extortion, contract killing, slave trading and the tragic practice of child prostitution. The Sydney Morning Herald has reported that hundreds of new brothels have opened across Sydney. Estimates put forward by the federal government department suggest that there are up to 300 sex slaves in Australia, the majority of whom are illegal immigrants who have originally come from the South-East Asian region. Clearly, transnational organised crime has become a major international epidemic, continually evolving and keeping abreast of technological advancements. As new business and economic opportunities surface, the tentacles of organised crime are never far away. Organised crime gangs have an incredible ability not only to adapt to change but also to expand through the most recent and superior technology. We need to keep at least one step ahead of people smugglers. The minister for immigration, Philip Ruddock, is doing a fantastic job of fighting illegal immigration in the face of Labor's soft touch approach to people smugglers. I will be interested in whether my friend allays our fears about Labor's soft touch approach to people smugglers in his contribution. I fear he will probably not.The policies of the former Labor government combined to produce the problem we have today. The Labor Party need to bear responsibility for that, and in this entire debate they have sought to push off the responsibility to everyone else. The reality is that, before 1983, people smugglers were dealt with by the Fraser government in a fashion that is entirely different from the system the Howard government inherited in 1996. The former Labor government disengaged Australia's interpretation of the term `persecution' by defining a refugee using the definition of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the convention on refugees. Labor defined the term `persecution' differently and created the circumstances that allowed the courts to define it in a much broader, uncertain and open-ended manner. That made Australia a soft target for people smugglers bringing their cargo of misery. The coalition have attempted to change this, but we have been thwarted at every turn by Labor and their soft touch attitude. They have pledged to support this legislation, but we all know that they are only supporting it because they feel they have to. If they win government, they will roll it back just as they claim they will roll back so much of the coalition's agenda. Their heart is not in what they are doing. They are simply trying to push this issue off the agenda because they know that their position is monumentally unpopular amongst the Australian public. The Keating government's other great failing in immigration policy was to put in place opportunities for refugees to appeal administrative decisions to the Federal Court. Those appeals clogged up the Federal Court system and cost Australian taxpayers millions and millions of dollars, because we provided legal aid to the lawyers who represented refugee applicants in the Federal Court. The Keating government also compromised our immigration program by creating the impression amongst some ethnic communities that they would be favoured for family reunion places under the migration program in exchange for the tacit understanding that the Labor Party would get support at the ballot box. This led to the position in 1996 where seven out of every eight people coming to Australia under the migration program were under the family reunion category, because the Labor Party were using it as a political tool to try to increase their votes amongst ethnic communities. That changed the program from a sophisticated, fair-minded one to a disgraceful political rort.Nobody wants to see people who are fleeing their homes for a better life turned away, but we need to ensure that those people who do seek refuge here are refugees. We need to take into account that in refugee camps in the Sudan, Albania, Macedonia and Afghanistan there are refugees patiently waiting. Some may never get here and some may lose their lives in those camps because of people who have jumped the queue, because of people who could afford to fly themselves to Malaysia, Indonesia or the Philippines. As I said earlier in my speech, the fact that they have money does not indicate that they are not refugees, but it does indicate that they are able to jump the queue of people who have not got money. We have to question whether it is fair and reasonable to place those refugees whom we cannot see in a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis those whom we can see. People in camps in places like the Sudan and Kenya are denied a position here because of the policies of the Labor Party. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the ticker to restore the integrity of Australia's immigration program. It is clear he is having problems with the member for Throsby after his speech today. The member for Throsby did everything other than say he was going to vote against this bill.This bill makes provision for the minister for immigration to consider situations where a person does not have appropriate or reasonable identification or where a person refuses to make an oath or affirmation about the truth of the information they have provided. This bill is about giving the minister for immigration and the department the power that they need to ensure that we restore people's faith in the integrity of the immigration system—something that Labor have opposed root and branch for the last 5½ years, and they are being dragged kicking and screaming to support it today. I am sure many members of the Labor Party are looking forward to the opportunity to roll this back if they win the election.The bill will also stop the refugees convention being interpreted in broad and general terms that allow people without genuine grounds to obtain refugee status. `Persecution' will be defined as `an appropriate test of serious harm'. This legislation will also deal with the problem of people illegally entering Australia without identification and documentation. There are of course instances where people have a legitimate reason for not having a document in their possession. Some, however, have clearly had documents for the first leg of their journey and have deliberately disposed of them en route to Australia. The provisions of this bill provide that the lack of identity documentation may be the basis for drawing adverse inferences about a person's claimed identity, nationality and citizenship.These measures will restore integrity to Australia's immigration program and our refugee program—a humanitarian contribution of which we can all be proud. Every illegal arrival costs the Australian taxpayer around $50,000. Australia has resettled 600,000 refugees in the last 50 years. We resettle more refugees on a per capita basis than any other country except Canada, and we resettle twice the number per capita that the United States does. Australia is proudly one of only nine countries that have a formal program to resettle refugees in consultation with the UNHCR. But the most effective long-term means of controlling illegal people-smuggling is for Australia to continue to develop its political and economic leadership role in the Asian region. A paper produced by the Institute for the Study of International Migration, which is based at Georgetown University in Washington, noted: ... stabilising economic growth and democracy may be the most effective long-term means of reducing migration pressures.There is no off the shelf panacea for the problems of illegal immigration and people-smuggling. The Labor Party does not have the ticker or the policies to fix it. Only the coalition is prepared to develop a holistic and coordinated approach to tackle the illegal immigration problem in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.12:29:0031116Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I think the Goebbels principle of communication is that you state a lie and you constantly repeat it in the hope that people will believe the lie. I have heard better contributions from the member for Sturt than the one he just made.In rising to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001, I want to start by saying that we are a country of immigrants. I have seen no publication that suggests that we have any future without future immigration. I would like to remind everyone that 12 months ago we celebrated the Olympic Games. We put on show Australia and our multicultural society, and I think the world stood up and took note. It was said to have been the best Olympic Games. The opening ceremony, which impressed everyone, paraded what a great and diverse nation we are.We are now seeing one segment of our community of many nationalities—that is, those of the Muslim faith—under some pressure. I have been a member of parliament for 16 years, and in recent times I have had an Islamic school in my electorate. I went there last Friday to specifically indicate my support for them. I have three mosques in my electorate—one Turkish, one Pakistani and one Ahmadiyya Muslim—and I celebrate the contributions that those of diverse backgrounds believing in the Muslim faith make to my community in Penrith City and Blacktown and, indeed, make to Australia. We ought not to put all that at risk. We have a bright future by continuing to support immigration and by celebrating the diversity of our people.One would believe, listening to some of the contributions, that all the problems of asylum seekers actually rest with the Australian Labor Party, as though we had been in government for not only 13 years previously but also a further five years. Yet, if you examine the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs's own statistics, you find that they tell a very different story. In the last 10 years 12,700-odd so-called illegal asylum seekers have arrived on our shores. Nearly 10,000 of those have occurred while Mr Ruddock and this government have been in power. I note that we have few members in the chamber, but some officials.The principal issue is this: how do you stop these asylum seekers? The member for Sturt says that the Labor Party is soft on people smugglers. Who are the people smugglers that this government is arresting, charging and detaining? I will tell you who they are, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash: they are the captains of Indonesian fishing boats. They are the fishermen who are sailors on Indonesian fishing boats who have been paid, not very much money, to carry these people to Australia. Has Australia arrested one people smuggler? We have arrested people once the people smugglers have got all the money out of them—that is, once the people have left the shores and are in the boats—but we have not arrested the real organisers. If you want to stop people-smuggling—and we will never be able to stop it or eliminate it totally—the action you take at sea matters little; it is what you do in the country. Why then were so many officials in Australian embassies and high commissions cut out? Why were those positions eliminated and now have to be put back? Was that sensible? Of course it was not. Let us look at the figures from Mr Ruddock's own publication. Of that figure of 12,700-odd that I referred to, three per cent arrived in 1996-97, one per cent arrived in 1997-98, seven per cent arrived in 1998-99, 33 per cent arrived in 1999-2000 and, to date, 36 per cent have arrived since 2000. That has been under the watch of this government. The impotence in this issue rests not with the opposition but with the government. Why don't we have in place with Indonesia a system that allows us to deal with the problem in Indonesia rather than having all these boats coming to Australia? It is not because of the Australian Labor Party; it is because of the government. They are very tough on the fishermen; why don't they get tough with the people smugglers? Why doesn't the government try to develop international cooperative arrangements where you can actually arrest the people smugglers, charge them and jail them as they deserve? But this government is tough on fishermen and tough on the captains and soft on the real organisers.There is another figure to which I would like to refer. If you look at the figures for 2000-01, I think the age make-up of people in detention centres gives you an interesting picture. Fifteen per cent of those in our detention centres—who, by and large, are asylum seekers who have come by boat—are 17 years of age or younger and often unaccompanied; nine per cent are 18 to 20 years old; 20 per cent are 21 to 25 years old; and 19 per cent are 26 to 30 years old. By and large, these are very young people, often unaccompanied. Out of a population of 7,881, there were 417 females and 730 males 17 years or age or younger.We have such `high moral ground' taken as the Minister for Defence suggesting that among the asylum seekers are terrorists. In a desperate effort to link the tragedy that constituted the aeroplane attacks in New York, he suggested that somehow terrorists are choosing to come via boat to Australia. That is an absolutely absurd proposition. From what one can gather to date, the terrorists were in deep cover for many years and arrived legitimately. So I think that proposition ought to be discarded straightaway.Government member after government member has said, `We really feel compassion for people who are legitimately in the camps in Pakistan and elsewhere.' Let us see what money we are spending on them. This year we gave to UNHCR $14 million. We have spent $20 million in probably the most corrupt Pacific administration—that is, Nauru. So we are giving more to Nauru than we are to the people in the camps. We are spending on a system of absolute waste, in my view. The detention centre policy is costing us $100 million a year. The Sydney Morning Herald is suggesting that our defence efforts to date, and those of other agencies, are costing $110 million. So we do not actually have a per annum figure. But just remember what we are giving to UNHCR: $14 million.It is absurd to suggest that if the Labor Party gets into government it is going to go soft or want to in some way welcome asylum seekers who come here by boat. Why would we? It was not a problem on our watch. The problem has been with Minister Ruddock. But, as good as it gets, we will always have people coming to Australia as asylum seekers. There has been much done to denigrate them. I would like to quote some figures from a publication put out by a friend of mine, Phil Glendenning, from the Edmund Rice Centre for Justice and Community Education and the School of Education at the Australian Catholic University. It is said that Australia is exceptionally generous with refugees. I think we are a generous people, but if you look at the figures you can see that Tanzania hosts one refugee for every 76 of its people; Britain hosts one refugee for every 530 British people; and Australia hosts one refugee for every 1,583 Australian people. I do not know where we get this absurd claim that we are the best. I think we do well. I am not trying to denigrate what we are doing, but I do not think we should try to pretend that we are the best.The biggest single problem we have with migration is actually the 58,000 visitor visa overstayers. I note that the member for Forrest appears to be the next contributor on the government side. I would be most indebted to him if he would tell me what signal those 58,000 visitor visa overstayers are sending, because this has been a policy allegedly driven by signals. We have to send signals back to the rest of the world. The member for Throsby pointed out the contrasts. We have 58,000 visitor visa overstayers. In the United States of America, that great democracy, according to the year 2000 census they had 11 million people without proper papers. That is a problem of a hugely different magnitude. In relation to illegals arriving, the report on the detention centres gives the comparisons of what different countries have to put up with, of what they are being subjected to. Bear in mind that in the year 2000 we had 2,688 people arrive, which was the dimension of our problem. But in the same year, the Netherlands had 43,000. I think the Netherlands is a country that we can relate to population-wise. The UK had about 100,000 and Germany had 78,000. Sure, there is a problem with refugees entering countries, particularly developed countries, but our problem is so much smaller than others have. If we are going to dry up this problem as best we can, we need to work offshore. I know it is probably a bit of a discredited defence proposition but it is forward defence: you do it in Indonesia. Put your effort and resources there, work with the Indonesian government and get the system up and running, and I am sure we will be significantly more effective than we otherwise have been with this current problem. But I have no doubt that, five years down the track, we will have the dimensions of a different problem that will require a different solution. I want to say that I support these measures that have been introduced. I wish that I had been given an opportunity to speak a little on what our position would be when the previous bills were introduced.I apologise for not pointing this out, but I did want to say that, in that figure of 2,688 arrivals by boat in the year 2000, there were 987 Iraqis, 849 from Afghanistan, 464 from Iran and 130 from Palestine. Indonesia was next at 54, and then it drops away significantly. I have spoken to some of my constituents about the problem, and they have made their views pretty well known to me. But it was interesting that, of those people who had seen the Four Corners program on Afghanistan and had started to understand the nature of that regime, there was a lot of sympathy for the proposition that people would want to escape out of Afghanistan. There was also a lot of sympathy for the proposition that at least one member of a family should survive, and that is why we often get unaccompanied minors coming over—they have been chosen by the family or the community as the one to survive. When they get here, they are not seen as criminals and they are not seen as terrorists; they are not seen as anything except genuine refugees. I do not have a lot of time, so I will sum up this way. It is understandable that we want to minimise the number of people arriving here by boat. I also think that we do need some international action and cooperation to deal with people smugglers. I think it is a pity that at the moment the full force of the law applies to fishing captains and fishermen who crew these vessels rather than to the people who are taking all the money and doing all the organising. I think this government is pretty soft on these people. When I say we should crack down on people smugglers, I do not mean the little fish at the end of the chain; I mean the real organisers. That presents us with some difficulties but, with goodwill and international cooperation, perhaps we can achieve it. Let us not pull any punches. Let us have the full force of the law apply to them. The Labor Party unambiguously support this legislation, as we have supported the previous bills. In the last 10 years when we were in government, we did not have this problem. The problem is the significant numbers—more than 12,000—that have arrived over the last 10 years; 10,000 of them since Phillip Ruddock has been the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. If there has been a failure, it has been on the watch of the government. If there is a failure of ministerial action, it has been that of the minister for immigration. If it is a failure of departmental action, it is that of the department of immigration. We have supported these measures. We do not think the government is going far enough. We do not think the government is doing enough in terms of coastal surveillance. That is why we advocate a coastguard. We believe a lot can be done offshore; forward defence, if you like. I am sure that when Labor get into government those are the sorts of things we will do. We will not eliminate the problem but we will reduce it significantly, as we did when we were in government. 12:49:0031119Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10— Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 addresses two very important issues: the integrity of our immigration program as it relates to illegal immigrants who manipulate our system; and the Federal Court, which aids them with its out of control interpretations as to what is a refugee. There is no doubt that people smugglers and international criminal gangs are preying on Australia's generosity to refugees. Every time Australia does something like trying to improve processing times, it is another angle that people smugglers use to market and promote their services.The smuggling operations coach their illegal, queue-jumping cargo on our processes and procedures and how best to manipulate our processes to maximise their chances of gaining a temporary protection visa. This is nothing but exploitation of our generosity and goodwill. My communities have no problem with accepting refugees but, like me, they think of refugees as people who are being persecuted. They think of refugees as people who are forced to flee in fear of their lives—people who are unable to eat and to gain medical supplies and unable to live because of the sustained persecution they suffer. This is our understanding of a refugee, which is why the people and I resent illegal immigrants, who are essentially bypassing legitimate queues of people in desperate need of Australia's protection.These so-called asylum seekers or illegal immigrants have packed up, sold up, gathered the family together, purchased airline tickets to a transit country such as Malaysia or Singapore to make their way to Indonesia, and paid people smugglers as much as $16,000 per person for a place on a boat to Australia. I bet there are no discounts for women and children! The communities and I cannot understand how people who can afford this sort of money could reasonably be considered as refugees. These are not people fleeing the border on foot, von Trapp family style; these are people making calculated decisions about which country will best give them a chance of protection. If they are in fear to such a degree, why Australia? Why not Indonesia, why not Malaysia, why not an office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees? I will tell you why not. It is because they know perfectly well that what they are doing is illegal—that they are not refugees. We as a government and a parliament should be doing all we can to curtail this.The figures so often quoted by the minister have astounded the Australian community. When the UNHCR processes Afghans in Indonesia, 14 per cent are approved. In Australia, the same case load has an approval rate of 84 per cent. This has proven to be a people-smuggling gang's dream. We hear a lot about rights in the illegals debate. Here is one more: it is Australia's sovereign right to ensure that the United Nations convention is implemented, as the minister said, both responsibly and consistently. To date, this has just not been the case.This legislation defines persecution, which, as might reasonably expected, is a key principle in considering refugees' claims. It is not defined in the convention and until now has been undefined in the Migration Act. The result of that is that federal judges have been making decisions about refugees which are well beyond what Australia signed up to in the convention and well beyond what the community accepts as fair. The bill provides that persecution must involve serious harm to the person, and it must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct. It further defines serious harm as a threat to the person's life or liberty; significant physical harassment of the person; significant physical ill-treatment of the person; significant economic hardship that threatens the person's capability to subsist; denial of access to basic services, which threatens the person's capacity to subsist; and denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, which threatens the person's capacity to subsist. With these clear definitions set out in the legislation, the people that I represent hope that we will see an end to decisions by the Federal Court whereby people who cannot find job satisfaction in their home countries or who have not paid their family debts are deemed to be refugees and given temporary protection visas. The bill requires that to gain protection there must be an essential and significant reason to fear persecution. The reasons named in the convention include race, religion, nationality and membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Requiring that the reason must be essential or significant to claim protection from persecution will stop the court from interpreting people as being persecuted because they have not paid their debts. Debt collection, as best I know, is not a crime against humanity.Significantly, the bill also provides that conduct occurring after arrival can be disregarded when considering whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution. Some illegal immigrants have deliberately engaged in behaviour to persuade the government and the courts to accept their claims for refugee status. Now conduct will be taken into consideration only if it is for a purpose other than to strengthen the refugee's claim, with the burden of proof resting on the applicant seeking refugee status. Perhaps now we will see an end to the violence and sometimes abuse that is perpetrated by illegal immigrants in detention centres to further their claims. These actions are not just deceitful; they put at risk the lives of our fellow Australians who work with illegal immigrants at the detention centres.The bill also seeks to provide a definition of non-political crime. Under the convention, a person is not recognised as a refugee if they have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country which they seek protection from. The bill defines a non-political crime as being one where the motives for committing the crime were wholly or mainly of a non-political nature. In addition, it spells out that certain offences are deemed to be non-political, no matter what their motive. These include hijacking or endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight, a ship or a fixed offshore platform; genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide; hostage taking; tortures; and murder, kidnapping or other attacks on a foreign head of state, to name just a few. This is particularly important when considering the security implications of protecting our borders, which have been brought into sharp focus in recent days.We have to face facts. There are currently 11 people in immigration detention centres who have failed to clear the security test or who have been screened out because there are concerns about their previous activities in relation to crimes against humanity. Should they appeal, it is possible that their heinous crimes have been determined as political in motivation, and it is very possible that we would have no choice but to accept them into our community. I again state that we have a sovereign right as a nation to interpret the convention to protect our borders and, importantly, to protect Australian citizens. These measures should give better direction to the Federal Court judges, and bring decisions more into line with the expectations of a refugee in the community and what they are considered to be under the law.The bill also puts an end to multiple applications by a person applying for a protection visa. Currently, a person who has had their application for a visa refused may not lodge another application. The bill extends this current provision to include when a visa has been cancelled, not just when it has been refused. The bill also ensures that the round robin activity of applying for protection visas by illegal immigrants is cut off. The minister mentioned this never ending application process, where family groups wanting to stay take it in turns to lodge protection applications while the others apply as family members.The bill also deals with the vexed issue of dealing with illegal immigrants who have no identification papers. Given that the vast majority of illegal immigrants, particularly boat people, do not have any documents, it would seem to be some kind of ploy. When illegal immigrants, particularly those who travel by boat to Indonesia, leave their country of origin, they must have travelled through a number of transit countries to get to their destination. My understanding is that that travel usually involves air travel. I point out to the House that to get that far they must have had identification papers and documentation before they got to Indonesia. So why does it suddenly disappear en masse between Indonesia and Australia, time after time, boat load after boat load? You would think that they would want to bring the papers with them. After all, it would help us to identify them, verify their stories and basically sustain their arguments of persecution. We know they had them. What exactly have they done with them? What have they got to hide? The bill permits the minister to request an applicant for a protection visa to produce documentary evidence of his or her identity, nationality or citizenship; and if the applicant or illegal immigrant refuses, then the minister may draw reasonable inference unfavourable to the same applicant's identity, nationality or citizenship. In other words, prove who you say you are. That is the very least we should be asking for. We need to be certain that people to whom we grant protection are who they say they are. A refusal to comply with this reasonable request would indicate that the illegal immigrant has something to hide.The bill also permits the minister to request an oath or affirmation that information that is supplied to the department is true. I have to say that I was shocked that this is not already the case. An illegal immigrant wanting a protection visa will now have to swear an oath or an affirmation that the information in the visa application is true; and when an illegal immigrant is refused clearance they will have to provide a sworn oath or affirmation that the information they gave during the clearance process or after being refused was true. Neither of these is an unreasonable request.Nothing in this bill is unreasonable. Yet we still have such groups as Amnesty International, the Australian Democrats and the Labor Party criticising parts of it. They ask, `Why are we taking these people there?' What is the problem? We are not exactly taking these people out to flog them. We are merely asking them to affirm that what they are telling us is the truth. If so many of them had not been engaged in deceitful and manipulative actions, this would not have to be the case. As a government and as a people we have a right to say that this behaviour is an abuse of the system and that it has to stop. We are all perfectly prepared to do whatever it takes to clamp down on tax avoiders and on welfare rorters, but when it comes to what needs to be done for illegal immigrants to enter the system and deal with us honestly, I have to say that we have a way to go. What the government is proposing here is not only reasonable but essential.I heard Minister Ruddock talking the other day about information he had received about people from Pakistan and other countries who had gained protection visas under the guise of being Afghans. Let us call a spade a spade: this is fraud. I want the Australian community to have confidence in our immigration program. I want the program to contain balance and, most of all, I want Australia's immigration program in the hands and under the control of people lawfully entitled to administer it—not in the hands of people smugglers, not in the hands of people who think it is easier to enter the country illegally, to compromise our security and gain protection under false pretences.I do not think this is unreasonable, nor do the people living in my electorate, and I am convinced that the Australian people basically support what the government is doing one hundred per cent. It is an affront to honest, decent, hardworking Australians that they must fund a never-ending process of appeals and class actions which this year alone will cost some $15 million and next year is expected to rise to some $20 million. That is why the community and I support the judicial review bill—because, quite frankly, I think the money could be better spent on Australians in need. To the Labor Party's shame, they opposed the previous bill. The Australian community will not forget that betrayal in a hurry either, I might add.. By opposing the bill, those on the opposite side indicated that their priorities are in favour of queue jumpers having more rights than the Australian people or the judicial system. I understand that the Labor Party will now be supporting the bill, although obviously the truest test will be in the Senate. I could not help but note comments by an unnamed opposition frontbencher who said that people are sick of being wedged and that the Labor Party would come back and `fix this after we get into government.' Finally, I indicate again that my electorate supports overwhelmingly this bill and all attempts to strengthen our borders and put an end to the abuse of the migration system by queue jumpers. 13:04:0031122Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The package of immigration legislation currently being debated in this parliament is as important as any issue that has been discussed in this House in the last five years while I have been proud to have been the member for Greenway. This being part of a package of bills, it is very difficult to speak on the bill—which details one aspect of the overall migration system—without speaking about the issues in general and the raft of legislation on the issue that we have dealt with so far this week.The debate yesterday was gagged on the Border Protection Bill 2001, as it was on the issues excising Christmas Island and Cocos Island from the migration zone. There is also the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001, which I understand is being debated in the Main Committee today. This seems to be an all-consuming issue at the moment. Public sentiment is very high and very mixed on the issue. This particular bill, which works on changing the definition of the word `refugee', will be supported by the opposition.I will say this: the refugee problem that we face, as a nation and globally, will not be solved by a piece of legislation such as the one we are discussing this afternoon. We cannot simply say that the problems of 60 million people who are living in appalling conditions in camps around the world, or the problems of the thousands who undertake long and hazardous journeys on leaking boats, are not refugee problems simply because we have changed the definition of `refugee'. These people will continue to live in camps and will continue to come to our shores in boats. This legislation solves a political problem; it does nothing to solve the humanitarian problem that exists. Changing the definition and closing our eyes will not make the problem go away.In giving consideration to this piece of legislation, one needs to complement the views that have been expressed by our constituents with the humanitarian considerations of the people who are arriving on our shores as illegal immigrants. Certainly, the vast majority of people who have contacted my office support tighter restrictions on the entry of illegal immigrants; there is no question about that. A number also expressed concern about the human rights of refugees. I quote from an email that I have received from a constitutent in Kings Langley, which is a suburb in my electorate:We believe that illegal immigrants should be stopped. However, we also believe that Australia could and should accept more refugees than at present through proper channels.I think that is a view with which we would all agree. Most people who have contacted my office agree with the stance that the ALP has taken in supporting the government's position of two or three weeks ago: firstly, refusing the entry by the Tampa into Australian waters; secondly, that the refugees concerned should be returned to Indonesia, where they came from; and, thirdly, supporting the action in ordering the SAS to board the Tampa when it entered Australian waters off Christmas Island. My constituents felt that the government was acting legally, and therefore supported the Labor Party's position in supporting the government's position. Most people also understood, once it was explained to them, why the ALP did not support the Border Protection Bill 2001. That was because the opposition—and those on both sides of the parliament, I might add—did not have sufficient time to consider the bill. It was obvious that even a cabinet minister, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, during the debate in the House, did not understand the implications of the legislation. On Friday, 31 August, the Financial Review reported: But not all government members and senators were as upbeat, especially after the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, had given the Coalition party room just seven minutes to “discuss” the Border Protection Bill on Wednesday night, after Cabinet earlier backed the legislative draft.We did not hear anything about the lack of discussion on the government side relating to that piece of legislation. That did not come out. The Financial Review article continued:“It's pretty draconian legislation,” one Coalition MP said. Others welcomed the fact that the Senate—in the early hours of Thursday morning—had rejected the bill. One Liberal moderate—and aren't they few and far between—described it as “policy on the run” and expressed relief it had sunk without trace.Government members and senators were given seven minutes to discuss a bill which had huge ramifications. Did those coalition MPs who thought the legislation was draconian speak out against it during that seven minutes or in the later debate? I do not think so. The coalition had seven minutes; opposition backbenchers had less. When the bill was debated in the Senate some hours after it had been dealt with in the House, the ALP Senate leader, Senator Faulkner, did not have a copy of the bill.Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, you and I were sitting on this side of the House when the bill was being debated and we did not have a copy of it either. It was distributed during the debate. When I got a copy of the bill, it was still hot; it had just been run off the photocopier. How could we be expected to act responsibly in supporting that bill, irrespective of whether it was the best bill in the world, which we have now established that it was not? It would have been quite irresponsible for the ALP to have supported such legislation sight unseen, but it appears that many people on the other side were prepared to do so.We learnt later, however, that it probably would not have mattered, because the bill would have been struck down in the High Court anyway. The Attorney-General's own office confirmed that sections of the bill were unconstitutional and would not have stood up to scrutiny. As I said in my press release on 31 August, Labor wants a bipartisan approach to this issue and would have been willing to support the legislation that dealt directly with the problems associated with the MV Tampa; however, this was not what was presented to the parliament.The new Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001 passed by the parliament yesterday is the Border Protection Bill 2001 in name only. The bill that was debated yesterday is a very different one from that which was introduced at such short notice by the government seeking to exploit the unfortunate situation of the people on the Tampa for cheap political points. The parliament must balance the human rights of the refugees seeking to enter Australia and the human rights of the refugees stuck in appalling conditions in refugee camps around the world who are endeavouring to migrate to Australia by legal means. So what is the difference between the new Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill and the one that was introduced before? In short, everything. Labor had a number of concerns about the original Border Protection Bill. We were concerned that the original bill overrode all other laws without qualifications. The new bill specifically acknowledges the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of administrative action—in other words, the government has adopted Labor's position.Labor was concerned that the original bill allowed Australian authorities to put people back on leaky and unseaworthy boats, push them back beyond Australian territorial limits and leave them to their fate. We have been told that no reasonable, responsible person would have that; nevertheless, that was in the legislation. The new bill, fortunately, has a specific prohibition on returning people to an unseaworthy and unsafe craft—in other words, the government again has adopted Labor's position.The Labor Party pointed out that the original bill was so broad that Australian vessels and citizens could have been affected, could have been denied entry into their own territorial waters. This has been rectified in the new bill—in other words, the government has adopted Labor's position again. Labor was concerned that a vessel could be expelled without a safe haven being found and could be forced to float aimlessly around the high seas as a result. With the change to the zoning arrangements removing Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands from the Australian migration zone, we will now be able to use these as safe havens, allowing applicants to be dealt with by the UNHCR but not having access to Australian migration legislation—in other words, the government has again adopted Labor's position. Do you see the trend, Mr Deputy Speaker? The government has virtually adopted the position we took when we opposed the original legislation. The government attacked Labor for its stance over the Border Protection Bill but we have been utterly vindicated by the government's backdown and the introduction of the new bill. Richard Glover, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald on 1 September, said:I find it hard to think of a political crime much worse than fanning racism and fear, with the goal of self interest, but that seems to be life at the Mad Hatters Tea Party.I wholeheartedly concur with Mr Glover on this point. I believe that it is important to protect our borders. We all believe in that. It is important to have some control over who enters our country but it is also important to be humane and to be tolerant of other people's beliefs. To simply suggest that all people who come here by boat are people who would not qualify as immigrants to this country is really taking the wrong position. It is also important to live up to the obligations that we have taken on in the form of international treaties on refugees that we have signed and ratified. It is also important to put this so-called crisis into perspective. Australia has a population of 19 million people. We face around 4,500 illegal boat people each year. Many other countries have a far greater problem. Britain, for example, faces about 60,000 illegal asylum seekers each year, and the figure is even higher for Germany.I urge members to read the Mike Seccombe article which was in the Sydney Morning Herald on 11 September entitled `Do the sums—it doesn't add up'. According to the article, the current Nauru option is going to cost some 3.3 times as much as it would have done had refugees been processed onshore—that is, $112 million as opposed to $33.5 million. He points out that the military exercise is costing around $3 million each and every day this issue drags on. People could have been processed much quicker and then, if necessary, deported, or allowed into Australia, had this money been spent in a different way. As the title of the article says, it does not add up—unless you understand what is behind this policy. What is behind the policy is of course a cheap, cynical and shameful pre-election stunt. This is a government that has spent literally millions of taxpayers' dollars on advertising its own political and re-election policies, so what is a few million dollars more?The talkback radio hosts and tabloid newspapers have whipped up a race driven frenzy, and the Prime Minister has ridden it for all it is worth. Australia is all about inclusiveness. This is not about division. We are and have always been a multicultural country. Before European settlements, there were hundreds of cultures and thousands of languages spoken in this land by our indigenous ancestors. When the first wave of boat people arrived in 1788, there were people of Italian as well as British heritage. There were both Christians and Jews aboard the First Fleet. This nation has been built by migrants of every nationality, every skin colour and every religion since. As a society, we have always believed in tolerance and acceptance. Unfortunately, debate over asylum seekers is testing our society immensely on this issue. This package of bills, one of which we are discussing here this afternoon, will not stop the thousands of refugees fleeing from the persecution they face in their own homelands. The bill will allow us to deal with them once they arrive, but they will not stop coming. If you had to live under the rule of the Taliban, you would want out by any means possible as well. Intelligence reports suggest that there are thousands of asylum seekers getting ready to embark from Indonesia. We all agree that this is far too high a figure for Australia to accept, bearing in mind that once these people reach our shores they can be locked up in internment camps behind barbed wire and fight the legal system for years. Australia has played its part in accepting refugees since well before the Second World War, and we will continue to do so, provided that our immigration system is open and transparent and despite the best efforts of our political and cynically motivated Prime Minister and government.We are a generous people. Last week a lady rang me and said that she and her husband had just adopted an African baby and she wanted to adopt the baby's sister and brother, because, in her view, their lifespans were otherwise going to be quite restricted. She asked me for advice, and I gave her the appropriate advice. In spite of our generosity, many Australians are worried—and rightly so—about our infrastructure and its ability to cope. There have been corporate collapses. We need a great deal of work done on rebuilding our public hospital system and our public education system, and we need to provide employment opportunities. These are the things that are really worrying Australians. They see the unrestricted entry of refugees or even sometimes a high migrant intake as placing additional strain on the essential services that are so vital to their children and their children's welfare. I think one of the concerns that have been expressed by the general public is that when money is spent on illegal immigrants it may be taken away from these essential services. Quite frankly, while this may be true in the short term, there is ample evidence that migrants and particularly refugees contribute greatly to our economy.I believe immigration is good for the country if it goes hand in hand with economic growth and the expansion of community infrastructure—and I think we may be a little bit worried as to whether we have that, with the collapse of Ansett and the other collapses which have occurred under this government. Our immigration policies and decisions relating to asylum seekers have to be carefully explained to the Australian people. Policy on the run, as with the original Border Protection Bill, is not the way to go. I am rather surprised that people are taking issue with the stance we took on the Border Protection Bill because no self-respecting opposition—or backbencher or government member—could support any bill that they did not have time to give consideration to. I wonder whether there is evidence that government members had as little time to consider that bill as we had—and I would be interested to hear what the honourable member for Mitchell has to say on this issue and whether he will tell us just how much time he had to consider the bill. It is hard to hold—and this is the big problem we have got—a calm and rational debate in an environment of animosity and fear. Unfortunately, we need such a debate on this issue, but there is now an environment where emotions have overtaken reason and the facts have been lost in the smokescreens that have been put up.This is one of the most important pieces of legislation we have debated. It is also one of the most difficult. We are here as representatives of our community, but our communities are divided. There is one section of the community calling for boat people to be sent back and there are also many within the community who are calling for compassion and acceptance of those fleeing repressive regimes. Our community is divided and, when a community is divided, as it is on this issue, it is incumbent upon us as representatives to show leadership. We cannot pander to the worst in our community. We cannot sink the ships from under the refugees. Equally, we cannot simply open the floodgates and let everybody in. We must take the time necessary, debate the issues rationally and find a middle ground. This was not done by the government when the original Border Protection Bill was introduced, but no doubt they had an eye on the election and the Prime Minister thought there was some advantage to be gained in the way he introduced the bill.The bills now before the House, one of which we are talking about, are a response to reasonable and legitimate community concerns. The original Border Protection Bill was not. The government should take a lesson from this debacle: act responsibly, debate the issues and include the opposition—and you will get a bipartisan position. Act in haste and without consultation and you will not get support. This is an issue for all the community, not simply one side of politics. It is an issue that demands bipartisanship and Labor has been willing all along to act in such a fashion. I will conclude by simply saying that the passing of this border protection bill has vindicated the Labor Party and the stance we took on the original bill. We have moved the process forward and we will continue to work in a bipartisan way on these issues, as we are in this legislation, in order to bring about a solution to this problem. 13:23:0031126Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10— The honourable member for Greenway, who has just resumed his seat, is part of an opposition that opposed on four occasions a sensible tightening of the appeal and legal processes that apply to refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. He has supported an opposition which has sought to thwart the government at every step in its attempt to impose a sensible legal review system of applications before the courts from those who have had their cases rejected. He has done that as part of an opposition which has, on four occasions, sought to thwart the government, to stop the government putting in place a compassionate and sensible program.Over the last 12 months the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has sought to bring to this House changes that any realistic and sensible person would endorse. The member for Greenway has, despite his commonsense, voted against those propositions on every occasion. He cannot come into this House and say, `This border protection measure is poorly thought out and we reject it because there's been no sensible debate.' There has been debate on many occasions. The fact of the matter is that the Australian Labor Party has, for the first time, felt the force of public opinion on the Tampa affair. They can see what the public wants the Australian government to do to control its own borders. The Australian people are sick and tired of the legal cost. They are sick and tired of the processes that can be used by people who have been rejected. They are sick and tired of the demands that those who have no real claim, the queue jumpers, want to impose on the Australian community. They want a change.The Australian people are fair-minded, non-racist and fair. They are compassionate and thoughtful. The people they want to come here are those who fit the criteria and who have been properly assessed; those who may have been waiting for years in refugee camps under appalling circumstances. These people cannot be compared with the people who can raise $5,000 or $10,000 or $20,000 to pay some entrepreneur to jump on their boat and come to Australia. The people who Australians want to support are those desperate individuals in camps in the Sudan and in Afghanistan, not Pakistanis who have been able to find the dough to pay for some boat to bring them to Australia. I do not know what the Australian Labor Party felt they were supporting. They have soft hearts and soft heads, because the fact of the matter is that the minister has been fair and compassionate in everything that he has sought to do here in this House. His intentions have been corrupted by people such as the member for Denison, who is at the table, and the member for Bowman, the shadow minister for immigration.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—It has nothing to do with it.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—The legislation has gone to the Senate and of course the Australian Labor Party and the Democrats have said, `No, we don't want Australia to have a reasonable system. We want to give people endless access, at the cost of legal aid, to Australian ports.'RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. The member is talking about legislation not before the House. I have been a tolerant person in relation to my responsibilities, but the bills actually before the House are the border protection legislation. The matters the member is speaking on have nothing to do with the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001. 10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)— There is no point of order. We are discussing the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—Yes, but it's the border—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! We have allowed a wide ranging debate on this and the other bills.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—It was more a point than a point of order.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—A very good one.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—It is a matter of where you stand on this issue, because you were one of those instrumental in causing the confusion within your own party about where it stood on border protection, management of our migration flow, refugee assessment and our legal system and the way in which people can make endless appeals to the court, and ultimately to the High Court, supported by the generous Australian taxpayers, who did not want it going to this extent, who objected to it going to this extent. In relation to the border protection issue, I remind you that this vessel, the Tampa, that picked the asylum seekers up was heading for an Indonesian port at the invitation of the Indonesian government. It was only when those on board threatened the captain of that vessel that they would throw themselves overboard that he decided to change course for Australia. It was at that point that the Australian government rightly acted. It was only then that there was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to intervene in the Tampa issue and say, `That is far enough.'The legislation before the House today puts in place further border protection measures that the Australian people have wanted for a long time. It is only now, because there is a whiff of a possible election in the air and because of the diverse views within the Australian Labor Party, that the opposition can see, under force of public opinion, that it has to change its view.Alan Ramsey has got it right. The history of these measures goes back to the refugee convention of 1951. In Germany, they have legislation in place that allows the German government to refuse anybody who crosses the boundaries of a third safe country. We have tried to put that in place here. It has not worked because the third safe country generally happens to be Indonesia and it is impossible to have a satisfactory agreement with that country. We have been stuck with boat people turning up on our doorstep. They have been coming in as uninvited guests and we have given them opportunities to stay in Australia, protected by Australian law, paid for by Australian taxpayers, when there is no real claim. Gerry Hand, I think, was the minister who tried to tighten this process. He was basically unsuccessful. But the fact of the matter is that, if you apply the rules of the United Nations to these people in Indonesia, about 15 per cent of them fit the bill as refugees. The courts in Australia have manipulated their views on what they think is an asylum seeker or a refugee, encouraged by the Australian Labor Party, despite the attitudes of people like Gerry Hand when he was minister. Gerry Hand had a really good understanding. He was a compassionate man who wanted to make sure that people were properly dealt with. Yet the opposition, by denying the implementation of what their own government had in mind, denying this government the opportunity in the Senate, has allowed the courts to extend again and again the definitions of `asylum seeker' and `refugee' so that the same rules that get a 15 per cent refugee result in Indonesia, when applied in Australia mean that 83 per cent of those people are assessed as refugees. That is what the Australian courts have done—they have stretched those definitions. When Phillip Ruddock, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, tried to drag that back to a sensible consideration, the Australian Labor Party blocked it. They have blocked it time and time again. They voted against it in this House, and they then knocked it out in the Senate. So when the Tampa comes along, what does the government do but adopt a very sensible and firm approach. They say, `Listen, unless you can come in through the front door in the way that we want you to, you're not coming in through the window. Only thieves and people who want to abuse families living inside come in through the window. Come through the front door and we'll see whether you fit the criteria that apply fairly and equally to everybody, no matter what their race, religion, background or circumstances. If you fit the criteria of a refugee, you've got a chance of coming into Australia.' We are more generous than most countries. Only Canada can match our generosity in letting people into Australia as refugees. At last, public opinion has persuaded the Australian Labor Party. They are going to agree, not with the same law that they rejected a couple of weeks ago, but with a tougher law that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Phillip Ruddock, has brought into this place. These rules are tougher than the ones they voted against previously. Why are they doing this? Because they had a row and could hardly agree. Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, came into this House, flushed and agitated, to reject that legislation because he knew he had a divided party behind him. He knew that they were not totally in support of rejecting this legislation, but the numbers were there to reject it. But public opinion came out and said, `John Howard's got it right. Mate, we're backing John because he's got it right.' So the Prime Minister got it right, the Labor Party read the rules, and the minister, Phillip Ruddock, has brought in new legislation for the control of asylum seekers, and so the Australian Labor Party is backing tougher rules than they rejected just a couple of weeks ago.What are these rules about? What do they actually say? There are five bills. The first one cuts out Ashmore Reef, Cartier Island, Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands from Australia's immigration zone. So anybody landing in those places from now on would not be considered as a refugee, an applicant or anything else. They would not even come within the scope of the Immigration Act. They could not be considered in the same way as somebody landing on the mainland. Yet, at that time, the Australian Labor Party wanted MV Tampa to wind up on Australian soil so that those people could gain access to all the complicated legal processes that we have. It was only through the determination of the Prime Minister and the government that those people were kept out and told, `Line up and come through the front door, as you should.'The Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 removes the right of permanent residency from boat people. It introduces a new hierarchy of rights, a visa regime, in which those who go through the proper channels will be rewarded, while those who arrive illegally will be eligible for only restricted temporary visas. Labor support that idea. It was not there previously—it is tougher—but they support it now. Thank you, Australia, for telling them what you want. Thank you for sticking together and saying that the Australian government has a right to say who comes here and how they get here. People think they can get into any leaky old boat, pay some boatmen an exorbitant price to get here and then have the same rights as somebody sitting in a camp in Sudan or Pakistan. The people in those camps are in an awful situation—and we have seen them on television. The boat people are virile, well-fed young men with enough money to pay their way into Australia—to fly by aircraft to Singapore, or Malaysia more likely, and then catch a boat down here—and that is a different deal to the one that most Australians want to support. The border protection bill is broader than the bill the Labor Party opposed at the height of the Tampa crisis. It gives the government the right to turn around boats and send boat people to havens such as Nauru. People now support it. I understand that the House is really interested in these issues, and so are the members of the public, so I have been encouraged by the Chief Government Whip to pursue this matter even further. The fourth bill is the judicial review bill, and that was introduced in 1998. It seeks to stop people appealing against migration and Refugee Review Tribunal decisions to the Federal Court and the High Court. That has now been stopped at last. We can stop these people carrying their cases on and on and on—at extraordinary cost to the Australian taxpayer. At last, that drag on the generosity of the Australian people will be stopped. Thank you, Australian people, for backing the government and the Prime Minister on this issue. If an election were not in the air, the Labor Party would continue to oppose this bill and reject it in the Senate—as they have time and time again until now. This bill was introduced in 1998. It should have passed then. It did not pass. What were they doing on the opposition benches? They were trying to demonstrate that the government was incompetent in running the immigration program. They did not care about the outcomes. They just wanted to make the Australian government look as though it could not manage the immigration flow. So much for giving support to the tougher measures that they now support—a regime that will get results that are fair to everybody. Finally, the fifth piece of legislation involved in this process is the migration amendment bill, which seeks to tighten the definition of `refugee'. Again—surprise, surprise!—it is supported by the Australian Labor Party. I am very pleased that the government has introduced these measures. I am pleased that the Australian Labor Party, after two years of slow learning, delaying and seeking to disrupt the sensible management of immigration to Australia, has decided to support the government on these measures. These are tougher laws, and the headlines in the newspapers tell it all: `Australia toughens its barricade'; `Illegals face new clamp'; `Illegal immigration, unauthorised arrival'; `Legislative provisions restore integrity to refugee convention'; `Parliament waives refugee measures'; `Why Howard was right'. Headline after headline in the newspapers tell the story of what is going to happen here as these measures are introduced and passed through the House. The bills will then pass through the Senate before the Senate gets up at the end of next week.At last we are in control to some degree of our own borders. This is something that should have happened four or five years ago. It should have happened certainly no later than 1998 when Phillip Ruddock, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, first introduced some of these measures. I would have to say that, despite what the Australian Labor Party has done, the goodwill and the commonsense of the Australian people has won through.When these measures were first introduced, Colin Hollis, the member for Throsby, contradicted his own leader because he knew what people were feeling, he knew what people were saying. He tried in fact to take it further than the Australian Labor Party eventually did. The asylum seeker issue is one that has been worrying Australia for a long time. At last we are getting it right. I think that the legal niceties that we have been dealing with under the Immigration Act—a very codified process—have now been changed. The border protection measures have been changed so that we are dealing just with the shores of Australia. Those far-flung reefs and atolls and small islands— even the Cocos (Keeling) Islands—have now been excluded from Australia's immigration zone. In fact, this is a good decision. It is worthy of the House's support, and I thank the House for its support.13:42:0031129Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—For the record I point out that we are today debating just one piece of legislation, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001. The previous speaker talked about a number of pieces of legislation, most of which actually went through the House yesterday. So he is obviously a bit behind the times, but that is not unusual for government members.I think there is an old saying that those who ignore history become victims of it. With immigration matters it is worthwhile looking at a bit of the history because there are lessons there to be learnt. What we have been seeing in recent months—in fact for about two years now—is effectively a fourth wave of people arriving by ship from various parts of the world. If we look back to the 1970s and the then Fraser government, the early boat people were from Vietnam—a direct result of the Vietnam War. The next lot of people were Chinese and Cambodians from southern China and Cambodia. What we are seeing now is a fourth wave from the Middle East—from Afghanistan, Iraq and, in some cases, Iran. The boat people are mainly from that part of the world.When we say that these are different people, the question must be: what happened to the last ones? What happened to the first three waves? Why are they still not coming? The answer is that Labor in government actually addressed and resolved those issues. People need to look back at the role Australia played in bringing Vietnam into the modern Western world as a trading partner. We acted as an intermediary and we helped the Vietnamese people resolve a lot of their international relations. We helped Vietnam reduce the apprehension of its own people so that they were no longer fleeing the country. We actually addressed the problem at the core. We put a lot of aid programs into Vietnam and we undertook a lot of bilateral and multilateral negotiations with Vietnam and other countries to help get investment into the country and stimulate its economy—we were helping to resolve the issue where it was occurring. Regarding Cambodia, Gareth Evans will live in history forever as the single most important man in the resolution of Cambodia's civil wars that went on for a decade. The effort that Australia put into Cambodia to help resolve its internal problems has meant that Cambodians no longer flee Cambodia. They stay in Cambodia—they are not rushing away like they used to. Turning to the Chinese situation too, there were negotiations undertaken so that people could go back to China. With the agreement of the Chinese government and with the investment in southern China in employment and other activities, people could in fact go back and resettle. We did that in three different areas—and successfully. Each one was different because the circumstances were different, but the idea that somehow we can put up a barrier at the 12-mile limit and stop people penetrating is a nonsense, and we know that. The government knows that. The question is how we actually solve the problem. What we are dealing with this week in legislation will not solve the problem, because what the government has not explained to the people of Australia is what happens to the people who actually get in here. A person cannot get on an aeroplane in an Australian airport unless the airline taking them knows they can get off at the other end. What the government has not explained is where the people who are coming here—whether it be from Cocos or Christmas or Ashmore Reef or even Nauru—actually get off. Where do they go back to if no-one will take them? The answer is nowhere. We, therefore, cannot get them on a plane. What is the government doing about actually addressing the issue? The answer is: very little. In fact it has just made it worse.The current case is an incredibly complex set of circumstances involving our relations with some of our most important neighbours—two in particular: Malaysia and Indonesia. In recent months, I have been able to be in Indonesia and talk with Indonesian parliamentarians, including the current President and the previous President, about the circumstances between us and them. We discussed the boat people, refugee asylum seeker issues, with all the key Indonesian parliamentarians, and let me tell you that we came back very positive, because Indonesia understands the problem. But part of the problem is with Malaysia as well. People of the Muslim religion are allowed into Malaysia without visas—so they are quite legally allowed to fly to Malaysia from anywhere in the world if they are Muslim—so the pressure is on Indonesia to allow them to come into Indonesia in the same way. That gives Indonesia a very difficult and complex internal problem, but it is one that must be dealt with in conjunction with Malaysia, not in isolation.The economic downturn in Indonesia and the transfer of their policing roles to the provinces have brought about an enormous lack of resources at the local level in the parts of Indonesia where asylum seekers are gathering. When the minister quotes how many people are lined up to come on boats from Indonesia to Australia, let me tell you that he is right. We know how many there are. From our briefings in Indonesia with our departmental officials and Federal Police officials, we and the Indonesians know who they are, where they are and who is bringing them. This is not some secret; it is all known. If we know and the Indonesians know, why aren't we talking about it? Why aren't we solving it? The government chose not to. The government chose to talk to Indonesia via the airwaves of Australia, not via face-to-face discussion. What we actually did to Indonesia in recent weeks was to exacerbate their problem; we made it much, much worse. People have been talking about the potential for people involved with bin Laden being in Indonesia but, if they are, it is not for refugee purposes; it is for destabilisation purposes. The Indonesian government has long faced the problem, shared by many other countries, of potential political destabilisation by religious or zealotry forces. And what have we done about that? Do we understand that? We understand it. We know about it. What did we do about it? We just made it worse. We just made it a whole lot worse. So we have virtually guaranteed that Indonesians cannot take people back once they leave their country. That is what we have guaranteed in recent weeks. As for talking with Malaysia about their visa problem— which all the ASEAN countries agree is a problem—we talked about it via the airwaves again, not face to face, not as neighbours discussing a mutual problem, but as people telling them what to do. The reason it happened in that way is that there is an election in the offing, and the government, after five years of failed negotiations, is out there now pretending to try to solve it. The issue of consultation with our neighbours in this matter is absolutely critical. It is one that many people fail to understand. In recent weeks I have again spoken to the Indonesian politicians I spoke to two months ago, and I inform the House of their disappointment and their absolute dismay at the fact that we were not talking to them. Why hadn't we spoken to them? Why hadn't we negotiated with them without going public? Why weren't we talking to their ministers and their President before we went and told the world what Indonesia should do? The level of disappointment that they felt and the undermining of our credibility in Indonesia is massive, and it will take us years to repair that.We knew that we had difficulties over East Timor. That was unavoidable, and the Indonesians knew that. But they all said to us that the relationship with Australia was the most important issue that they had on their plate—that the relationship was incredibly important and that we must fix it; we must make it work well. A delegation of Indonesian parliamentarians is visiting the parliament today. What are we talking to them about? We are not talking about these issues, because they are just too difficult now. What has happened in recent weeks has been, firstly, amateurish and, secondly, dangerous. That is not in any way to deny Indonesia their rights, or our right to protect our borders. But the fact is that we can only solve the problem if the people stop coming to us. The idea that we can somehow put up a barrier, a fence around Australian waters, and stop every ship coming in has now proven to be nonsensical. The Navy has been up there for the last few weeks, yet ships are still coming through. The fact is, as I said, that we know who is bringing them in. We know who is doing it; the Indonesian government knows who is doing it, but they are not being stopped. And why aren't we doing that? Because we are too busy politicking in Australia. Rather than solving the problem in Indonesia and Malaysia, we are too busy politicking in Australia.For the information of those people who question whether the government is playing politics, let me give some examples which are not just illusions or deceptions but downright dangerous deceits. Let us take the first example: a lot of government members have talked about queue jumpers. Somehow the issue is about queue jumpers. Labor, in government, was as concerned as this government about people going through the right process. Most of the procedures in place for dealing with illegal entrants were in fact put in place in bills introduced by Labor. There has been very little change in legislation in the last five years, so most of the machinery being used was in fact Labor's. So we were just as concerned about the matter. But there is a contradiction between what the government is doing and what it is saying. We currently take, as Labor did, a significant number of people under the refugee humanitarian program as humanitarian cases. About 3,000—about a quarter of the program every year—are not refugees at all. They are actually people that we take on humanitarian grounds who would not qualify, under this legislation or any other, as a refugee. But there is money involved. These people effectively jump the queue, but the beneficiary is the government and not some third party. In these cases the government is not liable for air fares; these people are sponsored by somebody with money, who sponsors them and pays their fare. They jump the queue, and the government says this is terrific. We have been told this week by the government that, with respect to people who have aged parents overseas who are trying to come to Australia—they have been approved and have passed all the health tests and everything else—there is a 20-year queue. But the government are saying to us, `We want to put legislation through the parliament so that if they pay $60,000 they can jump the queue.' We are saying, `No, that's just not fair. We are not about queue jumping as a country; we never have been.' There are people sitting in that queue who have been there for five years—parents who have already been waiting for five years. They have not got $60,000; why should they be pushed back? So the government endorse queue jumping if they get paid for it. It is not about queue jumping; it is about who gets the money. And that is fair enough—if you are going to be for sale, it should come to Australian taxpayers, not to some person making a profit offshore. But let us not have all the piety and nonsense from the government about queue jumpers and their expressions of horror about it, because they are up to their eyeballs in it. We are being asked this week to agree to legislation to allow aged parents to jump the queue if the kids in Australia have $60,000 to spend. What morality is involved in that? It is the same morality as a Snakehead has— exploiting people under emotional duress. Families in Australia are under enormous pressure because their parents cannot join them. They will beg, borrow and steal the money if necessary in order to pay for their parents to come here. That is the kind of emotional duress being exploited by the Snakeheads, and this government is no better. It wants to do exactly the same thing and then it wants to lecture us about supporting queue jumpers. We are the ones who are saying, `No queue jumping.' Let us do it properly, but let us not be hypocritical and contradictory.The second thing that we are hearing about is the drug smugglers. People say that all the refugees and asylum seekers are drug smugglers and terrorists. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, you were with me at a meeting in Bangkok a few weeks ago when the Australian Federal Police told us about the passports you can buy in Bangkok. You can now buy passports in Bangkok which are absolutely top class—right down to Australian visas which would fool officials at most countries' immigration borders. Drug smugglers have lots of money. Why would they want to come to Australia on a leaking boat and take that risk, and then go through months or years of detention, when they can buy a passport in Bangkok? Quite simply, they do not do that. The government knows that this is nonsense, but it peddles this line over and over. Why? Because it knows that the public does not know any better and that it will fall for this nonsense. The fact is that drug smugglers and terrorists have access to large amounts of funds—and we all know that. They do not need to come in as refugees or asylum seekers. They can come in—as they do in America—as students, businessmen, or whatever you like. Whatever name they want, they can buy. There is no way in the world that any of those people are going to take the risk of coming in the other way.Let us look at the students who come to Australia now. Do government members want to tell me how much those students are checked up on? Look at the people coming in as students and working as prostitutes. Who checks up on them? I can tell you: no-one does. It is up to us as parliamentarians to find them and report them. We know the government is spending money on all kinds of things—Navy ships and all that kind of stuff—but it is spending nothing to make sure that the hundreds of thousands of overseas students who come here do not include people from the Triads in China or the terrorist gangs in the Middle East or elsewhere. Yet the people who are coming here as asylum seekers via boat—the ones who are taking the most risks—are being told that they are drug smugglers and terrorists. Let us go further on the blackguarding of these people. I do not know who these people are, but let me tell you who they might be. I was in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan and Iran some years ago. I know that the people who the Taliban would be uncomfortable with are the ones who are educated. Those people would normally be from the professional classes: lawyers, teachers, doctors and nurses. In particular, they would be doctors and nurses, because nowadays under the Taliban women and men cannot be trained together and there is a great problem with male doctors dealing with women. Doctors would be very unwelcome in modern Afghanistan. So the people who would be targeted by regimes like the Taliban would be from the educated classes or groups in that country—the ones who are more likely to have resources, have access to resources or have families overseas with resources. They are being accused—because they are educated; because they are from the most professional class in the country—of having something wrong with them. This is back-to-front logic of the greatest order.We are also being told that they might be terrorists. The fact is that—and we all know this—the people who are coming here are, in the main, escaping from Saddam Hussein, who we see as a world terrorist, or the Taliban, which America is now almost at war with. We are then told that there may be underground cells of bin Laden supporters in Indonesia—and I do not doubt it—but if there are, they are not there to come here; they are there to undermine the Indonesian government. What have we done in recent days? The Minister for Defence, in particular, made the claim that the asylum seekers are camouflaging terrorists—which therefore means that Indonesia is technically condoning, in world terms, the entry into that country of known terrorists. What that has done to Indonesia's credibility internally and externally is extremely serious.This government has said every day that it does not want to welcome people. Through that process, we are making ourselves the most inhospitable country in the world. Yet, on the same day, the Minister for Sport and Tourism was talking about attracting world tourism here. The two things actually go together. There is now a perception in the world that Australia is using people—people who have enormous problems in their own countries—as scapegoats for a politically failed government. Reading what the government members said in debates last week and this week, I have no doubt that this issue is being used for maximum political purpose and not to solve the problem. When the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs tells us how he is going to get the people off Nauru and back to somewhere else, when he tells us what has been done with Malaysia and Indonesia in terms of concrete negotiations to stop the problem at its source, to stop people leaving those countries to come here, then we might start taking him seriously.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Newcastle will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Distinguished Visitors3113310000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that Professor Dr Amien Rais, Chairman of the People's Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia, is within the precincts. He is leading a delegation, which is also within the precincts. With the concurrence of the House, I propose to invite Professor Dr Amien Rais to take a seat on the floor of the House.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Professor Dr Amien Rais then entered the chamber, and was seated accordingly.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I also extend a warm welcome to the delegation of parliamentarians from Indonesia and say how pleased we are to have them join us as well.Honourable members—Hear, hear! Questions Without Notice311343113414:01:0031134Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to a ministerial briefing note provided to the Deputy Prime Minister which notes the Ansett administrator's advice that it would have cost $170 million to keep the airline running till last Saturday night. Prime Minister, are you aware that then, in bold, it says:Note to Ministers: You cannot extrapolate the $170 million figure to draw a conclusion about how much it would have cost to keep the airline going for a longer period.In those circumstances, Prime Minister, why on Friday did you criticise my proposition to fund Ansett for another two weeks by saying:We've been told that it would cost between $120 million and $170 million to keep the company operating until tomorrow evening. If you extrapolated that out, you're looking at a cost of up to a billion dollars on the budget if you were to pick up Mr Beazley's suggestion.Prime Minister, haven't you been caught out erecting a straw man to avoid any responsibility for Ansett's grounding and to give yourself an excuse for your ongoing failure to act now to get Ansett back in the air and save 70,000 jobs?Government members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is being denied the call by the interjections of those behind him and of the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister.31134Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the question is no.3113414:03:0031134Pearce, Christopher, MPMr PEARCEA8WAstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any planned activity tomorrow that could interrupt airline flights?31134Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Aston for his question. The short answer to the question is: it depends on how certain planned rallies tomorrow are conducted. It depends entirely on how they are conducted. Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call and he is entitled to be heard in silence.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Along with other members, I have listened to and I have read the transcripts of certain interviews given this morning by the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Combet, regarding some rallies it is planned to hold tomorrow. I would be the last person in this House to contest in any way the right of the ACTU to organise rallies, of a political or other kind. I note in relation to the Ansett situation that most of the rallies the ACTU has organised have been highly political; they have not been designed to provide Ansett employees with valuable information. I would encourage employees of the Ansett group to look in all the major newspapers today to obtain the information that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was denied the opportunity of giving to workers attending a rally at Parliament House two days ago.I have a very simple request to make of the ACTU: by all means organise a rally— that is your right; it is the right of any Australian to do that—but please do it in a way that does not interfere in any way with the operations of Qantas or in any way with the operations of the airlines. The last thing this country wants at the moment is any activity which in any way interferes with people seeking to travel on Australian airlines. I would hope with the request that I have made to the ACTU that the Leader of the Opposition would join me in making that same request of the ACTU.Our position is very plain: we do not want the travelling public of Australia to suffer any further inconvenience. I say that as the leader of a government which has brought onto the table a guarantee of $400 million in entitlements of the Ansett group employees. We have brought to that particular part of this very difficult issue good faith and $400 million of guaranteed support; and, as the public advertisements indicate today in the newspapers, having guaranteed and underwritten the entitlements of the Ansett workers, we are prepared to take action—standing in their shoes, as we then would—against Air New Zealand to recover the moneys that we have outlaid on behalf of the Australian taxpayers. But I repeat: the last thing the Australian public wants at the moment is any kind of industrial activity that further inconveniences the Australian public. And I ask the Leader of the Opposition to unconditionally join me in issuing that request to the ACTU. 3113514:07:0031135Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, will you confirm that the document that the Prime Minister helpfully tabled on Monday is part of a confidential briefing that Qantas gave to government about the financial status of its competitor, Ansett? Did this briefing advise `Ansett will not fail' and did it request from the government `support in diverting Singapore airlines from its current path to recapitalise Air New Zealand and Ansett by increasing its share in Air New Zealand'? Isn't that precisely what you did? By continuing to support the Qantas position, even after Singapore Airlines had dismissed it, didn't you, Minister, destroy the only hope that Ansett had for a speedy injection of urgently needed capital that could have kept it flying and could have saved 70,000 jobs?31135Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I do not deny the right of any company, any private citizen or anyone to put material before a member of the government, a member of the back bench or a member of the opposition—anyone in this place—which plays to the case that they might want to present to us and might want us to support.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You followed their brief!4K4Mr ANDERSON—It is not true that we followed their brief. It is not true that we were sucked into some position that they wanted us to follow. The government formed a strong view and we made it very plain that we did want the alternative recapitalisation proposal for Ansett—and we always strongly supported as a first objective the recapitalisation of Ansett, and we have always said that; there was never any deviation from that position—fully explored. So it was that on 1 August I went to New Zealand and I met with Dr Michael Cullen. I found that he too felt that it was worthy of full exploration and full evaluation. We set up a process for that to happen, which was essentially New Zealand driven, but we, through our working group, two senior officials from my department, tracked that closely. There were daily teleconference calls right through the whole process.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that if the Prime Minister were to interject as frequently as he has in this question, he would rightly be indignant. I expect him to extend the same courtesy to the Deputy Prime Minister.4K4Mr ANDERSON—And so it was that, with the help of the New Zealand government's negotiator, Mr Cameron, both proposals were taken forward in parallel. I can confirm to the House again, repeatedly, this simple view that in no way did the proposal that we put on the table stall the process or the decision making process. What slowed it was that the New Zealand government, as Dr Michael Cullen will confirm, could not get accurate financials and a finalisation on a strategic plan from Air New Zealand.3113514:11:0031135Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on Australia's important bilateral relationship with its close neighbour, Indonesia? What steps has the Australian government taken to build an even stronger relationship with the new Indonesian government?31135Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Moreton for asking me a question about relations with Indonesia. It is 92 days since the shadow spokesman has asked me any question at all, let alone a question about Indonesia. We are honoured to have here on the floor of the House of Representatives the Chairman of the Indonesian People's Consultative Assembly, my friend Dr Amien Rais. He is enormously welcome here. He is a leading figure in Indonesia, he has been a great champion of democracy in that country, and he holds one of the leading positions in its democratic institutions. Indonesia has been through some political upheaval in recent times. Dr Rais has been one of many who have ensured that the transition of power has worked smoothly and in a constructive and democratic way. Dr Rais, Mr Speaker, as you know, is leading a parliamentary delegation here in Australia, and the delegation are sitting in the gallery. They too are enormously welcome. Everyone in this House knows that, as a result of the events in East Timor in 1999, our bilateral relationship with Indonesia went through a period of considerable strain. There is no point in ignoring or pretending that that was not the case; it was. But it is also true that our two governments recognise the great importance of each other to the future of the region and that as neighbours we should have a constructive and useful relationship built on the principles of mutual benefit and mutual respect. The nature of the relationship in recent times shows we have been able to build out of the troubled period following the events of 1999. The House will be impressed to know that we have about 18,000 Indonesian students here in Australia, and those students are very welcome in our country. Our bilateral trade in goods and services with Indonesia grew by 25 per cent in the last financial year to the largest value of trade between our two countries in history. Never has trade between Australia and Indonesia been as great as it is today, despite the difficult regional and international economic environment that we are operating in.The Prime Minister's visit to Indonesia recently, when he was the first foreign leader to meet President Megawati and her cabinet in Jakarta, was, as the House knows, a most successful visit. The subsequent visit by the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and me on 6 and 7 September was an opportunity to take the relationship further forward. There has been some focus in the media on the discussions we had about people trafficking, and they were very useful discussions. I think that that aspect of the relationship is beginning to grow quite well now. But it is also worth reminding the House that that was not the sole purpose of that visit. We also had most useful discussions with the leading economic ministers. While we were there, we met Dr Rais and other leaders in Indonesia so that, on both sides of the sea, we could understand the breadth of the relationship. This is not a relationship which is about just one or two issues; it is about a whole range of issues.In our view, it is also very important that Australia and Indonesia cooperate not just bilaterally but on multilateral issues as well. Given the tumultuous events internationally of the last 12 or so days, it is very heartening that Australia and Indonesia are amongst the countries which have very strongly condemned those terrorist attacks on the United States. I know that our countries will work together in the years ahead, not only to build trade links, people-to-people links and political links, but also to counter some of the new and very dangerous aspects of the international environment, terrorism and transboundary movements of one kind or another, be they drugs or illegal people trafficking. Those sorts of issues are going to be increasingly important, and I know that our relationship will flourish in addressing those problems.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I support the friendly remarks made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in making Chairman Dr Rais very welcome here. You are very much welcomed from this side of the House as well, Dr Rais.3113614:17:0031136Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Minister, do you recall that on 30 July the chief executive of Singapore Airlines said:I am perplexed by the persistence of the so-called Qantas solution. What we can't understand is why Qantas can't take no for an answer.Minister, given this statement, why did you the very next day publicly support and promote the very same Qantas solution which Singapore Airlines had so comprehensively rejected? By continuing to support the Qantas position, didn't you destroy the only hope Ansett had to keep flying and to save 70,000 jobs?31136Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—As I have said repeatedly, the government believed that the Qantas proposal deserved full evaluation and close examination. Dr Michael Cullen, the finance minister in New Zealand, believed the same thing. There is no suggestion— there can be no suggestion—that what we did slowed up the process. It needs to be clearly remembered that right through this process until 6 September, Singapore Airlines, a shareholder in Air New Zealand and with three people at the board, had on the table their recapitalisation plan—their model for taking forward the future of Air New Zealand. They plainly believed that it was the best way forward. They obviously believed that it would secure the future of the airline. As I have said, we indicated that we had a view that the alternative should have been closely looked at. However, the fact of the matter is that from around mid-August Dr Michael Cullen was indicating to me that, because there was no trigger for the Singapore Airlines direct investment in Ansett proposal, the New Zealand government was proceeding post haste within the time frame that we had all agreed was appropriate; that is, a decision by early September, when the group was to report publicly on its financial position—it needed certainty by then. The New Zealand government was moving to make a decision by then. We had accepted by then that, in all probability, it had to be their preferred model. There was no indication from the people who should have known best—the people around the board table, the shareholders and indeed the banks themselves—that the proposed recapitalisation model was regarded as inadequate. There was no stalling. The New Zealand minister will confirm that. What happened was that, very late in August, they started to run into difficulties agreeing amongst themselves on the recapitalisation plan. At the same time, only on 6 September, the world learned that Singapore Airlines had withdrawn its offer and that the recapitalisation plan was therefore not going to proceed.3113714:21:0031137McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House of the trade outcomes from the recent meeting between the Association of South-East Asian Nations and Australia and New Zealand?31137Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Corangamite for his question. The member for Corangamite is recognised on both sides of this House for his avid support of our government's position in the promotion of open markets and trade liberalisation across the world, but most importantly within our region, in our pursuit of multilateral agreements, regional agreements and bilateral measures.On Saturday night and Sunday I was in Hanoi, where I met with my counterparts in the Association of South-East Asian Nations to discuss the proposal for a closer economic partnership between Australia, New Zealand and ASEAN's 10 member countries. Those countries include Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Burma. We have made very real progress and agreed on a framework for a closer trade and economic partnership between our countries within the region. The agreement reached in Hanoi is a result of six years of work on trade facilitation and economic cooperation within our region. This is a significant step forward, providing for the first time a formal and structured approach to promoting trade, investment and regional economic integration.ASEAN is a very significant and important marketplace for Australia. The closer economic partnership encompasses economies representing a population of over 540 million people, with a combined GDP of over $A1 trillion. ASEAN accounts for 14 per cent of our total goods and services trade. Last year's exports hit a record high of $15.1 billion, with two-way trade between Australia and the ASEAN countries at $33 billion, an increase of over 35 per cent. The signing of the closer economic partnership agreement will take place at next year's meeting in Brunei between Australia, New Zealand and the 10 ASEAN countries.In announcing this, it is important that we note—as you have, Mr Speaker—the presence in the chamber today of the Indonesian delegation representing the Indonesian People's Consultative Assembly and their chairman, Dr Amien Rais. We welcome Dr Rais and his delegation to our parliament. Indonesia has played a critical role in the establishment of the agreement reached in Hanoi on Sunday. Indonesia is a key member of ASEAN and through their commitment to the relationship with Australia they have certainly played a pivotal role in forging ahead with this historic agreement. Last Saturday night I had a very successful first time meeting with the new Indonesian Minister of Trade and Industry, Minister Rini Soewandi, at which we reaffirmed our commitment to working closely together within the Cairns Group, the WTO, APEC and the AFTA-CER relationship, as well as at the all important bilateral level. Australia's trading relationship with Indonesia continues to flourish, with two-way trade in goods and services growing by 25 per cent last year, now standing at $7.8 billion—the largest two-way trade figure ever between the two nations. It needs to be recorded that this has come as a result of a lot of hard work that has been done by both the Australian side and the Indonesian side in recent years to ensure the health of our bilateral relationship.3113814:25:0031138Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister, haven't you just said to the House that the government did not pursue the Qantas option but wanted to look at both it and the Singapore option with an open mind? Doesn't your own departmental report in fact say that the government favoured the Qantas option because of three particular propositions? Didn't the Prime Minister say on Tuesday:That is why the government did unashamedly have a preference for what was called the Qantas option for quite some time—quite unashamedly ...Far from having an open mind, Deputy Prime Minister, did you not seek to actively subvert the alternative and as a result we have a situation in which 70,000 jobs will be lost?31138Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—No.3113814:26:0031138Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House about what challenges Australians face in the wake of the US terrorist attacks?31138Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Page for his question. Obviously, Australia faces the question of terrorism, both amongst its neighbours and around the world, and will be making a contribution on the military and foreign affairs front to combat terrorism wherever it arises. But, in relation to economic issues, I report to the House that overnight the New York Stock Exchange fell further. It is now approximately 8.8 per cent below the level that it was prior to the terrorist attacks in New York. During today, most of the Asian stock exchanges have fallen, including some falls on the Australian stock exchanges. The good news is that oil prices seem to have stabilised overnight and have actually returned to levels lower than what they were prior to the terrorist attacks. Whilst that will be good news for economies and the petrol price, it does no doubt reflect to some degree an assessment that world growth will be slower and demand for oil lower. As a consequence, the price of oil has come off.I have already informed the House that the US economy had stopped growing prior to these terrorist attacks. There will be immediate damage to American airlines and insurance, and second round effects in relation to consumer and business confidence. Here in Australia we had a strong growth quarter in June of 0.9 per cent, stronger than the United States, Japan and Europe. Our interest rates are as low as they have been in the last 30 years and, with accommodative interest rates, there is no reason for consumers to interrupt their buying patterns. I make that point very carefully: there is no reason for consumers to interrupt their expenditure patterns. There is nothing that has changed in an underlying sense. Monetary policy is still very accommodative and there continues to be robust growth in the housing industry.I am also asked what effect this is likely to have on Australia's budget position. Plainly, new pressures are now coming to bear on our budget position which were not anticipated in May. Of the three pressures that are coming, the first is the number of unauthorised boat arrivals. The measures that the government has had to take, including additional patrolling in the waters off the territorial sea, will lead to larger expenditures than was the case as expected at the time of the budget. Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—The suggestion that Australia should spend $2 billion building a coastguard is laughable. It is the kind of laughable proposition that the now Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for Finance—and he was not much of a minister for finance—had the logic to reject when he was in government. To have suggested that a coastguard would in some way compensate for the patrol of Australian naval vessels off the territorial sea is laughable. It is a laughable proposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—No, you're truly hilarious. The Leader of the Opposition says, `The US is truly hilarious.' No; as it turns out, you are. That is the proposition. The second point in relation to expenditures is that obviously Australia's contribution to the allied military response to terrorism will bring with it costs. Until Australia's contribution is known it will not be possible to actually quantify that in budgetary terms. The third budget pressure is in regard to the government's commitment to ensure that Ansett employees' entitlements are protected. The government anticipates that up to $400 million may be required in order to justify those entitlements. The government will be putting in place a $10 ticket levy to guarantee the Ansett employees' payments. We welcome the fact that the Labor Party has indicated it will be supporting that levy.Opposition members interjecting— LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—It is a new tax!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It is a new tax!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—The Leader of the Opposition just interjected, `Yes, we will support it.' So we welcome the fact that the opposition has just committed itself to the support of the $10 levy.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!CT4Mr COSTELLO—We take it therefore that the policy in relation to the ticket levy is a bipartisan one and will not be attacked; therefore—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Don't be silly. Stop being silly about it.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Leader of the Opposition said he will be supporting it but now quibbles with the fact that it is bipartisan. He either supports it or he does not. He either flips or he flops. We would like to know whether it is the flip or the flop, quite frankly. And we would like to know whether the flip or the flop can hold his position for a week on this occasion. He could not hold his position for a week on border protection. Can he hold his position for a week in relation to a $10 levy? He has indicated to this House he will be supporting it. That being the case, we welcome the fact that this is now a bipartisan position in support of the Ansett employees. He has said quite clearly—it will be on the Hansard record— that he is supporting it, and whilst he continues to support it we welcome his bipartisan position. It is important, of course, in relation to protecting those Ansett employees that we do underwrite those entitlements. This is the government that has a scheme to meet them. It will go through with that levy and, if the Labor Party can support that levy as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, we will welcome it.Distinguished Visitors3113910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I recognise the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I will use this opportunity to allow our guest to leave us if he so desires because I know he is also meeting with the Senate chamber.Questions Without Notice311393113914:34:0031139Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Minister, I refer to your claim that the Ansett crisis was a mere blip for the tourism industry. Have you seen the comments by Geoff Carmody of Access Economics this morning that claims that the crisis is just a blip are irresponsible, that your ticket tax is like pouring petrol on a bush fire, and that regional areas— Government members interjecting— PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—You know exactly the point.Government members interjecting— DT4Mr CREAN—The hyena is at it!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come straight to his question or resume his seat. He has already been warned.DT4Mr CREAN—Well, I have been interrupted. Have you seen comments by Geoff Carmody of Access Economics this morning—BV5Adams, Dick, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lyons!DT4Mr CREAN—in which he says that claims that the crisis is just a blip are irresponsible, Minister, and that your ticket tax is like pouring petrol on a bush fire, and that regional areas, particularly those in Queensland and Western Australia, will be the hardest hit? Minister, when will you admit the magnitude of the problem facing jobs in the tourism industry and in regional Australia?31140Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—I thank the honourable member for his question because a great deal has been said about the appropriate form of words I as the federal minister for tourism should or should not have used to describe the collapse of Ansett. I admit that in a radio interview yesterday I used some words to describe how I hoped that the Ansett collapse would be remembered in the broad—Opposition members interjecting—8I4Martin, Stephen, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham, for the fourth time!GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—Those words could have been better chosen, and I admit that. But ever since the collapse of Ansett—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I indicate to those on my left that this persistent interjection will not be tolerated and I will deal instantly with anyone who continues to defy the chair.K26Latham, Mark, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will excuse himself from the House.The member for Werriwa then left the chamber.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—Ever since the Ansett collapse and the tragic events in the United States, I as the tourism minister and this government have been coming to terms with the scale and consequences of last week, and there are some very troubling stories coming out such as the drying up of cash flow and the effect on businesses normally very heavily dependent on air traffic. Some of these businesses are facing some incredible challenges, especially coming out of a winter trading period where business has been slow when they were expecting a brighter September holiday period leading into a bumper Christmas. My colleague the Deputy Prime Minister has been working exceptionally hard at getting capacity back into the skies, and he is in the best position to update—83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—He did it!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I name the member for Kingston.Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the member for Kingston be suspended from the service of the House.14:43:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.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.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.62Adams, 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.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Lieberman, L.S.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Kingston is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours under standing order 303.The honourable member for Kingston then left the chamber.GK6Miss JACKIE KELLY—This government has put together a working party which will be reporting daily to government on the immediate effects whilst working on solutions to the mid-term to long-term effects. A couple of those are the restoration of investor confidence and the restoration of consumer confidence. That is what this government is doing.3114114:47:0031141Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Could the minister outline to the House the latest contributions being made by Australia to the war against terrorism following the extraordinary and unprecedented events in the United States last week?31141Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. I did inform the House earlier this week of some of the measures the government had taken to support the United States at this difficult time, including the invocation of ANZUS, the deployment of Anzac in the Persian Gulf and the exchange of personnel in units in the US. We have taken some additional measures. As a result of a request from US Central Command, we have extended the deployment of Anzac for a few more days through to 3 October. That will assist the US in maintaining the multinational interception force presence in the Gulf without interruption while newly arrived US warships complete their familiarisation training. The government will also consider options in due course to provide a follow-on vessel to replace HMAS Anzac based on US requirements.The government has also now agreed to the deployment of ADF exchange personnel currently attached to UK forces as part of coalition NATO counter-terrorist response operations. The UK and NATO have both given support to the conduct of US-led counter-terrorist operations. ADF personnel are currently deployed on a range of exchange positions within the UK's forces. We have approximately 44 ADF personnel deployed on long-term exchanges and they perform a variety of duties, combat and combat support related activities, including service on UK naval vessels, aircrew and support personnel with operational RAF squadrons and Army personnel deployed in a range of different combat functions within the British Army. We also have a further 112 ADF personnel currently attached to UK units as part of Exercise Long Look 2001, which is an annual short-term triservice exchange.I had previously informed the House that RAAF personnel on exchange with US forces had been involved in flying combat air patrols over continental United States. I had a brief this morning to say that is not true, that is not right. I can update the House that we did have two pilots tasked and available for that, but at relatively short notice there were changes to operational requirements. That does underline the fact that the exchange personnel we have are allocated to their units, whether with the US or with the UK, and they are under the operational command of those units.Naturally enough, the information that we have about their activities is likely to be spasmodic, as the information as to those activities from an operational point of view will be subject to operational security requirements within their commands, either within the US or the UK. We are obviously very interested in and keen to know the activities of any Australians, wherever they might be serving, but the information that is available to us is sometimes limited or sketchy, as has happened in this particular case. Obviously we will attempt to keep the House and families as best advised as we can. But I think it is important for the House to know that we have Australians in a number of units, both in the UK and the US. They could be deployed overseas and they would do so within those command units.3114214:51:0031142Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Minister, can you confirm that a number of conventions scheduled for the next six weeks have been cancelled or significantly reduced in size due to the collapse of Ansett and the US crisis? For example, Minister, are you aware that a minerals conference to be held in Broken Hill in October has been moved to Adelaide, resulting in a loss of $500,000 to the Broken Hill economy? Minister, given that Ansett handles 70 per cent of convention travel, are you able to advise the House how many jobs in this sector are now under threat because of the impact of the Ansett `blip' on the tourism industry?31142Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—I thank the honourable member for his question, because it allows me to point out to the House that this morning I had intensive discussions with Jenny Lambert of the Meetings Industry Association of Australia. We have gone over the challenges facing that industry. Jenny— or a representative of the Meetings Industry Association of Australia—is part of the working group that will be assessing the immediate impact, obviously, and bringing forward the medium- to long-term solutions to government.3114214:53:0031142Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware of any impediments to the restoration of air services in my electorate, the home of Kendell Airlines, and across Australia? Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of further efforts to help air travellers in light of the Ansett collapse and recent overseas developments?31143Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Riverina for her question and acknowledge the very real importance of the aviation industry to her electorate, given that the regional centre of Wagga has a significant number of people employed in the aviation industry, and the very real interest she has in ensuring that the industry gets back on its feet as quickly as possible. The government is in almost hourly contact with the Ansett administrator, seeking to do everything we can to facilitate the restoration of flights everywhere. In view of the other very serious issue now confronting aviation here and internationally, we are also in consultation with Qantas and others in relation to indemnity insurance. That is going to be something that governments everywhere are going to have to grapple with, in common with the airline industries. Indeed, right across the world the sector faces extraordinary difficulties and, as always, we will seek to work with the industry in a constructive way. Of course, we are also working with the Ansett administrator to pay employees' entitlements as they fall due—a $400 million commitment, and a very important one. I do not think it would be unreasonable to ask the union movement in this country to actually acknowledge that this is being done—to acknowledge that it was never envisaged as something that the ALP might have done when they were in power. Their attempts to ensure that workers do not have access to this information is a very real problem.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP4K4Mr ANDERSON—I will not be drawn into that debate with the Leader of the Opposition, who again wants to say that it is the government's fault that Air New Zealand has driven an Australian company into the ground. I want to come to the issue of regional air services. They continue to be restored. Qantas announced yesterday that it was adding Mount Isa to its network, with 12 non-stop flights a week. A service from Sydney to Parkes and Broken Hill was restored yesterday and a service to Merimbula and Moruya on the New South Wales South Coast is under way today.I am indebted to the ADF. They have a lot on their plate at the moment. For very good reasons in the national interest, they are operating at a very high level of activity and their resources are significantly deployed in a number of areas, as we all know. There are 300 Aboriginal children from the Broome region who would have been stranded in the boarding schools they attend in Perth and surrounding areas. The RAAF has put in place arrangements to return those children to their homes in the Broome region during the school holidays, which will be very widely welcomed.In a further welcome development, the administrator of Hazelton Airlines has been approached by potential buyers for that airline. I have instructed my portfolio agencies to fast-track in every way possible any requests that might be made, regulatory or otherwise. If they want access to our rapid regional route recovery program, we will certainly make that available. In the true spirit of bipartisanship, I am delighted to say that I have just been informed that the New South Wales government has provided a loan which should enable the resumption tomorrow of some Hazelton services in New South Wales. I welcome that. That is a good thing. There has been a little bit of flak out of the New South Wales Labor government recently suggesting that we have not been committed to regional aviation services in New South Wales. In fact, recently the New South Wales government cut $50,000—that was all—out of taxes and charges that they impose on regional air services in New South Wales— $50,000 across the board, not in one area— and claimed that as a great victory. It is worth remembering that this government has reduced Labor's 17c a litre excise on avgas to 2c a litre. That is a huge tax reduction on regional aviation. And what we have done in terms of the slots at Sydney airport also demonstrates a very real commitment to regional aviation in New South Wales. I am delighted to note that today's Queensland Country Life carries the banner headline `Anderson gets bush flying'—very welcome recognition. We have actually been working around the clock since we learnt of the very serious situation we would be facing, whereas all the ALP has done is jawbone. They have not provided leadership anywhere. We await just a little bit of leadership on one issue: will the Leader of the Opposition talk to the ACTU and say, `We're concerned about tourism; we're concerned about jobs; we're concerned about people being able to move around for their business and personal plans over the next little while, and we think that now is not a very sensible time to risk interruption to our aviation services'? We seek just that little bit of leadership. All we have seen from the Leader of the Opposition to this point in time is jawboning. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman!PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! 4K4Mr ANDERSON—That is all we have seen.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister, I was merely indicating that the House should come to order and, for that reason, had reminded the Leader of the Opposition of his obligation and was drawing your attention to the fact that I wanted you to address your remarks through the chair. I was not bringing you to a conclusion.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker, I just want to make the point that that is one positive, concrete action—in the face of the total absence in this debate of useful contributions and useful and workable ideas and the empty rhetoric—that the leader of the ALP might be able to actually take in this situation.In conclusion, I would like to make the point that, in all of this, workers and the ACTU ought to recall that it was not simply that when the ALP were in power for 13 years they did nothing about workers' entitlements; it was that they adopted a very ruthless hands-off, `we don't care' attitude when workers lost their jobs. The evidence for this was in the Compass collapse of 1990. The Leader of the Opposition said something in here the other day that I thought was very illustrative. He said, `Oh, there were only a thousand employees affected'—only a thousand; that is all there were, so they did not matter. In other words, might is right—if there are a thousand employees it does not matter. I think that is an abhorrent principle. It is also worth recalling that, at that time, Paul Keating had just come to power and the government were insisting that they would not do anything—DT4Crean, Simon, MP4K4Mr ANDERSON—I just want to read from the transcript. I want to record what Bob Collins, the Minister for Transport at that time, said in relation to taxpayers helping out private companies that fell over. He said:I don't think the taxpayers would be too delighted with us if we'd handed $30 million of their money, because that is what we were asked for, over to Brian Grey last week or bought $18 million worth of prepaid seats on his airlines. I think they would be extremely unhappy with us.That was the Labor Party's attitude then when they had to make responsible decisions considering their responsibilities to the taxpayer and to the community. It stands in stark contrast to the empty but opportunistic rhetoric which we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition in the last 10 days.3114415:02:0031144Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, what plans have you put in place to address the serious health impacts of the collapse of Ansett Australia? Are you aware that there are no Patient Air Transport Scheme seats out of Derby to Perth on Qantas until 10 October; that children with chronic lung infections have had to catch a Greyhound bus from Broome to Derby; that a woman with an appointment on Monday for breast surgery is setting out today on a two-day bus trip to Perth; that patients from Central Australia have missed renal, paediatric and cardiac appointments in Adelaide and run the risk of their condition changing from serious to acute; and many remote areas—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga will come to her question. PG6Ms MACKLIN—many remote areas have had their clinics cancelled because visiting specialists have been unable to travel?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga is defying the chair.PG6Ms MACKLIN—Minister, what action will you take to make sure the health of people in rural and remote Australia does not suffer because of Ansett's collapse?31145Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. Such issues of patient transport would normally be the responsibility of the other eight health ministers around Australia and six state—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call. The member for Jagajaga has already enjoyed properly the opportunity to ask her question. The minister has the same opportunity to respond to it.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—It is not something which is in the province of the Commonwealth. However, if any of the states put propositions to me, I would look at them sympathetically.3114515:04:0031145Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister advise the House of steps being taken to address confusion amongst consumers who are part of credit card reward schemes and who are now affected by the Ansett collapse?31145Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Barker for his interest in the welfare of more than five million Australians who participate in frequent flyer schemes and similar reward programs. Mr Speaker, as I have previously advised the House, nothing in relation to these schemes is free. At the end of the day, consumers pay for frequent flyer points either in higher prices for goods purchased or through higher credit card fees. For many Australians, their accrued frequent flyer points are a very valuable and important asset. With Ansett being placed into administration, many consumers are asking whether their accrued points retain value. Each consumer should contact their credit card provider or their bank for more details because the contractual obligations vary.From time to time in this place we do have a shot at the banks, and often it is with good justification; however, when a financial institution does the right thing, it should also be acknowledged. In this case, around 600,000 Australians are part of Westpac's Global Rewards scheme with Ansett. They have faced some confusion following Ansett being placed into administration. However, Westpac have responded quickly to unfolding events by confirming that they stand behind the Westpac Visa rewards scheme, which will continue to operate even though it is still unclear whether the points will be—7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Get your priorities right.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect, the minister has the call.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Jobs are lost. Great priorities!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is aware that a great deal of tolerance has been exercised and it cannot be expected to be continued. The minister has the call.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The Visa reward scheme will continue to operate, even though it is still unclear whether the points will be redeemable with Ansett. However, those 600,000 Australians can continue to accrue points and they may be redeemed in other ways. It is also important to note that, in this case, Westpac has cut the interest rate on the affected cards by two per cent, until a new reward program is announced. In addition it has delayed the payment of the annual fee on affected reward cards until a new program is announced. So this is a good and responsible approach by a particular bank. We would like to see other banks and other credit card providers respond accordingly.The ACCC is investigating the frequent flyer programs across Australia. In July the ACCC extended its investigation to also look at the overall promotion of frequent flyer and reward schemes and, in particular, bottleneck destinations and the availability of seats for frequent flyers. Obviously, given the events of the last two weeks, the ACCC has advised me that it will need to reassess its investigation. However, I can assure the House that the government and industry will continue to work very hard together to ensure that, as far as possible, consumers are supported while the problems at Ansett are addressed. 3114615:08:0031146Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his repeated claims that the economy has responded well to the implementation of his GST and tax policy over the course of the last year. Prime Minister, if it is doing so well and business is doing so well, why have there been so many corporate collapses in the last few months? We had Pasminco, Ansett, HIH, One.Tel and Harris Scarfe—all before the international crisis hits our economy. What are the former workers of these companies to think when you tell them how well they are doing, and how many job destroying corporate collapses must there be before you wake up to the serious problems your administration has posed for this economy?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The chair is on his feet! I do not expect to have to rise to get order on my right, least of all from frontbenchers on my right. Nor do I expect the reaction on my left to be as it was.31146Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I genuinely thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question, because it is a very general question and it does allow me to say a number of things about Australia's economic performance. PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Australian economy, by any measure, has been performing above the level of the performance of other comparable economies for a very long time.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagjaga! The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Australian economy's growth trajectory, until the tragic events of last week, was better than had been predicted at the time the budget was brought down. We have heard a lot from the opposition about jobs over the past few days. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that, in the time the government has been in office, we have generated almost 900,000 new jobs. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that, by the end of this financial year, on current projections we will have paid back $58 billion of the $96 billion of government debt you left us. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that we now enjoy the lowest levels of interest rates that are of ongoing benefit to business as well as to home owners that we have had for a period of more than 30 years.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga, for the third time!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition talks about the impact of the GST. Has the Leader of the Opposition forgotten that, in relation to our current account deficit and our trade performance over the last year, we have achieved near record levels. In fact, our current account deficit for the past quarter is, I understand, the best current account performance for 20 years, since 1981. That is due to a number of factors, and one of those factors is that we have removed indirect taxes completely from the cost of exports. If you look at the performance of the Australian economy up until the tragic events of last week, it is the best performance of the Australian economy since the late 1960s. One of the many reasons why the Australian economy has performed so well is that this country for the last 5½ years has had a government that has had the courage to introduce necessary economic reforms, despite a pattern of almost guerilla opposition from the Australian Labor Party. At every turn, the Labor Party have endeavoured to frustrate the reform agenda of this government. I cast my mind back to the time when the former Labor government were in office. On those occasions when they acted in the national interest—such as in relation to financial deregulation or the reduction of tariffs or, dare I remind the Leader of the Opposition, the privatisation of government enterprises, which he would not have been able to achieve without the support of the then opposition; remember the 12½ per cent broad based consumption tax that you championed in 1986?—the fact is that the Labor Party faced an opposition that was prepared to act in the national interest. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—What happened to Pasminco workers?ZD4Mr HOWARD—He talks about the Pasminco workers. I will come to the Pasminco workers in just a moment. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that, when you were in government and you put up an idea that was in the national economic interest, we supported it. In the time that we have been in government, whenever we have put up a proposition that has been in the national economic interest of Australia, the Labor Party, for their own short-term cheap political interests, have opposed it. Labor opposed industrial relations reform, they opposed the government's reforms in relation to Telstra, they opposed taxation reform, they opposed Work for the Dole, they opposed for a long time the proposals the government had in relation to illegal immigration and now they are threatening, even though they support it at the moment, that if they happen to win the election they will change the law. That is the measure of the hypocrisy and the neglect of the national interest of the Leader of the Opposition. By way of interjection, I was asked about the workers at Pasminco. Presumably that is a reference to the entitlements of those workers.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—It is about their jobs and their entitlements. In relation to their employment position, the latest advice I have is that the company is continuing to operate. In fact, over lunch I happened to see an interview with the receiver. He indicated that all the operations of the company were going on. I also inform the House that last night the chairman of the company, Mr Mark Rayner, rang me prior to the statement being issued about the receivership to inform me that it was going into receivership. The first question I asked him was about the security of employment and, potentially, entitlements. He assured me that there were adequate provisions within the finances of the company to cover any entitlements. If that is the case, that is an approach and a degree of commercial prudence and responsibility that I would commend to all Australian companies. That is the view also expressed by the receiver.I also refer to a letter written by the chief executive officer on 12 September to my colleague Senator Nick Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. The letter said:It is difficult to envisage any circumstances in which employee entitlements are at risk even in the unlikely event of insolvency.In other words, let me say immediately that, on the basis of the information I have been given—I repeat: that is the basis of my statement—and on the basis of the claims made publicly by the receiver and in this letter by the managing director of the company, any attempt by the Labor Party to run a fear campaign in relation to the entitlements or the security of employment of the employees of Pasminco is one that could be completely rejected. Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that, although he finds the reality of it very difficult to accept—despite all of the attempts made by the Labor Party over the last five years to stop this economy expanding, to stop this government reforming the economy, to stop this government doing the things for the Australian economy that are in the national interest—this nation, economically, has performed extremely well. This country has performed better than anybody expected. This country has outperformed most other countries.Our future is bound to be affected by the events of last week. As both the Treasurer and I have said repeatedly over the past few days, in the light of what occurred last week and the consequences of it which are now being played out on financial markets, in world airlines and in so many other areas, there are certainly clouds over the future economic growth of all nations. The comforting thing for Australia is that, because of what the government has done over the last 5½ years, we are better prepared to deal with those problems than any other nation. We are better prepared than any other nation.I know that right through the front ranks of the Labor Party, starting with the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader, it is a reality they do not like to face. But whatever lies ahead of this country economically, one thing can be asserted with total confidence: because of what we have done— PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—this nation is better prepared than any to deal with anything that the future may throw at us.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—When the members on the frontbench and the Leader of the Opposition have managed to exercise just a little restraint, I will have an opportunity to recognise the member for Fairfax.3114815:21:0031148Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister inform the House of the conduct of the parties to the Ansett dispute? What has the government's response been to the Ansett dispute? Are there any alternative policies in relation to this matter?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind members on my left that a number of warnings have been issued.9V8Short, Leonie, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Ryan is a new member of the House but, in spite of her recent arrival, ought to know better than she does.31148Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The government's swift response to the Ansett crisis has been to guarantee the statutory and community standard entitlements of Ansett workers. It is the government's view that Ansett-Air New Zealand should pay those workers every last cent that they are owed. But, if they cannot, the government guarantees 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 the community standard redundancy, which is eight weeks.ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The government has also improved the general entitlements scheme. All employees will receive entitlements and protections at the same level as Ansett workers, except that payout levels will be capped at a salary rate of $75,000 a year. This new and improved general entitlements scheme will ensure that 90 per cent of employees or more get 100 per cent of their entitlements in the event of their employer's insolvency.I have been asked about alternative policy. Let us just look at some of the alternative policy from the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to saving airlines in trouble. When he was a minister and Compass went belly up, with the loss of 1,000 jobs—and those workers got no protection of entitlements whatsoever—Brian Gray, the head of Compass, said:I went to the government on Wednesday and I asked for some relief. Kerin, Beazley and Collins came in and sat down and before I even opened my mouth, Kerin simply said there could be no cooperation from the Commonwealth government. He said, `Under no circumstances will we help you by any means.'In those days, when the Leader of the Opposition had responsibility, he was against bailing out airlines.7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Last Friday he went to Martin Place and said:We—that is, the ALP—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 ...Last Friday he thought that you should bail out airlines, and then yesterday he came into the House and said:I have been misrepresented by the Minister ... who claimed ... I had suggested that the government should underwrite Ansett Airlines. I have never suggested that at any stage. This is not a skit from Clarke and Dawe. These are the official statements of the would-be Prime Minister of this country. The basic problem is that this bloke cannot handle pressure. Let us listen to what he told his biographer as to the reason why he could not face reading the newspapers of a morning. This is the Leader of the Opposition to his biographer: ... if you think you're under attack you do not want to leave yourself psychologically damaged, as it's already hard enough to face the day.This is what he thinks—... particularly when you get into leadership positions, you're just reeling from the punches all the time ...This is the Leader of the Opposition's problem. He is all talk and no ticker; he is all jawbone and no backbone. The Australian people will always take the view: no ticker, no start.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Chief Opposition Whip!Documents311493114910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the following Auditor-General's audit reports for 2001-2002, entitled Audit Report No. 12, Financial control and administration audit: selection, implementation and management of financial management information systems in Commonwealth agencies, and Audit Report No. 13, Performance audit: Internet security within Commonwealth government agencies.Ordered that the reports be printed.Personal Explanations3114915:27:0031149Beazley, 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—I do indeed—twice in question time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The first time I was misrepresented it was by the Treasurer, who said he had bipartisan support for his ticket levy. He does not. We think it is a stupid idea, but we support it as a last resort, which is a bit different. The second time—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.JT4Bailey, Fran, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for McEwen!CU4Gallus, Christine, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Hindmarsh!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The second misrepresentation was from the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who suggested yet again that I suggested that we bail out the entire airline. I have never said that at any stage in this entire discussion. `Keep it going for a couple of weeks,' is exactly what I said, and you had your own warnings about that.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.83REdwards, Graham, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Cowan!Matters of Public Importance311493114910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to ensure the job security of thousands of Australian families, by introducing a new job destroying tax, doing nothing to stop the collapse of major corporations and having no strategy to keep Ansett in the air.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:31:0031149Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The Ansett collapse is a national crisis and all government members can do is laugh about it. This is a circumstance in which a grounded airline— Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be heard in silence.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It is the government's inaction that has grounded the airline. It is the government's inaction that has cost thousands of jobs around this country. It is not just the 16,000 workers that work directly for Ansett; it is those with the associated companies—up to 70,000 of them. The Treasurer seemed genuinely nonplussed, when we asked questions about 70,000 jobs, as to whether or not that was the magnitude. How out of touch is it: a government asleep at the wheel and then it does not even know the consequences of the crash. But that is this government: ineptitude, inaction, a grounded airline, and a country in crisis as a result of it because it is impacting on jobs and on regions. There are thousands of them in the tourism sector; not just the 70,000 directly impacted on by the direct relationships with Ansett but the thousands of businesses that rely upon Ansett getting people to holiday destinations or to their relatives or to work. This has happened under this government's watch.What we want are solutions to get the planes back in the air, not excuses; and we want jobs, not redundancies. We want a strategy to get the planes flying again. That is why Labor has been calling for a roundtable of all the parties. The fact of the matter is that the administrator has been working very hard with the creditors. What we really need is to access those options by which the planes can be put in the air. That is a role that a government should play: a facilitative role, a preparedness to roll up the sleeves, to get involved and try and get a solution. Not this government. We have seen the ineptitude of two ministers over the last couple of days: the Prime Minister, we now understand, has taken control of this issue. It is now being run from his office, and he has called on the services of Mr David Crawford to help him. But we are told that Mr Crawford's role is effectively shadow liquidator—not looking for a solution except to liquidate the company. This is a government that gives up before it even tries. It is a government asleep at the wheel. They crash, they stare at the consequences and still they do not try for a solution. What this country needs is competent governance, and it is not getting it from the Howard government.We have seen the ineptitude in the past week of the two ministers directly responsible for the handling of this dispute. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services was warned back in June—as far as we can ascertain it and have proved it on the record—that this was the crisis facing Ansett Airlines, yet he did nothing. There was the letter from Air New Zealand on 14 August to the minister which said:The Group will not be able to repay loans without major disruption to the businesses. The situation is likely to be played out not over months but over the three weeks leading up to 4 September.You cannot get it any clearer than that. That is written from the acting chairman of Air New Zealand to our Deputy Prime Minister and minister for transport on 14 August, saying that, if action is not taken, part of the group will go under. Yet not only did the government do nothing, we had the Deputy Prime Minister on the record in September saying that no information had come to him suggesting there was going to be a crisis. That was the letter of 14 August, and you would have thought they would have got the wake-up call by then—but no. They also had advice back on 27 June—as we have now established by way of question time in this parliament—when representatives of Ansett met with the Prime Minister and the minister for transport. They presented a document to the Prime Minister which showed that Ansett was in deep strife, that Ansett was losing $A18 million a week primarily due to lower revenue, which was 26 per cent below that of the prior year. That was the presentation that Ansett made to the government on 27 June. We understand a copy of this documentation was left with the minister. Yet in this parliament he denied ever having received it.But the plot thickens because the Prime Minister helpfully submitted to us the document that the government relied upon—also a one-page summary. This is what the Prime Minister tabled in the parliament when we asked him what his state of knowledge was about Ansett back on 27 June. The document that he tabled was about Ansett, but do you know who prepared it? Qantas, the rival airline. The rival airline was advising the government. This government was following the Qantas brief, not the national brief. We now know, in terms of the fuller brief that Qantas had, that they had a specific section in their submission to the government that said, `Ansett will not fail.' They were urging the government to adopt the Qantas option, the option which Singapore Airlines said it could not sustain. Singapore Airlines, we know, was the only other airline capable of injecting the capital into both Air New Zealand and Ansett that the minister and the Prime Minister say was the salvation of the airline. The very competitor, the very alternative, Singapore Airlines, was saying, `Proceed with the Qantas option and we will pull out,' and yet the government persisted. As a result, we have ended up with a one-airline policy in this country—effectively a monopoly by Qantas. The Qantas option has entrenched Qantas as an airline but it has put Ansett out of business. This government went down that path knowingly and without question and now we have the consequences we are looking at today.This is a minister that failed to heed the warning signals—not the first minister, I might add. It is interesting that we have the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation sitting at the table. I presume he is going to talk in this debate, not the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and not the Minister for Sport and Tourism—but who would put her up after her performance? The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation also got the warning about the HIH collapse. This was the minister that knew in November about the HIH problems, and did nothing. As a consequence, we have had the biggest corporate collapses in the history of this country: HIH and Ansett. The minister laughs at the two biggest corporate collapses in history that happened under their watch. What a disgrace! You do not deserve to hold office, Minister, because you do not show any interest in the workers, the policyholders or the regions being impacted upon by this disgraceful episode. Yesterday we saw the bumbling ineptitude of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services at the dispatch box. He could not even ad-lib a question that was written in front of him. When we were reading his answer out for him, he did not know anything other than stick to the script. When he was embarrassed in that situation, he sat down. He ran up the white flag, just as the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Health and Aged Care have run up the white flag in this government because they are not interested.We saw the greatest performance of the lot yesterday with Minister Kelly, the tourism minister. Even her own people were attacking her yesterday for the stupid statement that the consequences for the tourism industry were a mere blip. She also had the gall to suggest that the solution was to bring in foreign aircraft and foreign crews. Slapped down she was by the Prime Minister when we asked him about it, but not before. The Prime Minister had not come out with any statement before we questioned him in parliament about it. The big issue that needs to be raised is this: when the Prime Minister answered that point he told us that he had spoken to Qantas the night before and he had said to them that they should not proceed down the path of getting foreign aircraft and foreign crews. Why then did the chief executive of Qantas go on radio the very next morning, ignore what the Prime Minister had said to him, and propose the solution. The reason? The Prime Minister thought that if this had got a favourable position they would have copped it. `Run up the flag,' the Prime Minister said. `I do not want to be part of it, but you run up the flag and let us see how it goes.' It got condemned, as it should have been, by everyone but the Minister for Sport and Tourism. The problem for this government is that they were looking for a foreign solution when they should have been looking for an Australian solution to get the Ansett aircraft back in the air. Then we have got the tax. It is not enough to slug this industry in terms of loss of access to the airline routes and jobs, but then hit them with another tax. This from the government that said it would never, ever introduce any new taxes. 7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I remind the member for Prospect that she has been warned!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It has put one on in the tourism industry. Let us just understand this: the Minister for Sport and Tourism was not even in the cabinet when the decision was taken. The week before she had promised the tourism industry that there would be no tax imposed upon them. Go and ask them; that is what she told them. So she is not only ineffectual; she is incompetent as well.This is not the only collapse that is causing crisis and hardship to Australian families in terms of people being out of work. There is the HIH situation; there is the OneTel circumstance; there is Harris Scarfe; there is a litany of these companies that have gone under under this government's watch. They want to sit there and tell people how well our economy is going compared to the rest of the world. I will tell you how well it is going. It is going so well that its growth rate has been cut by two-thirds since it introduced its GST. This is a government that says that our economy is growing faster than anywhere else in the world—that is what the Treasurer says— but, if you actually go to the world growth forecast for 2002, Australia is ninth, and for last year we were 24th.This is no mean feat. A year before the GST was introduced, the year in the lead-up to the introduction of the GST, this economy was growing at 4.2 per cent. In the last year since the GST was introduced, it has grown at 1.4 per cent. You cannot create jobs without economic growth. This was a government which, ahead of the world economic downturn, introduced a tax reform which slugged the Australian economy. That is why we are having these corporate collapses. That is why jobs are disappearing. That is why full-time jobs are being shown up in terms of significant reductions in the employment figures. The minister looks quizzical. He should look at the figures. Since the GST came in, there are 80,000 fewer full-time jobs. That is right; go and check the figures. He doesn't know. Does that surprise us? No.Let us also understand what costs jobs— inflation does. The CPI has risen six per cent under the GST compared to 2.4 per cent in the previous year. The government talks about its great achievement in terms of the current account. What about foreign debt? It is now $311 billion, almost double what it was when this government came to office. Remember the debt truck? Remember when they campaigned in 1996 and said, `We're going to eliminate the debt truck'? They have eliminated it all right. They have parked it down an underground basement, closed it up and thrown the key away because it has turned into a semitrailer. That's your foreign debt achievement. Then you talk about family debt. Household debt is up 80 per cent, with Australians owing more than they earn, and with the interest burden at a decade high. All this under your watch, and you crow about how good the economy is. If the economy is going so well, how come people are being thrown out of jobs? How come they are in bigger household debt? How come the inflation rate is high? How come we have mugged the economic growth of the nation so that it has choked off job opportunities? You have been asleep at the wheel and the nation has suffered. (Time expired)15:46:0031152Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—While I was listening to the member for Hotham talking about corporate collapses, I made a mental list of some of the corporate collapses that occurred when Labor was on watch. The first one I thought about was the Adelaide Steamship Company, which was Australia's largest industrial group. I think we all remember Mr Alan Bond, with the ninth largest corporation in Australia. What about Bond Brewing, which represented half the brewing industry in Australia? Then there was Bond Media, which at that time owned the largest television network in the land. Not only did Channel 9 collapse, but Channel 7 collapsed as well. We all remember that guy called Christopher Skase who managed to get out of the country when the Labor Party was on watch. Just to complete the equation, Channel 10 went under as well. Channels 9, 7 and 10 went under at the same time. Remember Budget, Australia's largest car rental company? That went under when the Labor Party was in government. Not only were the TV stations done, but John Fairfax, Australia's second largest newspaper group, went under when the Labor Party was on watch. Then we move into the area of financial services organisations. Where do I start? We had Pyramid and Tricontinental. We remember Beneficial Finance in South Australia, which was part of the Bank South Australia Group. We had the Farrow group which went into liquidation. These were not just little liquidations or little collapses, these were damn big collapses, and they went right to the heart and soul of commerce in Australia.The one celebrated failure which the Labor Party tends to ignore in the circumstances of the Ansett collapse—the one it seems to forget about—is Compass. That involved 1,000 employees, and not for one single second did the Labor Party ever contemplate going in to help the workers at Compass. As we had the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business say in this House, the Labor Party said that it was going to be uncooperative in government with any attempt to try to resuscitate Compass Airlines. I note that the member for McPherson is in the chamber. When Compass went under, I recall that there were regular routes to Coolangatta and, of course, they stopped overnight. There was no attempt to try and rebuild the transportation networks for the large number of travellers who lost their tickets. When it was in government, the Labor Party was uncooperative.We had collapses when the Labor Party was in office, not just of medium sized or small players but of the largest players. Under the Labor Party, we not only had the collapse of the largest players in the case of the television industry; we had the complete collapse of the industry. The former minister for communications is at the table. He should apologise to Australian TV viewers for the fact that he was part of a government that oversaw the collapse of an entire media industry. At that point, others like Elders and Fosters came into play. It could be related to the fact that not one person on the Labor Party frontbench has any experience in running a business. Could it have anything to do with the fact that the leadership of the Labor Party is born out of the union movement and has never been involved in the running of any business? In fact, correct me if I am wrong— and I stand to be corrected—I do not think the leadership of the Labor Party has ever worked in business. If that is the case, how is it that these people are being potentially given the opportunity to run the largest business in the country, the government of Australia?We had the shadow treasurer in here a few minutes ago talk about the Australian economy. Even if people do not believe me—and I find that a little hard to believe from time to time—I ask the people who are listening to this debate to believe what international commentators are saying about the Australian economy. The 18 August issue of the Economist says:In the nine years up to the middle of 2000, Australia enjoyed remarkable economic growth, averaging more than 4% a year. Unemployment fell, productivity growth increased and inflation was low.I have just blown out of the water the member for Hotham's entire speech, in which he said that unemployment is out of control, growth is falling, the sky is coming in and companies are collapsing. This is not Joe Hockey saying it; it is in fact the Economist. It says:The economy slowed sharply in the fourth quarter of 2000, under the weight of higher world energy prices—and we all remember how petrol pump prices surged—and a slowing American economy.It says here:Tax cuts should help to support demand, and low inflation ... The OECD—the organisation of the major economic countries—lauds tax reforms that began to take effect last year, to broaden the indirect tax base and to reduce high effective marginal rates of income tax. The Paris-based economists also like the look of recent labour-market reforms. I will table that. It is not me saying it—it is the Economist and the world's leading economists.There is a simple truth about running any business: in order to succeed, you need to make a profit. That was lost during the period when everyone was investing in technology stocks. I well remember discussing with some institutional investors the strategy behind their investment. On one occasion, I clearly remember this international investor saying, `You know what? I would never put a dime into a tech company that is making a profit. If it is making a profit, I'm not putting any money in.' It comes back to basic principles. For companies to grow, succeed and employ more people, they have to be profitable. If they are profitable, they generate wealth, not just for their shareholders but also for their employees.Under any circumstances, the best thing a government can do to help to keep companies profitable, generate jobs and generate wealth is to run the economy well. If there is anything that can be said about the Howard government it is this: it has done an outstanding job with the Australian economy. When seven out of our top 10 trading partners in Asia were in recession or depression, we had the fastest economic growth in the developed world. We defied all expectations. The world's leading commentators described us as the `miracle economy'. Now, when the world's leading economies are facing very difficult days—are, in the words of many commentators, heading towards recession— Australia still has the fastest economic growth in the developed world.The reason why is that this side of the House had the courage to stand on principle. This side of the House determined that the best way that you can keep Australia strong and vibrant, create jobs, create wealth, and deliver certainty and security to Australian families, was to deliver a strong economy based on tough but fair reform. We had the courage to do what no government had the courage to do for a generation: we undertook the reform of the taxation system.Even when our major export destinations are in financial difficulties, we are exporting our socks off in agriculture, mining, manufacturing and services. And we are doing it because we removed $2½ billion a year off Australian export costs by abolishing the wholesale sales tax—the abolishment of which was opposed lock, stock and barrel by the Labor Party. At the same time, Australia undertook industrial relations reform which ensured that we had the lowest level of industrial disputation since 1913. And that was opposed lock, stock and barrel by the Labor Party. On each occasion we have tried to do the hard yards, the Labor Party has opposed us. But the benefit of what we have done is flowing through.Whilst we may face a turbulent sea ahead of our boat, one thing is sure: if we were ever going to build a ship that could withstand turbulent seas, the coalition government has built it. At this point of time, you need a captain who is prepared to fight the elements to deliver security for the people of the ship. If you are going to have clear direction and a captain of the ship with courage, then that captain has to know where they are going. That captain cannot turn the wheel at every change in the weather. The captain has to know where the destination is and how to get there, have confidence in their crew and in their ship, and have the capacity to be able to deliver when tough questions are asked.If we needed any evidence of the difference between the two potential captains of the good ship Australia, we got it in question time today. It may be a bad weather storm that has hit us; in fact it is a terrible storm that has hit us with the tragic events in the United States. We are not celebrating that; we are just determined to get through the storm intact. At a time when everyone is calling, quite appropriately, for all hands on deck, for courage, for determination, for wisdom, for a belief in the destiny of the ship, John Howard on this side of the House is delivering that leadership. The Leader of the Opposition does not know where to go. We saw it illustrated with the Tampa. Yesterday we had the absurd example of the Leader of the Opposition saying that the polls were bad for him because last week he stood on principle regarding the Tampa. He has changed his position, so does that mean his current position is unprincipled? Extraordinary! Today he got up and made the most extraordinary comment about bipartisanship: `We are not bipartisan but we are going to support the bill.' These are tough times; these are difficult times. These are times when Australia needs strong leadership. There is only one person providing strong leadership. The Leader of the Opposition is in a position of leadership and he is cowering. The Prime Minister is in a position of leadership and he is growing. Australia is a stronger and better state; Australia is a stronger and better ship because of the leadership that is being provided by the coalition at the moment. (Time expired)16:01:0031155Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—It is always a pleasure to follow the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation because he gives you plenty of material in case you have not thought about or written your speech. He is right on one point: there is a good ship Australia. It is just too bad that this government believes that the earth is flat. Another interesting feature of members of this government is the tags they give themselves. It gives you some idea of what they are really about. They call people like Tony Abbott and Peter Reith `the workers' friends'. Do not forget that there used to be a time when people, I think sarcastically, used to refer to `honest John'. Where is `honest John' today? And where are the jobs? `Honest John' was meant more in the sense of the really big friend you have who you call `Tiny', or the mate of yours with red hair who you call `Blue'. So we had `honest John'. We had this minister gloating about how good the economy is and about how good everything is, but then he finished off by saying, `These are hard times; these are bad economic times. We are in trouble. It is lucky we have got a good leader.' Where is this leader for all the workers of Australia? Where is the leadership on Ansett? Where is the leadership? All I can see is opportunism; all I can see are wedges. He talked about votes, and we know why he did that. They just have to continue the fever that is out there; they have to continue the fear.This government is not a government based on fact; it is a government based on fiction. It is writing novels about itself before it departs, hopefully, from government. For all the good things that have happened in the economy and in the country, the government stands up and says, `We are responsible for that; it is our economic management and skills.' With anything bad that happens, it says, `That's somebody else.' It says, `We'll only take the good; we won't take the bad.' This is not a government for everyone; it is a government for absolutely no-one. For the last two years it has hurt many people; it has only helped very few. It has helped the big end of town. They are the only people who have been helped by this government. Everyone else—the workers, the families, the small business people, the Ansett workers— have got nothing from this government, and they will not get anything from this government. We have got out there Costello and Howard—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— The member will refer to other members by their correct titles.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. While we have the Treasurer and the Prime Minister courting the big end of the town, we find that two other ministers— the transport minister and the minister for tourism—are actually court jesters. They are failing industry and they are failing government. They are blinded by their big floppy hats with bells on them.This year, I have to say, has been a very sad year, and it has been epitomised by the suffering caused by massive corporate collapses, job losses and a government that have been refusing to acknowledge that any problems exist. That is their first failing. If you put on the blinkers you can say, `No, nothing is happening around me; keep going forward.' That is the leadership the minister was talking about. It is the leadership that says, `Don't worry about what is collapsing around us. The house is falling down, but, whatever is happening, ignore it. Keep marching forward because if we believe our own rhetoric perhaps somebody out there might believe our rhetoric as well.' Let me give you a corporate list that reads like the Who's Who of blue-chip stocks, the Who's Who of Australian icons. We have Ansett, HIH, OneTel, Harris Scarfe, Centaur Mining, Liberty One, Bradmill and Pasminco. Who takes responsibility? It is your watch. Where are you? What are you doing? Talking about a ship was a good analogy. Minister, it is your watch on the ship. Do you know what a captain does on a ship? He takes responsibility for his ship and, when his ship starts taking on water, he bilges the water out. But not this government: they say, `Just keep rowing. We'll get there eventually if we just keep rowing.' The good ship Australia is taking on a little bit of water. And I am not talking the economy down, Minister. DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—You brought it down.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—Oh, I am talking the economy down! I can't talk it down; you have brought it down. I am stating the fact. What is important here is not so much the performance of this government but what they are going to do or not going to do for the workers of Australia. It is the messages they are sending out to the workers. They say, `Don't dare talk down the economy, but it is okay to ignore the workers and all of their entitlements.' Yesterday we saw probably one of the best performances that I can recall seeing or reading about. I think we would have to delve through the videos for many years to see a better performance than the one we saw yesterday. It highlighted a further point: this is a government not about quality but about a few loose words. There was the `blip' comment. The blip comment is very important. It is all about `blip blop.' That is what this government is about. They think that just by ignoring a problem it will go away. That is just not going to happen. This government and the Treasurer would have you believe that the economy is oh so good, and everything is oh so okay. But why are so many people suffering? Why are so many people losing their jobs? Why do we have 16,000 jobs going, through the Ansett collapse? Why do we have 70,000 associated jobs through other industries being lost? You have to stop for a minute and think about those people. They are real people. Big numbers sometimes take away the idea that real people are behind the numbers. That is 70,000 people, 70,000 families, who will lose their jobs and have no income, who will be forced onto the measly, miserly system that this government has introduced of Centrelink, and the breaching system and the victimisation that people oh so dearly want to get away from. So when the government says it is a great economy, when it says things are going well and then says things are tough, what is it really saying?The government and Minister Abbott, particularly a couple of days ago when there was an Ansett rally out the front of Parliament House, have refused to speak to workers on all occasions. He has refused to speak to workers. He went down there to terrorise those workers, and they took a vote amongst themselves, which is their right. They said, `We don't want to hear any more derogatory, inflammatory comments from this minister who offers us nothing.' He talks about 100 per cent, but 100 per cent of nothing is still nothing. Do your sums! The only plan that this government has ever had is one plan, and that was the Stan Howard plan. It was about giving somebody close to them something, 100 per cent, but everyone else gets nothing. This is what it is all about.But there is something even worse about how little regard this government and these ministers have. At the centre of the Ansett debacle is one man, and he stands alone. He lays claim to the five scariest words in Australian politics: `Acting Prime Minister John Anderson'. Those words strike fear in the heart of anyone. What we saw was Acting Prime Minister John Howard come up with comments like, `I think the market forces should deal with this matter.' Market forces did, Acting Prime Minister John Howard—QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—John Anderson.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—I mean John Anderson. There are two acting prime ministers, and neither of them is much good anyway. But it goes further than that. What we have also seen since this government has come to power is the collapse of the building industry. We saw something like 40,000 jobs go. At the same time, some say, there are low interest rates. I am prepared to talk about low interest rates and say, `Sure; that is supposed to deliver some good?' They had to come up with some plan to try to finally rescue the building industry before it completely collapsed, but what that has done for people trying to get into the market is to actually make homes more expensive. It is always a matter of last minute resort for this government. You cannot see into the future but you can plan for it. You can actually have a look at what your policies are going to do. But, in your case, you wait for the inevitable to happen. Everyone is telling you what is going on; the industry tells you what is going on. The building industry was meeting with ministers and was telling the government what was going to happen, but the government had its little blinkers on, as always, and just ignored what was going on around it.The minister would say, `None of that really matters.' He pulled out a document and said, `Here it all is. It's all here in black and white. It's not me saying it. It's some reputable newspaper.' So I thought I would do the same thing. He said, `The evidence is in the Australian dollar. The evidence is in the overseas markets.' So let me read something about our wonderful Australian dollar and the good ship Australia from an article written by Stephen Koukoulas and headed `Costello's claims on $A are questionable'. It states:In response to the latest free-fall of the $A, Mr Costello suggested that `what happened to the $A had nothing to do with any events in Australia'... In terms of economic growth, Australia is performing somewhere in the middle of the pack—We are not doing so great. The article says later:Among emerging economies, faster GDP growth has been registered in China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Korea, Thailand, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, Egypt, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Russia.Believe it or not, Russia is doing better than we are. So where is the growth? Where are the jobs? There is faster growth in Russia. What is going on here?Opposition member—How is Botswana going?83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—That is right, Botswanaland. I am sure that they are doing even better than we are. The article goes on further to say:The $A's fall is extraordinary to the point where the only weaker currencies since the terrorist attacks in the US last week are the Indonesian rupiah and the Afghanistan afghani, the latter dropping by around 12 per cent because of the news of the terrorist attacks.That has to make you stop and think. If there are only two other currencies—Afghanistan's and Indonesia's—that have done worse than ours since the attacks, what are we doing? The next thing they will have us believe is that the boat people are harbouring bin Laden on the Manoora. (Time expired)16:11:0031157St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—The member for Oxley says many things but actually does not say anything, which is not unusual. I have to say one thing about these MPIs after question time. They continue to highlight the vast chasm, the vast depth of difference that there is between us and those who sit on that side of the House and believe that they have some sort of an opportunity to get onto this side of the House. I think the general public are starting to understand and see the complete lack of leadership that there is on that side of the House.The MPI is a very important matter and I believe that what has happened over the last week for the airline industry generally in Australia and certainly for regional areas has affected all of us. I have to pay tribute to the member for Gwydir, John Anderson, as Minister for Transport and Regional Services and also, during the difficult time over the last week or two, in his position as Acting Prime Minister, when our own Prime Minister was overseas in Washington to be with the President over there for vital talks and, of course, when the issues were unfolding with the terrorism attack.One of the major effects was the loss of jobs, of course, and I think we all, right around Australia, feel sorrow for those who have been put out of work by the Ansett failure—a failure, I have to say, that most of Australia is aware was caused by poor management and years of neglect by, I would suggest, directors and owners of that company going back over a period of 20 years or more. There was no proper replacement program or maintenance program in place for their ageing jets and, obviously, no thought for the future of the great airline of Ansett and the service that they provided. Caught up in that demise were many other regional airlines, including Kendell Airlines and Hazelton Airlines. Two of the ports in my electorate of New England were serviced by Hazelton, which provided us with a very good service over the years that they were coming in. I also have to thank the regional airline service Qantas Link, which is the old Eastern Airlines which started in Tamworth. Over many, many years, Eastern Airlines or Qantas Link has provided a great service to the ports of Tamworth and Armidale, and its service now extends through to Glen Innes and Inverell. During this time when many are looking to the service levels, I have noticed that residents of Tamworth, in particular, can catch return services to Sydney four times a day on a Dash 8, which is a 36-seater aircraft, and to Brisbane twice a day on an 18-seater Beechcraft. In the meantime, Qantas Link will continue to fly from Armidale to Sydney as it does, four times a day.I think the revelation that Ansett's estimated loss is something like $2 billion really starts to hit home, and you wonder how corporate managers—or so-called managers—could allow that sort of thing to happen over a period of time. Some discussion has been held in this place about throwing out rescue packages and investing taxpayers' money in corporate entities. I have never supported that line and still do not. What I do support and applaud is the fact that this government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, has speedily come to the assistance of those stranded Ansett workers around Australia who have been affected by this, with guarantees on entitlements.We have heard both opposition speakers on the MPI—the member for Hotham and the member for Oxley—talk about this government not assisting. It astounds me to hear that, and I will just read out, and again put on the record, what this government is doing for those people. Keep in mind that, when those in opposition were in government, they did not assist anyone with workers' rights or entitlements. The government is providing 100 per cent of unpaid annual leave, 100 per cent of long service leave, 100 per cent of unpaid wages, 100 per cent of unpaid pay in lieu of notice, plus up to eight weeks of their redundancy entitlements as per community standards. As I mentioned earlier, in contrast, when Labor were in power, they did not contribute one cent to assist at all any companies that went down. The member for North Sydney, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, gave us a long, detailed list of those companies that did go down the chute while the Labor Party were in government.This government's responsible actions will cost up to $400 million, and I think the government need to be congratulated for the fact that they have acted decisively and quickly and have been able to get air services up. I think that is to their credit. This is a massive job. Australia's landmass is about the same size as the United States. We are dependent on air travel, and I am pleased that we have been able to get services now into most areas of Australia within a short time.This MPI is also about tax reform. I have supported this government many a time, both in here and before coming to parliament, over the need for a new tax system. We need to look at what has been achieved by this government since it came to power, and those achievements need to be repeated. I have come from 30 years of small business, and I do not want anyone to ever forget what was done to this country in the 13 dark years of Labor from 1983 to 1996.I want to highlight the achievements of this government. I want to talk about the $3,500 million taken off taxes on exports. We have not seen as yet the full opportunities from that coming through, but they are certainly starting to be reflected in the figures and in Australia's employment opportunities. The unemployment rate is now down to 6.8 per cent. Since March 1996, we have been able to create 882,000 new jobs. While I agree with the minister that we are heading into difficult times, I say again that it highlights the difference between the two major parties and the fact that we need to maintain very strong leadership for all Australians and provide that leadership as we go into this next period. The Australian economy has grown 0.9 per cent. That is one of the strongest growth rates in the industrialised world when compared with other countries—Japan reported negative growth for the June quarter, Germany had no growth, France and the UK had just 0.3 per cent growth, and Italy's economy actually contracted. In our region, as we are aware, many economies, including Singapore and Taiwan, are now facing recession. We have achieved $12 billion in income tax cuts through our tax system. Significantly, that has provided a net increase of between $5 billion and $6 billion. I know the workers whom I talk to and see in the factories, the shops, the smash repair businesses and the abattoirs are very thankful that they pay less tax now than they paid before. This government announced very recently a 40 per cent reduction in AQIS fees. That is a significant boost to exporters of agricultural products in my electorate of New England and a significant boost to exporters right around Australia. Not only does it assist the meat exporters; it assists the grain exporters, horticultural people and those who are involved in the fish industry. I also want to mention the good effects of the GST and the fact that the total revenue from the GST will go to the states. In the case of New South Wales, that is $8.5 billion per year. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills31159R138331159Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31159Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)— by leave—read a third time.Bills31159R138231159Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31159Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)— by leave—read a third time.Bills31159R139431159Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31159Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)— by leave—read a third time.Bills31159S30231159Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.31159Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)— by leave—read a third time.Bills31159The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Trade Practices Amendment (Telecommunications) Bill 2001Health and Other Services (Compensation) Legislation Amendment Bill 2001Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Indexation) Bill 2001Education, Training and Youth Affairs Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 2001Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2001Bills31160R141731160Bill presented by Mr Abbott, and read a first time.3116016:27:0031160Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The grounding of Ansett on 14 September was a sad day, both for Australia and the Australian aviation industry. Ansett is a proud name in our aviation history, and its employees are dedicated and hard working.As the number of passengers in need of immediate assistance to complete their travel falls away, communities in regional Australia and Ansett employees are the government's top priority. This bill, part of a package of two bills that the government has introduced to establish an air passenger ticket levy, is about those employees.The Australian government is still working hard with the administrators to get Ansett back into the skies again. If we are successful, many of the employees who are suffering from an uncertain future will be able to return to the industry that they have served before.However, no matter how hard we work to deliver the best outcome, we must also plan for every eventuality.We have encouraged Ansett employees to register their interest with our entitlement scheme hotline, and the government and the administrators will be seeking funding of the outstanding employment entitlements from the assets of the Air New Zealand Group.The government is also drawing up legislation to provide for employees to be placed ahead of new secured creditors when companies become insolvent.The Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, has commenced a formal investigation into the collapse of Ansett, focusing on possible breaches of directors' duties under the Corporations Act. This will include investigating compliance with the insolvent trading provisions of the act and Air New Zealand's potential liability under those provisions.In addition, it is more than likely that the assets of the Ansett group of companies will be sufficient when realised to meet the outstanding employment entitlements. If the administrator has no choice but to wind up the company, Ansett employees will have needs that must be met quickly, and early payment of entitlements that are rightfully theirs will help them through this difficult period as the industry readjusts.In order to ensure that Ansett employees' entitlements for wages, annual and long service leave and pay in lieu of notice are met in full, the government will establish a Special Employees' Entitlements Scheme for Ansett group employees, SEESA. SEESA will ensure that Ansett employees get paid all their unpaid wages and unpaid leave, and their pay in lieu of notice. SEESA will also meet their redundancy entitlements up to the community standard of eight weeks.The levy will be administered by the Department of Transport and Regional Services, and funds raised through the levy will reimburse the agency for payments in connection with the scheme. It will also meet the costs of the arrangement and the government's costs in administering the levy.The levy will be imposed on each ticket used to board a flight starting its journey at an Australian airport. Only the first flight taken by the passenger holding the ticket will attract the levy so, for example, the levy will not be applied to the return flight.The levy, which will apply to electronic as well as the more traditional paper ticketing, will be set at $10, and will be collected on behalf of the Commonwealth by airlines. The cost of the scheme to the airlines will be absorbed by them.We have begun discussions with airline operators on the best system for administering the levy at the lowest cost for both airlines and the government. The levy will be applied to every ticket purchased on or after 1 October 2001 and will continue until it has met the cost of payments made to former employees of Ansett Australia under SEESA and related administration.In the event that the levy generates a surplus before it is ended, the government will distribute that surplus in accordance with a scheme it will prescribe by regulation. I want to make it clear that it is not the government's intention to distribute that surplus to the benefit of the airlines that collected the levy, nor will it be used as a windfall for the government.Aside from the detail of the package, there are two broader issues that I want to address here.The size of the potential losses from any permanent grounding of Ansett is very considerable. It has the potential to be one of the biggest corporate collapses in Australia's history. In the event of such a collapse, the budget is simply not able to bear the cost of the unpaid entitlements of Ansett employees. The package authorises payments of up to $500 million to meet the costs associated with the SEESA.It is not fair that we tax the whole of the community to support this need—but it is appropriate to impose a tax on airline users.Similar approaches have been used in other cases of industry restructuring, such as the stevedoring industry and to address industry specific problems, including aircraft noise abatement measures and the increased cost of monitoring for foot and mouth disease.As with the imposition of other similar levies to deal with other specific circumstances, we do not believe that this will affect the recovery of regional air services after the grounding of Ansett. However, we will monitor the effect of the levy on regional Australia to ensure that this is the case.It is also important to note that the package will not impose a levy on passengers who take possession of their ticket outside Australia. This is a problem that affects Australia, and we will deal with it here. The exemption means that the levy will not place any great impediment on one of our most important export industries.The question of who is to blame for the grounding of Ansett is a question for another time. The government has already made its thoughts clear on this subject, and it is now a matter for the administrators and the courts.In the meantime, Ansett employees have a right to their entitlements, and these are needed to help them through these uncertain times. This package will allow the government to meet their needs in a timely way. I commend this bill to the House. I note that it will be supported by the opposition. I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned.Bills31161R141931161Bill presented by Mr Abbott—by leave— and read a first time.3116116:35:0031161Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.In order to expedite the business of the House, I simply refer to the statements I made in my previous speech and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned.Bills31161R139131161Debate resumed.16:36:0031161Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—In my contribution to this debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 earlier today before question time, I made the point that Labor in government had resolved three previous waves of boat people, from south China, from Cambodia and from Vietnam. We did this by negotiating at the source the cause of the problem and negotiating a return of those people to those countries. Therefore, in our support for this legislation what people like me are saying is, `This is fine and we are happy to support it, but the fact is that it won't work.' It will not work because the government is not doing what needs to be done, which is going to those countries, and that particularly means Malaysia and Indonesia, where the issues are arising, where people are transiting, and negotiating. There is lack of support or concern about the refugee camps. We are doing very little about the refugees in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which are the major sources of these recent arrivals. We are basically giving it no attention whatsoever. I am actually old enough to remember the Menzies era. I remember well the yellow peril. I remember when I was quite young seeing a map with an arrow from the north pointing at Australia and an election based on the fear of invasion from the north. We have watched in these recent weeks the linking and typecasting of people from Afghanistan with terrorists; therefore, those who come as asylum seekers are terrorists. I have watched the linking of them with armaments. I watched the Minister for Defence quite outrageously misuse his portfolio. What we are seeing is a government desperate for an election win seeking to revive the Menzies era of khaki elections in this country. The Korean War and the Vietnam War were largely used for political purposes, and what we are seeing now is a disgraceful attempt by this government to do the same. The tragedy is that this will impede our capacity to solve this problem. We are about solving the problem, not about exacerbating or misusing it. The government is more inclined to use this issue as a political one and, in the process, it means that our capacity to solve it is being destroyed. (Time expired)16:38:0031162Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 from what I believe to be a unique position in this House: as far as I know, I am the only person to be elected to this House who actually came to Australia as a refugee. My parents came to Australia as post World War II refugees from Hungary. They had two young children, my brother and me—he was four years old and I was two. They escaped from the communist regime in Hungary through the Austrian border and joined literally millions of people who were refugees from eastern Europe. My very first view of the world was through a barbed wire fence at a refugee holding camp outside Naples, in Italy, where refugees from all over Europe sought safe haven. My parents had no idea where they would be sent or which country would accept them. In Europe in the immediate postwar years there were millions of refugees and Australia was not a well-known country or, for that matter, a desirable destination. My parents told me that their expectation was that they would be resettled somewhere in North or South America. After an eight-month wait, living in this Italian refugee holding camp, our turn for resettlement came and we were placed aboard a former troop carrier, the USS General Harry Taylor, to sail to Australia. I can remember as an infant sailing into Sydney Harbour and watching the Harbour Bridge over the top of the ship. We were transported to a migrant camp at Bathurst in New South Wales to join hundreds of other immigrants and refugees from Europe who were waiting to start a new life in Australia.Our worldly belongings were in a wooden chest that came with us—memories of freedom in a previous life, culture, family and friends were all contained in that wooden chest. I have the unique experience, I think, in this House in that I did migrate to this country as a child refugee and, of course, we were then stateless people. I grew up as a new Australian in this nation against a background of parents grateful for the new life and freedom given to them by this country. Others in this House have a comprehension of refugees' rights from different viewpoints. They develop a view over the years, and I respect each one of those views. My views are drawn from personal experience.Against this background, I want to say that I support this bill without reservation. My electorate supports this bill and the immigrants in my electorate support this bill. I thought this bill and the Border Protection Bill were such important pieces of legislation that I published details in a newsletter throughout my electorate last weekend. I published the minister's background notes on the bill and his second reading speech in full. I also published the Prime Minister's second reading speech on the Border Protection Bill so that the constituents in my electorate could see in detail what the Labor Party had voted against. Of course, the Democrats and the Greens voted against that bill as well. I published in my electorate what the media would not publish. This bill will signal to the world, and especially to people smugglers, that Australia is no longer a soft touch. This bill contains measures that will address attempts to misuse onshore protection processes. The bill ensures that the refugee convention provides appropriate protection for refugees, consistent with the international obligations that Australia assumed when becoming a party to the convention. It also minimises the misuse of Australia's protection process. The bill basically will do eight things. Firstly, it will clarify and define certain refugee convention matters. Then it will extend the bar in section 48A of the act against further application for visa protection. This will make it clear that the section 48 bar applies to all protection visa applicants irrespective of whether they have sought the visa because of personal claims for refugee protection or as a family member of such a person. This will prevent members of the families pursuing claims for protection one after the other, dragging on resolution of their status for years. It will allow the minister in certain circumstances to draw a reasonable inference unfavourable to an unauthorised arrival or protection visa applicant if they fail to provide information on oath or affirmation or to produce documentary evidence of the applicant's identity, nationality or citizenship. This addresses growing concerns, particularly in relation to unauthorised arrivals, that individuals are disposing of identifying documentation and engaging in sophisticated research and schooling of claims in order to mislead Australian officials about their identity, nationality or real need for protection. It will provide that the minister shall not take into account the implications of actions taken in Australia by asylum seekers which are intended to create or strengthen their claims for protection. It will require the High Court and Federal Court not to publish the name of a person who is seeking or who has sought protection and is engaging in certain types of litigation relating to their status to remain in Australia.The result of that will be to substantially reduce the potential for publication of court records and proceedings, which may create further protection claims for people in Australia or put their families and colleagues overseas at risk of harm. The proposed legislation will leave intact the capacity of the minister, or the person engaged in the litigation, to seek the confidential treatment of further identifying information. It will require the Administrative Appeals Tribunal not to publish any information which may identify persons. It will require that certain crimes listed in section 5 of the Extradition Act 1988 as being non-political will be taken to be serious non-political crimes for the purposes of assessing exclusion from protection under article 1F of the refugee convention and that, for the purposes of that article, a crime will be non-political where the primary motivation was non-political. It will require that certain crimes against people, serious drugs or property damage crimes and serious crimes committed in relation to immigration detention will be taken to be particularly serious crimes for the purpose of assessing whether Australia owes protection obligations to an individual under article 33(2) of the refugee convention. This will not affect the requirement under article 33(2) of the convention to consider whether a person convicted of a particularly serious crime also represents a risk to the community. It will provide the minister with the power to substitute a more favourable decision for an AAT decision where that decision is in relation to a review to refuse a protection visa. This legislation mirrors provisions already in place to allow the minister to substitute a more favourable decision in relation to decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal.The government holds a strong view that it is essential to restore the application of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees in Australia to its generally accepted interpretation. This bill achieves that outcome. It will promote integrity in protection visa application and decision making processes and assist in the government's goal to minimise fraud and deception during the assessment process and realise a more effective ability to remove failed asylum seekers through the requirements related to documentary evidence of identity. We are in danger of creating two classes of refugees: on the one hand, legal refugees who apply under normal circumstances under our humanitarian program; on the other hand, illegals who try to buy their way into this country by criminally falsifying their claims, by seeking out services of people smugglers, by queue jumping genuine refugees and by paying for coaching on how to beat our system. It is clear that the majority of Australians want this bill to be passed. We are here as a parliament to give effect to the will of the people. I support the bill without reservation, and I challenge the opposition to join us on this occasion and support this bill. For six years, the opposition has frustrated attempts by the government, through Senate obstruction, to fix this problem. The challenge is there. If the opposition supports this bill, it will become law. It is good law.16:50:0031164Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 covers a wide range of areas. In the limited amount of time open to me, I would like to focus on the definition of persecution. This is fundamental to the 1951 refugee convention, a convention which is a keystone of our humanitarian obligations and a convention which was ratified by the Menzies government.The convention defines a refugee as a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a political social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. At the heart of this notion of a refugee is the concept of being persecuted. This concept is not defined in the convention and has been a matter for interpretation by the Australian courts.In the key case of Chan and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Justice McHugh said, in what I understand to be a seminal judgment, that the notion of persecution involves selective harassment. It is not necessary, however, that the conduct complained of should be directed against the member as an individual—a person may be persecuted because he or she is a member of a group which is the subject of systematic harassment. Nor is it a necessary element of persecution that the individual should be the victim of a series of acts; a single act of suppression may suffice. As long as the person is threatened with harm, and that harm can be seen as part of a course of systematic conduct directed for a convention reason against that person as an individual or as a member of a class, they are being persecuted for the purposes of the convention. Moreover, to constitute persecution, the harm threatened need not be that of loss of life or liberty. Other forms of harm, short of interference with life or liberty, may constitute persecution for the purposes of the convention and protocol. Measures in disregard of human dignity may, in appropriate cases, constitute persecution. The bill before us seeks to give a statutory definition of persecution. It provides in section 91R(1) that for persecution to be established the persecution must be for a convention reason. That reason must be the essential reason for the persecution; the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct; and, finally, the persecution should involve serious harm to the person. In section 91R(2), the definition of what constitutes serious harm for the purposes of this legislation is further elaborated. It is about this section that I have had substantial concerns.The extended definition of serious harm contained in subsections 91R(2)(a) through to 91R(2)(f) does not determine the whole scope of the definition, but the inclusive wording of the provision means that in order to establish serious harm one would need to establish, in the examples of subsections (d) through to (f), that in the event of significant economic hardship, denial of access to basic services and/or denial of one's capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, serious harm would only be established if the persecution threatens one's capacity to subsist. The United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees was established in 1951 in response to the persecutions that were experienced prior to and during World War II and the huge number of persons who sought sanctuary and protection after the end of hostilities. Drawn from the experience of the European theatre, the persecution of Jews by the Nazi regime prior to and during World War II has long set a benchmark for Western society as to the extremities of persecution. But, if we are to construct a hypothetical test case of Jewish persons fleeing the Nazi race law regime between 1933 and 1938, if they sought refugee status under the draft bill, as it stood, their positions would be precarious. This is for two reasons.The Nazi race laws of the period in question involved a gradation of adverse forms of legal discrimination introduced by statute from 1933 onwards. These included the denial of citizenship to German Jews; the dismissal of German Jews from the public service and their exclusion from professions such as law, medicine and dentistry and from the holding of editorial positions; denial of access to secondary and tertiary education; denial of the right to be a union member and to be a juror; and refusal to allow participation in artistic and cultural activities. The laws barred non-Aryans from many areas of commerce, required Jews and other discriminated minorities to display racial or political identification, including the wearing of the Jewish star insignia, and prohibited mixed marriages between Jews and Aryans.The difficulty with the bill as initially drafted is, I think, illuminatingly spelt out in an incisive opinion prepared by Mr Bret Walker, SC. Referring to the extent of the notion of serious harm proposed in section 91R(2), Mr Walker advised:This provision uses the familiar statutory wording `The reference ... includes a reference to ...' by way of a so-called non-exhaustive definition. It is clearly correct that such provisions do not describe the whole scope of the statutory meaning of the term defined. But it does not follow that, so far as the topics or categories which are covered in proposed paras 91R(2)(a)-(f) are concerned, they do not prescribe a minimum standard to be achieved. For example, in the case of (d), `significant economic hardship' notwithstanding the use of the word `includes', it is fairly arguable that the specific provision which describes that hardship by the extra qualification `that threatens the person's capacity to subsist' stipulates a minimum standard of that hardship which must be met before it can constitute `serious harm'. If this argument were correct, as it may well be, the combined impact of proposed paragraphs 91R(2)(d), paragraph (e) `denial of access to basic services' and paragraph (f) `denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind', all of which carry the extra qualification of the threat to the `capacity to subsist', would undoubtedly make a German Jew's position in, say, 1938 under such a law governing reception of refugees, very precarious.In my opinion, it would probably justify an officer administering such a law declining to treat a German Jew as a refugee within the meaning of the convention ... This is because the laws noted above do not go far enough to threaten the capacity of their victims to subsist, i.e. to continue to obtain the sustenance necessary to maintain physical life. In my opinion, the qualification concerning this threat in proposed paragraphs 91R(2)(d), (e) and (f) really amounts—here I paraphrase—to a requirement that the matters threaten driving people to starvation or lethal exposure.As this was not the case for the Nazi laws in question, the qualification could not be satisfied, and would-be refugees would be turned away more or less on the basis that things were very bad for them but not so bad as to threaten death.There is no doubt that, whilst the intention of the government in this bill is to tighten the definition of persecution, it was not intended that that effect of the relevant provision would be to lift the bar so far. Accordingly, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has foreshadowed amendments to the bill as well as to the explanatory memorandum that will correct any adverse interpretation.I would like to take this opportunity to make a special note that, despite workloads that have been astronomical in recent weeks, both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs have made very significant endeavours to consult and work through these issues to ensure that the bill is consistent with the intentions of the government. I do thank them. Section 91R(2) I understand will read, `Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the following are instances of serious harm.' The clear intent is to ensure that subsections 91R(2)(a) to (f) are in fact merely examples that serve to provide a non-exhaustive definition of serious harm. In order to further prevent any misinterpretation, the following amendment will also be inserted into the explanatory memorandum:The examples in subsection 91R(2) are not exhaustive and do not prevent other examples of persecution from amounting to serious harm. For instance, serious harm may be established where the cumulative effect of persecutory laws such as occurred to the Jewish people in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1938. The references in (d), (e) and (f) of the examples to deny a person's capacity to subsist illustrate the serious nature of harm, but do not mean that serious harm cannot be established by showing other serious disadvantages in a particular case.I am gratified that the government has seen it appropriate to move these amendments. I commend the bill to the House.17:01:0031166Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 has some positive features. The legislation is intended to give us a more focused definition of the refugee convention in its application in Australia. I think the intention of the bill is a good one. However, I have some concerns firstly about the process and secondly about the context in which this has been introduced. The government has wanted to do something in relation to this matter for some time and has had disagreements with the opposition about it, but I am concerned that insufficient parliamentary scrutiny has occurred. I say to the minister that this is an example of a bill that should have gone to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration for consideration. The issues here are very important and I think we should have taken input from the public, from concerned groups such as the Refugee Council of Australia, from people involved with refugees, from human rights organisations and many others before we finally came up with a bill.What is important here is that we should accept that some interpretations of the law in relation to the refugee convention have allowed some people to be accepted as refugees, but nothing like the number that the minister goes on about. It seems that the minister tends to think that if we had the kind of interpretation he is putting forward now, a large number of refugees would not get through the system. I do not think that is right. But I agree that there were some cases of abuse; and if the minister is satisfied with the idea of trying to close up some of those cases of abuse, I have no problem with that. I am concerned about a couple of the clauses and expressions in the bill, and I have moved some amendments to them which I will talk about a little later.I will talk first about the context in which this is coming forward. Yesterday three bills were rushed through the parliament on issues pertaining to the Tampa refugees and also border control issues on which the minister and the government, in my opinion, have overreacted. They have managed to get the support of the opposition, mostly because of concerns about the political impact of these issues rather than about making good law. Ever since I gave my speech yesterday to this chamber about the Christmas Island excision bill, for example, I have received a lot of messages of support from people. Even people who do not necessarily agree with my more sympathetic approach to the refugee issue have expressed grave concern about the way in which we have tried to handle this problem by excising parts of Australia from the application of migration law. That determination in relation to Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and a couple of other places was quite an absurd way of trying to deal with the problem.The Prime Minister is saying, `We want a definition which is more or less uniform for those arriving by selection as distinct from those arriving by boat or aircraft without papers and claiming refugee status.' If we want a common definition and the minister is introducing this bill today to move us towards a tighter definition of `refugee', why did we need the Christmas Island excision bill? If we are having a tighter definition and if the minister is satisfied with this tighter definition, why is he wanting, in addition to that, to exclude from the application people who are arriving on Australian territory at Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and other places? It appears that the minister wants to have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he wants to tighten the definition, but, on the other hand, he also wants to say, `Those people arriving on Christmas Island will not be allowed to be processed under this new tighter definition.' Why not, Minister? Given that you are tightening the definition, and you are going to get bipartisan support for that, why did we need the legislation yesterday if these people could have been processed under this new tighter definition? In response, the minister will say, `Yes, it is a tighter definition, but it still is not as tough as some interpretations by some officers of the UNHCR definition,' that is, the interpretation that perhaps some UNHCR officers in Indonesia have made, which the minister constantly refers to and which he feels ought to be applied to those arriving on Christmas Island and those other places. Just imagine what it all amounts to. It means that our refugee regime will have one set of criteria for people who are processed overseas and another set of criteria for people who arrive on Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands; namely, another application of the UNHCR rules. Yesterday the minister said that they would be tighter than the rules applying in Indonesia. So we are going to have one set of rules for those in camps in various places, another set of rules for those who arrive on Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and a third set of rules—these rules—for those who actually get to the Australian mainland by aeroplane or some other method. Talk about incoherence in public policy!The Prime Minister, in answer to my question yesterday, said, `We want to have one set of criteria.' Why don't we put in place one set of criteria? Why don't we tell our embassies that are processing people overseas to use the same set of criteria as we will use after the bill is passed? Why don't we also apply that set of criteria to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island and avoid the ridiculous situation that we are creating in which people who arrive on Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands will be subjected to a certain set of UNHCR criteria, not the criteria that we are debating now? What will happen to those people? I asked the question yesterday, but nobody was prepared to answer: even if there are fewer of them who meet the criteria on Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, even if it is only, say, 20 per cent rather than 70 or 80 per cent, what will happen to those 20 per cent? If thousands of people arrive, you will still have a few hundred at least, perhaps even thousands, on Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. What will we do with them? What does the minister intend to do with those who meet the criteria on those islands? Will they be brought to our detention centres here? Will they be sent overseas? What will happen to those people?We cannot keep sending them off to poor Nauru. It is struggling to put together enough facilities for the people who have already arrived there on the ships. What will we do if there are more of them? The minister gives no answer, and he gave no answer yesterday. It shows that we are making policy on the run in relation to these issues, and in so doing we are appearing not only to be much less compassionate than we should be, especially to people escaping from Afghanistan and Iraq, but also inconsistent. Depending on how you arrive or by what circumstances you happen to get to a particular place in Australia, you will be given a different set of criteria in terms of refugee processing. I consider that to be unbelievable. If the minister, through this bill, is providing a tougher definition, according to him, why can't we then use this particular definition in all cases? Forget about the Christmas Island excision, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands excision and other such issues and the absurd situation in which the normal laws do not apply in part of our own country. It would have been a lot better if we had had agreement with the key organisations and bodies that are responsible for refugees—those who do manage to get to Australia—about the provisions of this bill. As I have said, there are significant positive provisions in the bill. The minister mentioned a couple of examples, one of which was somebody being persecuted because they were involved in criminal activity such as gang fights in another country. That is fine; I am not interested in saying that in that case the refugee convention applies and that such a person should claim refugee status. The exclusion of some of those people is a reasonable idea. But, Minister, if you intend to sell the tightened definition to the public and to the refugee organisations on the ground that it will exclude huge numbers of people from the refugee definition, I can tell you that it is not going to do that—not the way I read it, unless there are some hidden clauses in it that I have not seen. If such clauses were intended to be in it, I would oppose the legislation. What I propose instead is to move the amendments circulated in my name, which go to two significant matters.The first matter concerns the fact that if a person refuses to give their identity, the person will be pressed to comply with the minister's request. However, the clause that worries me states that, if the minister has reason to believe that because of:(i) the manner in which the applicant complied with the request; or (ii) the applicant's demeanour in relation to compliance with the request; the applicant was not sincere; then, in making a decision whether to grant the protection visa to the applicant, the Minister may draw any reasonable inference unfavourable to the applicant's credibility. That clause is open-ended. The minister can make a subjective judgment as to whether the person's demeanour is sufficient for that person to appear to be insincere. A person may have a certain demeanour, and the minister may say, `I don't think you are sincere.' I think it should be more than that. I have an amendment which omits that paragraph and which adds:Actions carried out by the applicant in the course of complying with the request, including statements by the applicant.If those actions indicate that the applicant was not sincere, they are concrete actions which constitute real evidence in this matter rather than an appearance and a demeanour. We should have a clause like that because the minister is obviously not going to make that judgment himself; that judgment is going to be made by officers. In that situation, those officers could make subjective judgments on the basis of people who they do not like the look of, or people whose general situation they do not like.I am being told to wind up. I have not had time to discuss my other amendment. In conclusion, we are getting a stronger definition of a refugee in the system. But I do not understand why we did that exercise yesterday, when, if we have this stronger definition, we could apply it to all the people who arrive in Australia rather than differentiating between those who arrive on Christmas Island and those who arrive on the mainland of Australia.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.31168Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 17:18:0031168Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) circulated in my name:(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (lines 14 to 16), omit paragraph (1)(a).(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 17), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add “/or”.Amendments negatived, Dr Theophanous dissenting.17:19:0031168Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—by leave—I move amendments (3) and (4) circulated in my name:(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (lines 3 and 4), omit subparagraph (c)(ii), substitute: (ii) actions carried out by the applicant in the course of complying with the request, including statements by the applicant;(4) Schedule 1, page 9 (lines 7 and 8), omit subparagraph (ii), substitute: (ii) actions carried out by the non-citizen in the course of complying with the request, including statements by the non-citizen;Amendments negatived, Dr Theophanous dissenting.17:20:0031169Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—by leave—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move government amendments (1) and (2):(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (lines 20 and 21), omit “The reference in paragraph (1)(b) to serious harm to the person includes a reference to any of the following”, substitute “Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph”. (2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 13 (lines 33 and 34), omit the item, substitute:10 Application of amendment— section 501K of the Migration Act 1958Section 501K of the Migration Act 1958 applies in relation to a review, where the application for review was made after the commencement of this item.The first amendment clarifies the proposed subsection 91R(2) and provides a non-exhaustive list of what is serious harm. It also makes it clear that proposed subsection 91R(2) does not prevent other things from amounting to serious harm in a particular case. For example, serious harm may be established where the cumulative effect of persecutory acts is sufficiently serious, such as occurred to the Jews in Nazi Germany. The second amendment is technical and corrects a printing error in the bill as tabled in the parliament at the time of its introduction.I commend the amendments to the chamber. I appreciate the work undertaken by my colleague, the member for Kooyong. I know and understand the matters that he wanted to see addressed and, in addressing them, that in no way derogates from the principal issue that the government wanted to see addressed, and that is where persecution has been found to be the fact that a person has not been able to get a job of their choosing, which is clearly discriminatory, but they are still able to gain a livelihood, that level of persecution, notwithstanding decisions of a court, ought not to be accepted as a basis for a finding of persecution. That is the issue we wanted to deal with.The explanatory memorandum sets out more than adequately the government's view—and I think the member for Kooyong's view—that when harm which might involve discrimination in one form is able to be linked with other serious harm then it can cumulatively be seen as sufficiently serious to constitute persecution. What we have here is a balance, but one which is designed to ensure that the findings that will be made—if they are going to continue to be made by courts, given some of the mother legislation that we are dealing with—are sufficiently serious and that it is persecution. From the way in which some matters have been dealt with, it is quite clear that matters that are clearly discriminatory but not of such a character as to be persecution have been accommodated by some in the way in which the convention has been interpreted.17:23:0031169Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I thank the minister for those amendments. I share his view that the amendments address an area where there was significant concern within the parliament. I appreciate the warmth with which he expressed his regard to the member for Kooyong. That, regrettably, is an exception to the rather mean-spirited way in which those who have expressed concern in relation to legislative defects in relation to these packages have been addressed, but nonetheless I welcome that generosity of spirit to one on his own side. I believe that the additional features that are included improve this package of legislation. Given the time and the desire of the House to have these measures passed before the close of business tonight, I will not speak further. Otherwise I would have taken some opportunity to comment further in relation to those matters.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.31170Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock)—by leave—read a third time.Committees31170311703117017:24:0031170Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 9th and 10th reports for 2001 of the committee, relating to RAAF Base Townsville redevelopment Stage 2, Townsville, and redevelopment of the Army Aviation Centre, Oakey, Queensland.Ordered that the reports be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, I would like to make brief comments on the two reports I have just tabled.The first report relates to the ongoing redevelopment of RAAF Base Townsville. It is one of a chain of airfields maintained for defence and surveillance of the northern areas of Australia and, together with RAAF Base Scherger in Weipa, North Queensland, the Townsville base provides operational and support facilities for the air defence of northern Queensland and its approaches. During the inspection of the base the committee saw at first hand inadequate and aging facilities. The committee needed little convincing that the redevelopment project was appropriate and timely. The committee supports this project.In relation to the Army Aviation Centre in Oakey in Queensland, it involves the upgrading of the Army Aviation Training Centre and includes facilities for the introduction of the armed reconnaissance helicopter and the Army component of the Australian Defence Force Helicopter School. The committee has found the proposed works necessary and recommended that they proceed.The need for the redevelopment of the Army Aviation Centre has four elements. They are, firstly, the government's decision to move the Army component of the Australian Defence Force Helicopter School from Canberra to Oakey; secondly, the strategic decision to retain the Oakey base in the long term; thirdly, the acquisition of a new armed reconnaissance helicopter for the Australian Defence Force; and, fourthly, the inadequacies of existing facilities at Oakey. The training of pilots, ground crew and maintenance technicians for the armed reconnaissance helicopters will be undertaken at Oakey.The project cost is $78.5 million, and this is the current estimate of the cost of the proposed work, including escalation and contingency. Defence informed the committee that it will refine the details of the scope of the work through value management workshops and further develop the design for each facility. As I have already indicated, the committee supports the redevelopment of the Army Aviation Centre at Oakey and has therefore recommended the proposed work proceed at an estimated cost of $76.2 million. I commend these reports to the House.17:28:0031170Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—by leave—Over the last 10 years, virtually all of Australia's overseas operations have been run out of RAAF Townsville, so it is certainly welcome to see the government making a prudent decision to upgrade the infrastructure facilities at RAAF Townsville. It is very important indeed to the 1,100 people who run that base to have new working conditions and new accommodation facilities to make sure that it is a modern base that is ready and willing to go—as the ADF needs to be. The future ahead is uncertain with what we have seen occur in recent weeks. As all other bases across Australia are on a high level of readiness, so is RAAF Townsville.The relocation of the main gate will be terrific, the new dangerous goods store will be very good and the new accommodation that is planned is also very good. I know that the officers, men and women of RAAF Townsville are very much looking forward to this new development and I certainly strongly support the PWC's recommendation to the House tonight.Adjournment31170Motion (by Dr Stone) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.311713117117:29:0031171Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I was speaking earlier on the migration bills and I omitted to mention two things and I would like to do so now. On the 13th of this month the Telegraph ran a picture on the front page, without a lot of detail. It said that the person pictured was the first individual apprehended in relation to the terrorist incidents in America. It was an unfortunate action by the Telegraph, for which they have subsequently apologised. The picture was of a Sikh—and, of course, Sikhs do wear turbans but are not of the Muslim faith. I have lodged a petition today because in the electorate of my friend the honourable member for Greenway there is a Sikh temple and, clearly, the Sikhs were very upset at the actions of the Telegraph. Whilst I do not ordinarily berate the press, I do think that they need to take care in these matters.The second thing that I omitted to say in my speech—and this is pretty bad as well— was that at the Holy Family Church on Sunday at 7 p.m. there was a meeting of that community and the Muslims in my electorate were invited to attend. The purpose of the meeting was obviously to show solidarity with them in these troubled times and particularly to present another side against those who have unfortunately victimised Muslims and singled them out. So I have discharged that matter. I would like to comment on education and particularly the importance the Australian Labor Party and the opposition place on education. It is very pleasing to see that Kim Beazley has announced a national public education alliance which commits all federal, state and territory governments to action to get rid of the finger pointing and the statistics and to deliver real outcomes for our most important commodity, our young people. The undertakings of the alliance are to increase funding in real terms for public schooling; continually improve the quality of teaching in all our schools and enhance the standing of the profession through better initial teacher training, attracting highly achieving graduates to teaching, ongoing teacher professional development programs and a great professional recognition for teachers; raise retention levels, especially in disadvantaged communities; work together to address issues of teacher shortage and to develop and maintain modern curricula; cooperate to make the best possible use of IT and the Internet in education; improve literacy and numeracy; support a national assessment system which provides comprehensive and easy to understand information to parents in ways which are clear and reliable and which will assist in improving students' education; and improve access to TAFE and university. Only Labor is prepared to provide for the educational needs of our young Australians as we prepare to face the challenges of the future.Having been one of those that led the fight for the establishment of the University of Western Sydney, it grieves me greatly that this government has cut by 50 per cent the number of research places at the University of Western Sydney. In terms of both numbers and percentages it is the second highest of all universities in Australia, and yet this is a very young university. You do not have to be in universities to understand that having vibrant research and research students in a university enhances the reputation of that university. But under this government Western Sydney university has been well and truly singled out for cuts. Had the original funding not been cut by Dr Kemp to the University of Western Sydney, we would actually have 3,568 more undergraduate places this year in the University of Western Sydney than we would otherwise have had. The number of places that Dr Kemp is providing this year is a mere 40 out of nearly 3,600 places that would have been there but for this government's cuts to the university. (Time expired)3117117:34:0031171Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10— This past week has been a week in our history marked as a period of very great sadness. We have reflected on what has happened not only in the United States with the barbaric terrorist attacks but also here in Australia to Ansett and its employees. Ansett has always been well known throughout Australia. This evening I want to say a few words about the tragedy that occurred in United States. Like every other Australian and people all around the world, I am still coming to terms with the full extent of the horror and devastation that was deliberately and callously inflicted on innocent people going about their business on 11 September in New York and Washington DC. Like so many other people in this age of instant global communication, I was a witness to the second plane that was deliberately flown by terrorists into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. I witnessed this simply because, like millions of people all around the world, I had turned on my TV set to catch up on the late news. Many words have been written to describe the enormity of the act but the one word that keeps recurring in my mind is `evil'. No other word adequately describes the planning and execution of such an act. The deliberate hijacking of four planes, fully loaded with passengers and fuel—the planes were at the start of their journeys—and the use of those passenger planes as missiles to destroy significant buildings, symbols of freedom and democracy, with thousands of people in them going about their daily lives, was an evil act.In the months and years to come, when the tangled mass that was once the twin towers of the World Trade Centre and the destroyed section of the Pentagon have been cleared and rebuilt, those frightening images of explosion, fireballs and especially the towers crumbling and taking the lives of thousands of the inhabitants of those towers will never be erased. This evil and barbaric act will never be forgotten, nor should it, because evil has no place whatever in our civilised society.Our hearts are burdened and saddened by the loss of so many thousands of good people, including Australian citizens, who have been killed and by the plight of those who are still missing. Our hearts are full of pride for all those who work daily to search for any victims still surviving and who courageously put themselves at risk. Our hearts are full of sympathy for the countless thousands of families who today are without a husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter or friend because of the evil intent and evil acts of those terrorists. Their attack on the United States on 11 September was also an attack on the very freedom that underpins our Australian way of life, and it will not be allowed to go unanswered. The fact that so many nations around the world have responded so quickly and so positively in support of eliminating this sort of evil is a sign that civilised societies want to end this sort of terror.Here in our national parliament on Monday, all members of the House and Senate joined together in prayer at the memorial service and we joined together in this chamber to support a motion of condolence by the Prime Minister. As a free and democratic nation, we will never sit in silence when such evil exists. We will use every opportunity to oppose such evil. On behalf of the people of McEwen whom I represent, I wish to pass on my heartfelt sympathy to all those affected, either directly or indirectly, by this barbaric terrorist attack.3117217:39:0031172Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—On Monday of this week, I was privileged to be able to speak to the condolence motion, moved by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, dealing with the horrific and tragic events in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. I would like to take this opportunity to add to the comments that I made during that condolence motion debate. I spoke then of this being a defining moment in the history of the world and said that how we responded to this tragedy would mark the direction our society would take over the coming decades. I spoke of how we must avoid the spiral of violence that will result if we seek out vengeance and not justice. I spoke of how fanaticism in all its forms, both religious and political, leads only down the path of bloodshed and vengeance, and of how `an eye for an eye' only leaves the blind and the angry. I also spoke about how last week I was privileged to present a number of certificates to local volunteers for their work in the community. On Wednesday it was the turn of the local Red Cross workers to be honoured. We learned that day that one of their colleagues might have been on one of the planes that was hijacked. Now we know that Yvonne Kennedy, a retired Red Cross volunteer from Western Sydney, was indeed aboard American Airlines flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. I attended a number of functions following that during the week—the Serbian Welfare Association meeting, a fundraiser for the Filipino-Australian Development Association, an ecumenical service at Riverstone, and even my local ALP branch meeting—and at each of these there was expressed the same support and feeling of concern, and at each function a minute's silence was spontaneously observed. On Monday I used a quote from Robert Kennedy in the speech he made to the University of Cape Town. In that speech he said:Each time someone stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope and crossing each other from a million different centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.I pray that in our response to this tragedy we will not become oppressors but will indeed contribute to the ripples that will form the tide that will sweep down the walls of oppression. We must stand against those who would deny peace and who would deny those beliefs and ideals that are fundamental to our society, to our way of life.Our thoughts at this time are for the thousands of men and women working around the clock in the rubble of the World Trade Centre in the hope of finding survivors. While every passing moment yields less hope of finding a survivor amongst the wreckage, there is still, as always, the possibility of a miracle. We mourn the loss of lives but we also must mourn the loss of innocence. Terror has struck at more than just buildings and symbols, important as they are: terror has also struck at our hearts. We must not lose sight of the fact that many Australians came to this country because of our belief in freedom and tolerance. Our community is made up of many nationalities and diverse spiritual beliefs, and we are united in condemning despicable acts of evil carried out by the few.I pray that we do not in turn assault and condemn our fellow Australians because their religious beliefs or nationalities happen to be the same as those of the people we seek to bring to justice for this terrible crime. The world is a very different place this week, a much sadder place; and because this has been a global tragedy there is no place to hide and no place to escape its influence. This has happened in the information age, in the age of global satellites and 24-hour news bulletins, and the pain will be relived in stark and terrifying video montages for all time. But we must not succumb to the anger and hatred that we feel. The American people will overcome this tragedy and will eventually move on. Let us hope that we all can do so with dignity and honour.3117317:43:0031173Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—The union movement's betrayal of ordinary Australian workers is complete today, with the true reason being revealed as to why unions wanted a new administrator appointed to Ansett. It now appears that the unions would rather sacrifice the potential job opportunities of former Ansett employees than have the possibility of a low cost airline emerge. As stated in the West Australian, former administrators PricewaterhouseCoopers were about to present a viable plan to creditors that would have seen many Ansett employees re-employed. Many Ansett staff would have been willing to take pay cuts to get the airline running again, but the unions did not even give them a chance. I have had at least 50 people ring and confirm that to me.The unions claimed that the administrator had a conflict of interest, but the real conflict of interest is that the unions also represent Qantas workers. They were scared that a new, low-cost and probably non-unionised airline would put pressure on Qantas workers to enter into greater productivity programs, and there is your conflict of interest. The Ansett worker was the sacrificial lamb for the unions which were only thinking of their Qantas members. That is good news if you are working for Qantas, and good luck to them. The union movement railroaded a perfectly capable and independent administrator who had worked almost 24 hours a day for nearly a week to salvage Ansett. The entire rescue plan was jeopardised by the union movement, and the conflict of interest excuse was an absolute furphy. This is why unions continue to suffer falling support. People see through them. They see through the rhetoric and the noisy rent-a-crowd protests.I visited an Ansett call centre last week in my electorate at Joondalup, where we lost 400 jobs, and I met with union officials as well as staff. I said to the union officials that if they were genuinely interested in helping the workers at the call centre they should come and see me. I have not heard from any of them, and I doubt very much I ever will. Union officials seem more interested in chest thumping than sitting down and talking like adults to gain constructive outcomes for Ansett staff. If unions want to attract members to their diminishing base, they should take my advice: get back to the basics, represent all your members and work constructively with governments of all persuasions. This was certainly not demonstrated two days ago in a meeting outside Parliament House. They should stop acting as nightclub bouncers for the Labor Party, which is desperately trying to score political points in a tragic situation for Ansett workers.3117417:47:0031174Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Tomorrow the Commonwealth Bank at 139 Georges River Road, Croydon Park, closes. This is the 14th bank to slam its doors on its loyal customers in my electorate over the past few years. I will read to the House tonight the roll of dishonour that the banks have visited on my electorate in the time that I have been the member. At Concord West, the Commonwealth Bank closed; at Strathfield North, the National Australia Bank closed; at Flemington, the Colonial Bank closed; at Concord, the Westpac Bank closed; at Homebush, the Commonwealth and Westpac Bank closed—there are no banks at Homebush; at Enfield, the Commonwealth Bank closed—there are no banks at Enfield; at Burwood, the Colonial Bank closed; tomorrow at Croydon Park, the Commonwealth Bank will close, and only 12 months ago we lost the Westpac Bank—there will be no banks at Croydon Park after tomorrow; at Five Dock, the Colonial Bank closed; at Drummoyne, the National Australia Bank and the Westpac Bank closed— there is only one bank in a suburb like Drummoyne; at Haberfield, the Westpac Bank closed—there is only one bank at Haberfield. The communities in those areas are absolutely outraged that tomorrow yet another bank is closing, the Commonwealth Bank. This comes at a time when the Commonwealth Bank have made $2.2 billion in profit, and that demonstrates why it is now time for the banks to sign up to a social charter, and I will talk about that later. Small business people are absolutely furious. They are ringing my office, and this afternoon an elderly lady rang my office and reflected the anger of the community by just saying, `The banks are bastards.' They have asked me to say something about this, because at 9.30 tomorrow there will be a very angry demonstration outside the Commonwealth Bank at 139 Georges River Road, Croydon Park, and I can tell you that the community there are going to let the Commonwealth Bank know how they feel about them.In the case of the elderly—and I have very many elderly in my electorate because I have one of the highest proportions of people 65 and over in New South Wales—they have been told, `You can use automatic teller machines, EFTPOS services and telephone or Internet banking.' It is a fact that elderly people cannot or do not feel safe using those services and they have to travel long distances. In the area of Croydon Park, they have to travel to Burwood or to Ashfield or to Kempsey to have bricks and mortar service.The small business community need access to cash on a daily basis. They need to withdraw cash and they need to deposit cash. They are losing time from their businesses, and this is impacting very severely on them in terms of a loss of productivity by having to travel to other suburbs to access banking services, not to mention the security risk associated with that. It is time that the banks looked after the communities who have rewarded them with massive profits over the many, many years, instead of slamming the doors shut in their faces. I want to give great support to those proponents of community banks in my area. Ashfield counsellor Emma Brooks-Maher is fighting hard to get the first community bank up and running in Haberfield, and I am hoping that the President of the Homebush Main Street Committee, Mrs Marlene Doran, will have the first community bank in Sydney, at Homebush, opened in October. This is the only way we are going to send a message to the banks that we have had enough of the big banks. People should get behind the community banks and show the big banks how they feel.When Labor gets into government—and I hope this happens on 17 November when the federal election will be held—we will offer fee-free banking for social security recipients, we will offer no-frills bank accounts to all Australians, we will provide details of ATM fees at the time of transaction, we will include the publication of readily comparable interest rates across lending products, we will provide detailed fee information on bank statements, we will ensure that there is a greater accessibility of affordable deposit taking services for small business, we will restore banking services to communities which have lost them and we will give local communities six months notice of branch closures.I have been speaking out on this issue in this House for the whole three years that I have been here, because this is one of the most serious things that is happening and we do not hear anything from the government in terms of what their policy is. I have just outlined to the House what we propose to do when we get into government. The banks are bastards. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Lowe, I tolerated that remark in a quote, but I do not know that the latter part of your statement did anything to dignify the parliament at all.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—I withdraw. I am just quite emotional about this.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Lowe.3117517:52:0031175Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I concur with the member for Lowe's comments, apart from the one withdrawn. But, in relation to the next federal election, I must say that the outcome is not determined yet, and I hope that the coalition is returned at the next federal election in greater numbers.I rise tonight to speak about a board meeting I attended at our Lady of Hope Catholic School in Greenwith in my electorate of Makin on 10 September—pre-11 September 2001. I was invited, along with the Labor candidate, to the school board meeting to talk about issues such as the resourcing of primary schools as well as the concerns that school has with regard to staffing levels and other issues. Both of us were given a list of questions, and I would like to put those on the Hansard record. The first question was about the level of resources for primary schools and secondary schools and the fact that historically secondary schools are much better funded and resourced than primary schools. The board wanted to ask what we would be doing to link funding to accountability and what additional funding would be provided to primary schools to ensure that they meet the standards required for all students.I said at the board meeting that I was delighted that our Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Dr David Kemp MP, has announced that the Commonwealth will invest $350,000 in a study to examine the resourcing issues faced by primary schools, in order to strengthen their capacity to deliver the improved learning outcomes for all students, outcomes that are built into the national goals for schooling. The study will analyse the reasons for the historical differential between primary and secondary school funding, in particular how this disparity arose, and whether the factors determining this disparity are still relevant, as well as examine the current practice of allocating funding to primary schools. Dr David Kemp stated that the outcome of this will be a substantial report on the state of primary schooling across the country, which will also lay down some clear future directions for resourcing, school structures and improved practice. When I spoke to the board, I explained that way back in 1997—when we first did our Tough on Drugs initiative in the electorate of Makin—when I visited all of my schools, primary and secondary, one of the major complaints from my primary schools was that their curriculum was so full of what they had to teach their students that they could not see how they could possibly fit in any more in terms of drug education. In some cases—not all cases—in some schools where there are disadvantaged students, primary school teachers have to teach children how to tie their shoelaces, basic hygiene, appropriate behaviour, role modelling and all those sorts of things that are not really a standard part of the curriculum. In my electorate of Makin in 1997, we endeavoured to present information evenings for parents as well as teachers and to take on some of that role for the teachers with their already overcrowded curriculum.Another issue that the board from Our Lady of Hope Catholic School put to me as the member for Makin, and to the Labor candidate, was that historically education was perceived really to commence at secondary school, which led to staffing levels in the secondary sector that featured counsellors, significant ancillary staff support, faculty heads, seniors and fewer face-to-face contact hours—23.5 hours for primary and 20 hours for secondary. Again, I referred them to the study that Dr David Kemp has announced. I really do believe that, once the study has been finalised, we will have a lot more information as to how we can fund our primary schools at a much better level.The board continued on with their concerns about teacher ratios and the fact that there is such a differentiation between all of the states. I told the school board that I would be meeting with Dr David Kemp. Initially that meeting was to be this week but, because of the events in the United States, I will be meeting with him next week. (Time expired)3117617:57:0031176Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I would be derelict in my duty if in the short time available tonight I did not mention once again the sale of Sydney airport. I know that the parliamentary secretary and the former chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, Dr Brendan Nelson, who is sitting at the table, would agree with me that Sydney's aircraft noise problems have not been solved. I ask the parliamentary secretary to convey to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance and Administration, who is responsible for selling the airport, my request that they give a guarantee in this House that, when that airport is sold—and it should not be sold before the next federal election—the people of Sydney will get fair and equitable noise sharing.As you know, Parliamentary Secretary, the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport has not been fully or substantially implemented. We were promised when the Howard government came in in 1996 that it would introduce fair noise sharing in Sydney. In 1997, the long-term operating plan was introduced, and we were promised in the north that we would get 17 per cent air traffic movements. Over the last four years we have averaged almost double air traffic movements, and my electorate cannot tolerate it.Faced with the prospect that the Sydney airport will be privatised and that the purchaser of that 50-year lease with a 49-year option will be driven only by economic imperatives, you can see only a return to parallel runways and the prospect of nearly 500,000 air traffic movements over Sydney in the foreseeable future. You only have to calculate 17 hours multiplied by 80 movements per hour by 365 days a year to know just how serious this is. I would ask Dr Nelson, who is at the table tonight, to tell the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to stop the sale of Sydney airport and guarantee the people of Sydney—and members on both sides of this chamber have an interest in this—the full implementation of a long-term operating plan, and build a second airport for the people of Sydney. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.18:00:0031177House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.2001-09-20—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members311783117809:40:0031178Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—Amidst all the sadness in the world at present, I would like to share a good news story from my electorate. A lot of talented kids go unrecognised in our country because they live in remote areas and miss out on the opportunities that city kids often have on their doorsteps. I am pleased to say that for 24 schoolchildren from Longreach this is not the case. In February this year, three competition aerobic teams were formed, and the 24 girls started their training sessions for the Queensland School Aerobics Championships in Brisbane in July. The teams were coached by 19-year-old Jillian Wilkie who was a past competitor but has no formal aerobic or choreography qualifications. In between their three training sessions a week, the girls fundraised $25,000 to help them travel to Brisbane for the competition. The competition in Brisbane was tough, but the Longreach girls were crowd favourites for their talent and personality. Delighting the crowds with their vibrant faces and energetic routines, the Chantoozies and Bedazzled teams both won gold medals, and the Bananaramas won a silver medal. The teams were up against teams from Brisbane, the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast.All three teams qualified for the Australian championships in Geelong in August. The whole town of Longreach, as it always does, got behind the girls. One of the fundraising highlights was the sports gala evening at the Longreach Civic Centre, where the crowd was entertained by the dads performing an aerobics demonstration in their boxer shorts and by the Longreach fire brigade doing a `full monty' routine down to their boxers. That evening raised $8,000 and, in all, the town rallied to provide $35,000 towards the trip to Geelong. Once again the girls did us proud. The Bananaramas were placed sixth out of nine teams, the Bedazzled girls were placed fifth out of 13 teams, and the Chantoozies were named the Australian champions for their section of the competition.The girls are all aged between eight and 16, and Jillian Wilkie, who works at the Longreach Shire Council, trained all three teams three times a week. This was an amazing effort for country kids who, while competing at the national level, were up against teams who had fully qualified coaches and choreographers and who, in most cases, had been competing for over 10 years. We are very proud of the girls. And Longreach is very proud of its aerobics girls, as evidenced by the sponsorship that came from most business houses in Longreach, QantasLink and the Primary Industries Bank of Australia. The Bananarama team included Jessica Cooper, Lauren Williams, Brigitte Grofski, Rose Bielenberg, Calie McLachlan, Kirbie Andrews, Courtney Davies, Courtney Luck, Emily Swalling and Lorrae Johnston. The Chantoozies included Sophie Wilkinson, Aimee Ballard, Anna McPherson, Ashleigh Helder, Jessica Barbeler, Jessie McPhee, Becky Harris, Carly Daniels, Jady Kremar. The Bedazzled team included Monique Wilkie, Madonna Smith, Renee McConachy, Rebecca Fickling and Karla Fickling. I congratulate the girls and Jillian Wilkie. They are a fantastic asset to the town of Longreach. I also congratulate the families and businesses of Longreach who sent our girls off to be the best in Australia—good on you.3117809:43:0031178Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—As honourable members and my local community are aware, I am a very strong supporter of our environment and of this nation's environmental future. Today, I wish to praise a community organisation in the electorate of Fisher which has worked hard over many years to establish itself as a formidable proponent of our local natural environment—the Sunshine Coast Environment Council. I have been associated with the Sunshine Coast Environment Council over a number of years. Last week I had the opportunity to thank personally workers of the Sunshine Coast Environment Council. In this International Year of the Volunteer, environment council leaders wanted to reward their hard-working members in a special way by having local politicians and other community representatives cook breakfast for those people who work on behalf of the environment in the area. Along with other elected representatives I was particularly pleased to be able to be present at the Nambour showground to barbecue bacon and eggs and other delicacies for breakfast to show our collective appreciation of the wonderful work that the Sunshine Coast Environment Council does in our local area.The natural environment of the Sunshine Coast holds a special place in the hearts and minds of local residents. Members who have been to this magnificent part of the world will understand why. That was one of the reasons why I was particularly pleased to learn that the Howard government is giving environmental groups some $80,000 as part of the Natural Heritage Trust. This will boost the protection of our environmental future on the Sunshine Coast.In particular, I am delighted that the Sunshine Coast Environment Council will receive over $30,000 for its Mooloolah River wildlife corridor project. This is a great project which will enable the Mooloolah River and Palmview national parks to be strongly linked through a solid riparian corridor. I hope to visit this project shortly and look forward to catching up with those volunteers working on it. I am also delighted to announce that Mooloolah Waterwatch will receive $20,000 from the Natural Heritage Trust and the Mooloolah headwater protection and restoration project will receive almost $30,000.I am particularly pleased to be part of a government which has made significant and tangible advances in managing and protecting the environment after 200 years of European settlement in Australia. The Natural Heritage Trust, which members opposite hypocritically opposed, is the largest environment restoration program in Australia's history and I am delighted that trust funds are being used to restore areas of the Sunshine Coast's natural environment so that we can continue to enjoy this natural beauty for many years to come.3117909:46:0031179Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I have spoken in this place previously about the establishment of a container terminal at the port of Kembla. I am bitterly disappointed that in the last fortnight the negotiations to establish this terminal in the heart of my electorate fell through. CSX World Terminals were operating a growing number of terminals in Brisbane and Adelaide, and the new addition of the Port Kembla terminal was going to add to these facilities. Unfortunately, it now transpires that Patricks have purchased the Brisbane terminal from CSX, effectively frustrating the plan to establish a container terminal at Port Kembla. The Illawarra Mercury had a front-page headline yesterday about a construction boom. It reported that 1,000 jobs are on the board in my region. While I welcome that, we have lost a project that could have provided the Illawarra with at least 3,000 jobs and an investment worth at least $300 million. Representing the port of Kembla in the heart of my electorate has been a great honour for me, particularly with my longstanding interest in shipping and transport issues. I am proud of the port and its facilities and have always promoted it. But the loss of this project has wounded the port and the Illawarra generally. I have made representations on this project to the Premier of New South Wales and the New South Wales government. I have also raised it with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I raised it with my colleague the member for Gilmore, suggesting that this project had wide benefits for the Illawarra and was deserving of bipartisan political support. I have not received a reply from either the minister or the member for Gilmore. The Premier sent a couple of letters assuring me that the Department of State and Regional Development was assessing the project. As usual, the bureaucracy moves too slowly and, despite the rhetoric of political support, we have lost that project and all of the jobs and investment that hinged on it. For all the talk of regional development, we move too slowly and, frankly, stuff around with major projects like this one. The result is that commercial proponents wait a little while longer and then move right along, as occurred in this case. The bureaucracy did not have to access billions of dollars of government assistance; proponents sought only a modest financial contribution—a mere $2 million or $3 million. The loss of this project for the Illawarra is inexcusable. The Port Kembla Corporation led the campaign to attract this terminal. Its officers worked hard to ensure political and business support. They deserve no criticism for the project's loss. The port of Kembla will continue to develop and expand its facilities. Despite this setback, which bitterly disappoints me, the port's location and importance will continue to increase. A container terminal at the port of Kembla is not a question of `if', but `when'. The port of Kembla showed that, during the Olympics last year when much of the container traffic was diverted—and especially the car traffic which was diverted from the port of Botany to Port Kembla—it could deal with this traffic, and it can and will deal with this traffic when it gets the container terminal.3118009:49:0031180Pearce, Christopher, MPMr PEARCEA8WAstonLP10—I rise this morning to make the House aware of a very important and critical issue in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne, and in particular in my electorate of Aston. During the Aston by-election, there were several key issues identified. One of the major issues was the proposed Knox Public Hospital.The previous state government, the Kennett Liberal government, secured a wonderful piece of land in Aston and proposed to build a wonderful tertiary, 300-bed hospital. Subsequently, since the Victorian Labor government has assumed office, the proposed hospital has been shelved. This is a major concern for the people of the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne.The Knox Public Hospital was proposed to be a world-class facility. It was going to have 300 additional beds to service the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne. This would significantly reduce hospital waiting lists and provide access to specialist services. The hospital had been proposed to have 24-hour emergency services; it was going to have outpatient services, a large teaching and training facility, and specialist services like heart and respiratory services.Unfortunately, the Bracks Labor government has decided not to pursue the building of the hospital, despite the fact that the land remains reserved for this site. They are now looking for alternative uses for the land. As the candidate for the Aston by-election and now the member for Aston, I have been approached by hundreds and hundreds of local residents asking me to do everything I can to pursue the Victorian state government and request that they seriously reconsider this decision. The hospital is very important. The Bracks Labor government, when in opposition, did promise to build the hospital. Now we find ourselves in a position where they have decided to shelve it.I mentioned the Knox Public Hospital in my first speech in the House. In that speech I asked the Victorian state government to reconsider and review this decision. I call again on the state government to review the decision and to start the building of the Knox Public Hospital as soon as possible. As a parent with a young family, I know how important it is to have access to good local hospitals. I believe that all of the people in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne, and in particular the residents of Aston, deserve the right to have access to good local health services. I request that the Victorian government reconsiders this decision to shelve the hospital, and begins construction as soon as possible.3118109:52:0031181Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—On Friday, 31 August, Coorparoo State School, in Brisbane, celebrated its 125th anniversary. This is a school with a particularly proud history in Queensland public education.In 1875, Samuel Stevens donated two acres of his property near the junction of Pine Mountain Road—now Cavendish Road—and Old Cleveland Road as a school site. On 22 March 1875, a public meeting was held to discuss the name for the proposed town and school site. `Stevens' Town School' was suggested, after Samuel Stevens, who had donated the land. Mr Stevens did not agree with this, and ultimately it was decided to use the Aboriginal name `Cooraparoo' and to anglicise it by dropping the first `a'. This name was proposed to the Board of Education and subsequently accepted. In 1876, approval was granted and contracts drawn up for a school building and a head teacher's residence, and on 31 January 1876 the Coorparoo State School opened, with 37 students being enrolled. By 1884, enrolments had risen to 130; by 1887, to 270; and by 1930, a record attendance of 1,331 was reached.For the 125th anniversary celebrations I would particularly like to acknowledge principal Greg Kretschmann, a first-class principal of Queensland state schools and a member of the curriculum committee of the Queensland School Curriculum Council. I would also acknowledge Jeanette Morris, president of the P&C, who organised all the celebrations with a community focus, and vice-principal Leontine Bolam, who arranged all of the school based activities. Peg Bolam prepared the 125-page A Coorparoo Chronicle: History of Education at Coorparoo. I would also acknowledge the P&C Association—president, Jeanette Morris; vice-presidents Gary Fenlon, Paul Murray and Jane Boardman; secretary, Karen Tobin; treasurer, Gary Gill; assistant treasurer, Rasty Rasmussen; and parent liaison officer, Debra Hamilton—and also Ann Landsberg, past P&C president and guest speaker at the 125th anniversary celebrations.The school now has 546 students. Its school captains in this anniversary year are Kirri Webb and Lachlan Ryan. Famous past students have included Dorothy Hill, Sir David Langland, Reg Francis—current president of the Coorparoo Heritage Group—Simon Gallagher and Diana Doherty, who is principal oboist in the Lucerne Symphony Orchestra.The celebrations themselves, on 31 August, were an outstanding success, and I commend the participation of all students and parents in those events. Years 1 to 3 participated in a carnival of past sports such as `drop the hanky', `hopscotch' and `what's the time, Mr Wolf?' Year 4 participated in poetry reading and put together a traditional classroom setting from the school's earliest years. Year 5 put on a performance focusing on the past and present roles of government; year 6, rock-and-roll dancing and excerpts from Grease; year 7, historical concert items from 1870 to the year 2000. There was also a rollcall of past students. I congratulate Coorparoo State School on its 125th anniversary, its record of past achievements and its future mission. (Time expired)3118209:55:0031182Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I want to talk about mobile telephony. It is of critical importance to people in my electorate of Hinkler. Although 96 per cent of people are covered in their homes by GSM digital and 97 per cent by CDMA, we have to look at those who do not have it and make sure that people on their farms, out on their trawlers and other fishing boats and on highways have reliable service to their families, to their communities and to their business contacts. The previous government left us with an enormous black hole—not just the $10 billion budget deficit, but the mobile telephony black hole—when they contracted to turn off the analog network on 31 December 1999. Since then we have made sure that Telstra rolled out the CDMA network to replace the analog network, and quite frankly the area covered in the initial 15 months was quite exceptional. We must now particularise, for family reasons, for business reasons and, more particularly, for safety reasons, those areas which do not have coverage.In 1997 the government introduced the five-year $250 million Networking the Nation program to improve telecommunication infrastructure and services in regional Australia. Among the over 600 projects funded by the program, $32 million was allocated to 88 mobile phone projects throughout the country. Under this project my electorate had considerable success with $199,000 for Agnes Waters through the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. We have finally ironed out the problems with CDMA coverage in Childers, allowing people there to get much better reception. The $25 million Mobile Phones on Highways program will ensure continuous mobile coverage on 9,425 kilometres of Australia's major highways. Vodaphone has been selected as the successful tenderer and has begun to work on the roll-out. The network should be completed by mid 2002.In addition to this, a further $37.7 million from the $163 million TSI package announced in May 2001 will be used to improve mobile coverage for towns with a population of 500 and above. Initially no towns in my electorate were represented on this list but I am now happy to confirm that Moore Park and Woodgate will be included. These coastal communities, with populations of well over 500 and which are growing rapidly, had previously been excluded because they had been assessed under the 1996 census. I am pleased to announce that they have been reassessed because of their rapid growth and now will have access. This inclusion has been a victory for commonsense.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills31182R138331182Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:0031182Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—First of all, the opposition supports the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1997. The bill amends the Migration Act to ensure that private sector organisations can continue to disclose to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs information concerning a person's travel or proposed travel to or from Australia. Airlines and shipping companies, as well as some travel agents, will be bound by the Privacy Act 1988 on commencement of the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000 on 21 December 2001. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that such organisations can continue to provide the abovementioned information. Currently airlines provide personal information regarding incoming passengers to department of immigration officers. This information naturally facilitates immigration clearance, and a failure to receive such information may cause considerable processing delays upon arrival. Passenger information is currently also received from shipping companies and ship masters to facilitate immigration clearance at seaports. Basically, all this bill is attempting to achieve is a situation whereby the Privacy Act that comes into force on 21 December 2001 does not apply to the situation in the immigration area. Naturally, with everything that has been happening over the last couple of weeks—and particularly with the situation in the United States—we need to be extraordinarily careful that we can find people and identify people that are catching aircraft, and of course we need to ensure that we maintain the integrity of our borders. This is simply a measure that is designed to ensure that there are no overriding requirements which will preclude airline companies from giving us the information that we need every day from just about every airport in the world. The opposition supports this bill, and I do not think there is much point in wasting the time of this committee any further in respect of this particular bill.10:01:0031183Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased to rise also to support the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001. I welcome the commitment from the member for Bowman for opposition support of this measure and acknowledge his desire to not waste the time of the committee—a welcome development, perhaps. This legislation is nevertheless very important. It is yet another commonsense measure from the government, which values highly the importance of the integrity of the immigration system that we have. The integrity of the immigration system is not just for those who pass through it but also for each and every one of us who are citizens of this country, because it is important to know that the immigration system and the various rules and regulations that surround it can never be brought into any form of question at all. All Australians can feel very satisfied with the way the system operates. Early in my contribution to the discussion of this important measure, I would like acknowledge the ongoing professional commitment of the officers of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. DIMA officers are at this time quite understandably under a great deal of additional pressure to that which they are normally under. DIMA officers are involved in dealing with each and every one of the people who front to this country, whether those people have regard for our laws or not, and demand a place to stay. DIMA officers are still going on with their ongoing commitments to ensure that the daily arrivals of passengers to this nation by air or by sea are processed in a proper and timely way and in a way that ensures that only those of the highest personal and health integrity are allowed to enter. DIMA officers are also involved, as I said, in the pressures associated with the asylum seekers who are interned in various camps around Australia and also with those who claim to seek asylum and are now stationed on ships and on the island of Nauru.This sort of legislation of course assists in the tasks that are ongoing in DIMA. There have been some changes to privacy legislation. The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000 brings in provisions later this year that in fact restrict the amount of information that can be forwarded by certain parties holding that information onto other parties. In other words, airline companies, shipping companies, some travel agents—organisations that are privy to information on the personal papers and travel documents of people—are, unless this act is passed, restricted from passing that information on to Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs officials. Of course, you cannot have that occurring. It is a consequence of those Privacy Act changes which needs to be addressed. That is what this legislation is about.It is important that we free up DIMA officers from any difficulties they have in processing the honest travellers, the honest citizens, the healthy travellers and the healthy citizens who come to this country. It is important that people with papers are processed in a timely fashion because of the pressures that are currently on the system. It is based on a presumption that the papers for the travellers have to be subject to some sort of Privacy Act provisions. The difficulty that many officers within the department have—and, indeed, the difficulty we as policymakers have—is that there are some coming to our shores who are being told by criminal elements, offshore generally, that they should hide their papers, they should destroy their papers, they should throw them into the Indian Ocean as they float across to Australia. Those sorts of people frustrate the system, those sorts of people make it difficult for people who are doing the right thing to be processed in a timely fashion. Those sorts of people are bringing into disrepute in a slight way the integrity of all who migrate to this country. For the integrity of the system, as I said, we must ensure that everyone who comes here is reliable and those who do come through the system, who pass the various tests and measures that we apply, need to be welcomed and greeted in this country either as visitors or as permanent residents before they become citizens. They need to be regarded with the absolute respect that they deserve because they have satisfied very stringent requirements.It is worth noting as well in this discussion some of the freeing up of the system for the reliable type travellers by measures that have been introduced over recent years. They have included the extension of the concept of electronic visas to countries from which the people who do travel tend to be of a reliable type. They come here and they then go back. This means that countries as diverse as the United Kingdom, the United States and, indeed, even the nation of Taiwan—where people coming here have a reason to come here and they have a reason to go back—are afforded electronic visas because we have come to trust and rely on the citizens from those countries to do the right thing by us as a nation. This makes it easier for the departmental officers to concentrate on the unreliables, those who overstay their official visa time, those who in some cases trash their documents and destroy any chance we have of knowing exactly who they are.We must also reflect upon those in our community who are saying that we perhaps should let people in somewhat unfettered. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, you would be, I am sure, not surprised to hear me comment that the Lord Mayor of Brisbane is one of those people. A few weeks ago the Lord Mayor of Brisbane told a refugee humanitarian meeting he convened and dominated that as far as he was concerned Australia should encourage, to use his words, more boat people to come here, that Australia had received all of its migrants on boats and that essentially more boat people should be encouraged to come—and we should welcome them. Those sorts of comments do not assist in the ongoing proper task of trying to administer the immigration system in this country.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—He must really worry you.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Paterson is playing the games that the—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Moreton should ignore the member for Paterson.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I think I should, too, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will take your advice on that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—And perhaps if you got to the subject of the bill, that would be a help, too.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I have been on the subject of the bill I am certain, because at the heart of this bill is the integrity of the immigration system, and it is important to note that those who seek to try to split people off the block, who try to create fear and who try to suggest that papers are not necessary—that we will just take whomever we want into this country—are not assisting the matters that are before the committee right now, or indeed the entire immigration act as it currently stands. It is important that everybody who comes to this country is afforded clear passage through the process. That is why this legislation is important. It is important that we know who is coming through the door; it is important that once they are here we are able to assist them. Bad hosts will encourage more people to come into their house, without any care or regard for those who are inside. Bad hosts will not do the right thing by those they have already invited to come in and stay. This government has shown through various measures such as amendments, improvements—some consequential of other acts—to the immigration legislation, which is very important and is a nation building exercise, that it has an ongoing and very strong commitment to the integrity of the immigration system and the integrity of the individuals who pass through it. It also has shown a strong commitment to encouraging all Australians to feel a great sense of ownership of the system which governs the nation building exercise of immigration, a great sense of satisfaction and a sense of security in the knowledge that those who come here, who present their papers, are the right sort of people, regardless of where they have come from. Those people should be welcomed and not be subjected to `splitting them off the block' analogies like those of the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and, occasionally, of people from the other side of the House.I commend these measures because, as I said, they are commonsense, they are important and they go to the heart of what our immigration system is all about. I again applaud the efforts of the officers of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for their commitment to our country and their commitment to ensuring that the system works well for all in this nation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Before I call the next speaker, for the information of the Committee I advise the Committee that the sole content of this bill is the authority for travel agents and others to disclose information.10:11:0031185Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I certainly welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001. As has just been indicated by the previous speaker, immigration has certainly become one of the major issues for the Australian people. This government has tried to claim that it is addressing the problem associated with immigration, and I have no doubt that that is why this piece of legislation is before us. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Over recent weeks, we have had all the visual imagery of fishing boats from Indonesia and their illegal human cargo, and a minister and Prime Minister pretending that if we can beat the `boat people' trade we have beaten illegal immigration. That is not so, and the minister knows it. Australia has an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 illegal immigrants at any one time, but a fact sheet put out by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—and I have it here—shows that last year only 4,174 people arrived illegally by boat. In other words, for every boat person that arrives more than 12 illegal immigrants arrive in other ways. And what does the government do about that? We do not hear very much at all about them, but those people are there.Let us have a look at this minister's form on immigration—and he certainly has form. People in the Hunter really remember this minister, because back in 1996 he was the minister who acceded to the wishes of Goodman Fielder to allow a dozen Korean chicken sexers in to replace Australian workers at Steggles. No matter how we appealed, that decision could not be reversed. The only reason those Korean chicken sexers came in, by the way, was not that they were better, not that they had any new technology, but that they worked for about a third of the rate. That is how Minister Ruddock is certainly well known in the Hunter.But we should also have a look at the record of this government compared with that of previous governments. Immigration statistics—again from the department—show that in the last 12 months of the Keating government nine illegal boats entered Australia with 294 people. In the first 12 months of the Howard government, with this minister at the helm, 20 boats entered Australia, with 662 people—more than a 100 per cent increase on both parameters, both boats and people. Did that set an alarm bell ringing? Certainly not. Because at the same time, in those first 12 months that the number was increasing—and it has increased at a greater rate since then—what happened to the people who really police immigration and other similar matters? Immigration shed 524 officers, or 13 per cent of its work force. The Federal Police shed 105 officers, or four per cent of its work force. Customs shed 215 people, or five per cent of its work force. And we all know that the defence forces were 58,000 at the time that the Howard government came to power, and in the first year they dropped to virtually 50,000. They were on their way—and this government had a policy to do this—to take it to 42,000, but the Defence chiefs opposed it, and so it stopped at about 50,000. With East Timor, of course, we did not have enough Defence Force people to meet our defence requirements. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Paterson will resume his seat.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to the standing order on relevance. I cannot see what defence numbers have to do with this bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. Before I again call the member for Paterson, in the spirit of even-handedness—having admonished the member for Moreton for not speaking about the content of the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001— the member for Paterson has spoken for nearly five minutes without having said a word about it either. I encourage him also to speak about the content of the bill, which relates solely to the disclosure of information about passengers from travel agents and others.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I must apologise to the member for Robertson, who does not see what defence personnel have to do with immigration, even considering the role of the Royal Australian Navy over the last three weeks. Be that as it may, I will move off that subject. No wonder the Prime Minister is paranoid about Australia having become an easy target for illegal immigrants—this government helped make it one.Let us have a look at a few things that are happening. Yesterday I had a phone call from a constituent who works on a coal loader in Newcastle. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you are well aware of Newcastle and the fact that it is the biggest coal loading port in the world. There is always a fleet of international bulk coal loaders off the port of Newcastle. This constituent contacted me and said, `The Labor Party's got a coastguard policy. But what's happening in our ports?' I said, `You work there—you tell me.' He said, `I'll describe a couple of incidents that I have personally witnessed. The bulk carrier pulls up and ties up.' And every 24 hours, there would be three or four bulk carriers pulling up at the coal loaders in Newcastle. He continued, `I have personally seen a ship arrive. Two mini pantechnicons arrive at about the same time. The gangplank goes down, the crew forms a human chain and the boxes go into the back of the pantechnicon. I think it is clothing because the boxes appear to be light. The pantechnicons are loaded, and off they go before any Customs officers arrive.' I said, `Thank you for that. What else have you seen?' He said, `It is not uncommon for the very first visitors to a boat to be madams from brothels in the Hunter region. They put on a hard hat and goggles because it is an industrial site. Two of them go up the gangplank, they are on the boat for maybe half an hour, and four women come off.' I said, `That's very interesting,' and he said, `Customs may know nothing about it, because they certainly do nothing about it.'I have always wondered why advertisements appear in the Newcastle Herald on a fairly regular basis saying, `New girls daily', `Asian girls', and telling us sordid details about some of the people and how they work. Where do they come from? Anyone who knows the Hunter region knows that we have a very low rate of Asian ethnicity. Asian people in the Hunter region are generally professional people or businesspeople. They are certainly not the sort of people whose daughters go into prostitution. So where do they come from? How can brothels advertise that they have new girls daily? I suggest that because of the supply of international vessels coming to the Hunter region— which we have—there is potentially a far bigger problem in Australia than the `boat people' coming from Indonesia on fishing boats. As I said, it would appear that something like only one in 14 are coming on those vessels. The other 13 out of every 14 are coming in by airliner or they are coming in via the sorts of vessels I have described. But it is not only people that we have to worry about with immigration; it is substances. I saw a report today that substance abuse in Australia is at its highest ever. Again, surely it is the responsibility of Customs personnel to regulate that. What are they doing about intercepting those substances? If substance abuse is at its highest level that means there is more of it available—or even arms, for that matter. We have heard that the Minister for Defence subscribes to the theory that some of these illegal immigrants—these asylum seekers—could be disciples of Osama bin Laden. If they are, maybe there is an arms hoard somewhere. We would not know, because I think we inspect only about three in every 10,000 shipping containers that come to Australia. These are some of the problems that Australia really has to address if we are talking about immigration problems and, in particular, illegal immigration problems. I am pleased to see that the minister is present because I will be putting some questions on notice to him today—particularly about these incidents that I have had related to me about the port of Newcastle.I believe that this government will rue the day it made immigration a political issue, because the record of this government on immigration simply does not stand up as being the record of a government that is fair dinkum or concerned, really, about the issue. It is a government that has ignored its responsibility for 5½ years with respect to illegal immigrants. It is still ignoring its responsibility with respect to the majority of illegal immigrants that are coming here. It has no idea of the total number of illegal immigrants in Australia right now. There are many sources of illegal immigrants that are not being sealed off, through the inaction of this government. I urge the minister to be fair dinkum, to be bipartisan, and to make sure that this problem, which is concerning many Australians, is solved once and for all. To date he has certainly not come up with the recipe to solve it.10:24:0031187Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—in reply—I hope the member for Paterson might wait a moment so that I can take up some of the points he has made, because I think informed debate in relation to these issues is helpful. His exit speaks for itself, regrettably—he does not wish to know. I will at least put some of the information on the record. I thank the honourable members for Bowman and Moreton—and to a lesser extent the member for Paterson—for their comments. In relation to the member for Bowman comments, I welcome the opposition's support for this measure. The member for Moreton exhibits, as always, his very keen interest and knowledge about these issues. His comments were well informed. I welcome the comments from the member for Paterson because I cannot remember having heard many speeches on these subjects from him before.This Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001 will allow private sector organisations such as airlines, travel agents and shipping companies to continue to provide information to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs concerning people's travel. It will enable certain organisations that are required to deal with personal information to continue to receive it. Because of the Privacy Act those organisations were required to collect it under certain national privacy principles. It is for that reason that we are legislating to enable this information, which can be personal, to be still provided to the department and used in its automated systems. It is not practical to get each person to consent to the information that is needed. We need to be able to have people's names, sex, date of birth, country of birth, passport number and flight details. The only viable solution to ensure that we are able to gather that information is to amend the Migration Act. Of course this information is needed to ensure that people can be effectively cleared. The department does not compel any organisation to provide information, but this authorisation ensures that it will be able to continue to do so. It is intended that it will facilitate speedier processing and not compromise the integrity of our arrangements for entry into Australia.The member for Paterson has taken up the argument that I have heard from some members of the Labor Party—that, because we have had an increasing number of border arrivals, in some way the government has been derelict in the way in which it has dealt with these issues. Let me explain why we are getting border arrivals by sea. In comparison with other countries, Australia has been seen as reasonably accessible and the outcomes people are able to achieve if they come by boat are beneficial to them. There are two reasons why the outcomes are beneficial. Few countries provide those within their borders who can establish a lawful basis for being there with full income support of the nature we supply here in Australia. If you are in Indonesia and are found to be a refugee, you will get something like $4 a day. If you are in Australia, you get access to special benefits at the same level we pay an Australian welfare recipient, you get access to family payments, you get access to a range of other entitlements in relation to Medicare and you get rent assistance. On top of that a range of Labor state governments around Australia are providing supplementary benefits that put them in an even better position than many Australians. It is extraordinary.Arguments have developed over a period of time and have taken hold in parts of the Labor Party—they have taken hold in the state Labor governments in Victoria and Queensland; they have not taken hold in New South Wales. These benefits are not necessary for people's overall wellbeing, because most of the people who have been released on temporary protection visas in Australia in various other states have travelled to New South Wales where the additional range of benefits are not available. The provision of benefits—and we have had this argument on benefits—with state Labor governments bending over backwards to provide additional support, has been one of the signals going to people abroad indicating that Australia is a soft touch in relation to these matters.The principal reason we have seen an increase in the number of border arrivals by boat is that people ascertain that if they get rid of their documents it is difficult to determine who they are and where they are from if all you have is the story they tell you, and that as long as they consistently stick to their story they are very likely to get asylum claims up. We have had a series of court judgments over a period of time. The courts have adjudicated on what it is to be a refugee and that has expanded the refugee convention in a way which has led to it being interpreted here under our jurisprudential model far more liberally than it is interpreted anywhere else in the world and certainly far more liberally than it is being interpreted by the UNHCR.Just sit back for a moment and contemplate. Four years ago 147 people came by boat and established that it was fairly easy to get refugee claims up. The following year we saw 900 people. The following year we saw 4,000 people. What was guiding them and the smugglers? The two factors were the relative ease with which you get an asylum claim up in comparison to having it assessed elsewhere by the international body responsible for it, the UNHCR, and the level of support that is given if you get your claim up here as against the level of support that is given to you in, say, Indonesia or Pakistan, where claims might be accepted. You might be a Pakistani or an Afghani who has lived out of Afghanistan for 20 or 30 years, or you might even be an Afghani who was born in Pakistan. You are able to raise in the order of $US16,000 or $A32,000 and get on a boat. You know that if your claim is assessed in Indonesia you have a 14 per cent prospect of success. If it is assessed here in Australia there is an 84 per cent chance of success. On those odds, if the prospect of having your claim accepted here is four or five times greater than if it is assessed by the UNHCR, where will you want to have it assessed? It is obvious. If your claim is accepted in Indonesia, you will be perfectly safe. Refugee status is about security. If you were going to be perfectly safe in Indonesia, why would you want to move on? It is because the level of support that is given in Australia is probably 20, 30 or 40 times higher than the UNHCR will be able to provide if you happen to be in Indonesia. With those odds, why wouldn't you move? That is what we have seen. The suggestion is that the government has been sitting on its hands. I have had legislation before the parliament to deal with the issue of the extension of the coverage of the refugee convention for something like three years. People want to quibble about whether or not it is a matter of justice that these people ought to be able to access our courts when we have used legislation before to deprive Australians of their opportunity for justice. I find it absolutely extraordinary that you have had the use of what is known as a privative clause, which boosts the validity of tribunal decisions, challenged on the basis that it is a matter of justice and that somebody who has come to Australia unlawfully ought to be entitled to get access to our courts when legislation that has been enacted since the 1940s has stripped Australian workers of the right to challenge decisions of industrial tribunals in our courts.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As interesting as this may be, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the bill. That point was brought to the attention of earlier speakers.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—As I understand it—and I was watching some of this debate in my office before I came up—it was quite a wide ranging bill, and the previous occupant of this chair permitted various speakers to range widely. There is no point of order.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I am responding specifically to the remarks made by the member for the Paterson.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MP0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—You were there. I am simply making the point that this is not a government that has been sitting on its hands; it is a government that has been frustrated in relation to these matters. Only now are we at the point where community views have been clearly focused on these issues and the Labor Party are saying, `We've got six bills, and we're going to help you get them through before the end of this session.' The Labor Party know that, even though they have sat on their hands on judicial review—8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—That is rubbish, and you know it.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Stephen, you have sat on your hands. The bill is before the Senate. It has been before this parliament for three years.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—We have not sat on our hands.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The minister has the call.8I4Martin, Stephen, MP0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Judicial review: you have cherry picked, and that is the reality. We would not be dealing with six bills at the moment if you had supported the measures in relation to class actions and if you had supported the measures in relation to judicial review. Let me make that very clear. These bills have been important to ensure that we are able to deal with a whole range of issues. I think it will be the most significant set of reforms that we have seen in this area, when these measures are introduced and enacted. It will change the way in which Australia is perceived in relation to these issues, and I do welcome the Labor Party's belated support for the measures. 8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—You fixed it; we supported you.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Cunningham knows that he should not be interjecting. The minister should not respond to interjections. Let us get on with the debate.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—You are going to support judicial review now, you are going to support class actions now, but it has been put on the backburner—in one case for three years, in the other case for two years—and you know that is the reality. Let me deal with a couple of other comments from the member for Paterson. I was fascinated by the points that he made in relation to the Newcastle port. If he gives me details that we can follow up and investigate, I will be very keen to do so. I do not recall those points ever having been made to me before. I simply make the point that there are obligations in relation to vessels received in the ports for people to be immigration cleared, and there is no evidence that I am aware of that there is a significant breach of our border requirements by people who have arrived on vessels in our ports and who have left them. We do discover a number of stowaways through our compliance actions, but the numbers are relatively small.Let me put it into perspective: we have evidence that there are in the order of 50,000 people unlawfully in Australia at any one time. It is not 50,000 a year; it is 50,000 people at any one time. We locate, through compliance action, something like 16,000 people a year. I might say that that figure is considerably up on where we were with respect to locations when we came into office. I think it was about 8,000 at that time. So we have effectively doubled the number of locations, which is very important in itself. When we undertake an examination of the people whom we find to be unlawful, we find that most of them are visitor overstayers or people working contrary to visa conditions.We have never found somebody who has arrived on a boat clandestinely and who has simply disappeared into the Australian ether. We have never found such a person. But if you are finding 16,000 out of an estimated 50,000, you are locating one out of every four. If people have been arriving on boats, we would be finding some of them, with that rate of location. As I say, we do locate some stowaways, but when you locate something like a dozen or a couple of dozen stowaways, it is not a major problem. Obviously, if there are issues that ought to be addressed, particularly in relation to unauthorised arrivals in the port of Newcastle, we will follow that matter up.In relation to the numbers of overstayers, we get about 14,000 or 15,000 people who overstay each year. So the locations and the new overstayers generally are balanced, which means the 50,000 figure is largely constant. What do we know about the overstayers? That number also includes the unauthorised boat arrivals, so the 14,000 or 15,000 figure includes about 4,000 boat arrivals. So the number of overstayers in comparison to boat arrivals today, in proportionate terms, is relatively small, particularly when you look at these things historically.The substantial difference, and why we take the point that we do in relation to security and character questions, is dealt with in this bill. The provision of the information that we get under this bill enables us to assess people who have told us who they are and where they are from. We are able to make a risk analysis as to whether they are likely to present problems. We are able, in appropriate cases, to require people to lodge more information for us to assess their claims to come to Australia. It means those who assess security and, particularly, character issues are able to have information that these people are intending to come. We can make inquiries with appropriate police organisations—Interpol and the like. We can deal with international security agencies and get information. In other words, our vetting in relation to people who deal with us up front and provide their documents is very much easier than it is in relation to those who come clandestinely by boat, have no documents with them and simply say, `We're coming, ready or not.' At the end of the day, when you are dealing with people, if you still have no documentation that tells you exactly who they are and where they are from, if you are relying simply on what they tell you, the task of assessing character and security issues is very much more difficult. We try to deal with it, and deal with it comprehensively. Many people are held because there is not sufficient information to enable us to make those sorts of assessments, and then I get complaints that some people are being held in detention for an unreasonably long time. But it often occurs that people remain in detention because of the very way in which they have arrived, the inadequacy of documents and the concerns we have in relation to character and the like.This bill is to be supported.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—Oh, you're talking about the bill now?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I have been talking about the bill and the debate. This bill is to be supported because it is to ensure that we have the information that enables us to undertake the very checking about which I have just been speaking. If this bill were not there and we could not get that information without being in breach of privacy requirements, the checking that we need to do in relation to those people who are coming as tourists would be very severely compromised. That is the reason we need a speedy passage of the bill. I hope that it will go through this chamber quickly and that those in another place will recognise its importance. I thank the members who have participated constructively in the debate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills31191R138231191Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Abbott:That the bill be now read a second time.10:43:0031191Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—The Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 amends a number of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business portfolio statutes to ensure that they accord with chapter 2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. We know that this is occurring across portfolios, with the standard intention of ensuring that all Commonwealth criminal offences have a standard formulation of the elements of fault, burden of proof and penalty.Labor has supported this application of the Criminal Code across the portfolios to date, on the understanding that the changes are related to consistency and that they seek to clarify the current legal arrangements rather than change them. It is our understanding that this is the case for these changes to offences within the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.What we would like to get on the record from the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, before the bill moves to the Senate, is a guarantee that the government does have formal legal advice that the changes we are talking about here, especially in relation to occupational health and safety, do not in any way water down the penalties for employers engaging in unscrupulous and unsafe workplace practices. We would really like to have that guarantee; if it is forthcoming, then obviously this bill has the opposition's full support. I think anyone would have been able to observe over the last few years that the practice of taking things on trust has been eroded somewhat. That is why we are seeking to have such a guarantee written down somewhere, so that if we need to address this matter, we are legally entitled to do so; we can say that we have been given this guarantee. We reserve the right, if it turns out not to be the case, to make changes at a later stage. With that reservation, Labor would be supporting this bill.10:46:0031192Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—As the honourable member for Dickson said in her comments, the purpose of the Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 is to apply the Criminal Code offence created and related provisions in legislation administered by this portfolio. It also make necessary amendments to these provisions to ensure compliance and consistency with the Criminal Code's general principles.This bill is one of a series designed to apply the Criminal Code on a portfolio by portfolio basis. Its purpose is to ensure that existing criminal offence creating and related provisions continue to operate in the same manner as at present, after the application of the Criminal Code later this year. This legislation, like other bills before, and already passed by, the parliament, harmonises specific portfolio legislation in various ways. Firstly, the bill makes it clear that chapter 2 of the Criminal Code will apply to all offence provisions in portfolio legislation. Secondly, the bill will amend certain provisions to expressly provide that they are offences that attract strict liability—in other words, offences where the prosecution does not have to establish fault on the part of the defendant. Under the Criminal Code, where it is intended that the strict liability standard apply to a particular offence or to an element of an offence this must be expressly stated in the relevant provision. In all other cases, the prosecution will be required to provide fault in relation to each element of the offence. Thirdly, the bill amends portfolio legislation to remove unnecessary duplication of the general offence provisions in the Criminal Code. It also improves the efficient and fair prosecution of offences by clarifying the physical elements of offences—that is, the precise conduct that is proscribed by an offence—and amending the inappropriate fault elements. There is a type of mental state required for a defendant to be found criminally liable. Speaking on this bill also gives me an opportunity to briefly speak about the general workplace relations situation that this government has been pursuing over a number of years. I am very pleased that the minister is in the chamber for this debate, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for his visit to the great Eastern suburbs electorate of Deakin last week, where we managed to hold a forum to discuss various workplace relations issues and small business issues. We had present at that meeting representatives from across the electorate from the various chambers of commerce—the Croydon Chamber of Commerce, the Ringwood Chamber of Commerce, the Whitehorse business group, the Blackburn Chamber of Commerce, the Whitehorse Road retail group, the Mitcham Trade Association. If you listened to some of Labor's rhetoric, you would almost think that there is a groundswell of anger out there about this government's workplace relations changes and opposition to them. I have to say that the reception that the minister received from these people was excellent. I would like to thank him very much for his contribution that day, and I would also like to thank the businesspeople in the area for continuing to show support to this government. I welcome the member for Dickson's comments that the ALP is going to support this legislation, provided that she gets a response—which I am sure the minister will get to very shortly—on the specific issue regarding occupational health and safety. It is just a pity that the ALP cannot see itself supporting other vital workplace relations legislation that has been brought before the parliament on numerous occasions over the last three years. The specific one I am referring to, which has gone backwards and forwards over successive years, has been the unfair dismissal legislation. I look forward to the ALP having a change of heart in due course on some of the other initiatives this government has introduced. I commend this bill to the House.10:50:0031193Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—in reply—I am grateful for the comments of the member for Dickson and I can assure her that this bill does not create any new offences. It does not actually deal with penalties at all in respect of occupational health and safety. It does not change the effect of existing offences. What the bill aims to do is clarify the effect of existing offences and ensure that they operate in exactly the same way after the application of the principles of the code as they have always operated. I understand from my departmental officers that we have advice from the Attorney-General's Department that that is the effect of the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills31193R139431193Debate resumed from 29 August, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.10:51:0031193Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Labor support the intention of this legislation in applying the Criminal Code Act 1995 to the relevant acts administered within the Defence portfolio and in making all the necessary amendments to ensure that there is compliance and consistency with the general principles of the Criminal Code. Accordingly we shall be supporting this Defence Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 in this place. However, we are continuing to assess its ramifications in detail and certainly reserve the right to move amendments to the bill in the Senate if we deem it necessary. I would add at this stage that I do not believe that that in fact will be necessary. Labor support the intention to harmonise all of the relevant defence acts with the Criminal Code, establishing a cohesive set of general principles of criminal responsibility. It is appropriate and Labor support that goal. Obviously the Criminal Code and this bill have particular relevance to the Defence Force Discipline Act, and it is with regard to that act that we in Labor are focusing much of our work on analysing the ramifications of these changes for the ADF.Labor believe that it is very important that one of the achievements of this bill is to ensure that it sets out the offence creating provisions of the DFDA in a consistent format so that Defence Force personnel can easily understand them and those in the ADF who are not legally qualified but are responsible for enforcing many of the DFDA provisions are able to do so effectively. Labor support the bill introducing the specific requirements of chapter 2 of the Criminal Code and replacing the common law notions of a criminal act or a guilty mind with physical and fault elements. It is important that this bill does not in any way change the effect of the criminal law provisions contained in the Defence portfolio, and to date Labor are comfortable that it has not. However, as a I said earlier, we continue to look at the bill in fine detail. I note that similar bills have been passed for acts administered under numerous other portfolios with regard to criminal offence provisions, and it appears that that is consistent with each of those previous amendments. Labor supports the measures to modernise and improve defence legislation and in particular to bring the operation of the DFDA into line with the criminal civilian law. A bill that assists in the process of giving ADF personnel greater certainty, protection and confidence under the criminal law is one that Labor is happy to support. As I said to the minister for immigration, anytime the government brings forward good law Labor is always prepared to support it.10:54:0031194Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 because the government is regularly challenged in this House and in other arenas on its record of simplifying and streamlining legislation and procedures. Yet many bills of this kind go through this and other chambers unnoticed. They slip through with almost no-one to highlight their passage because they are not considered to be contentious.Our excellent track record in ensuring that we provide certainty in the application of legislation and consistency in government simply goes unrecognised. I guess it is not interesting to the media that this government spends a lot of time and effort getting things straight. That is quite sad, because how do our constituents, the people of Australia, ever judge the job that we do? I believe it is incumbent on the press also to report all the good things we do, all the small things we do in the name of good government, not just real or imagined negative events or outcomes.A group of 20 people from my electorate of Gilmore visited parliament yesterday. They watched the chamber at work outside question time, and they were amazed. They never knew that the high drama of question time was not the norm, outside certain hours in the early afternoon of sitting days. They were surprised to see the chamber almost empty as each elected representative spoke in debates that directly concerned my constituents. They asked me, `How does anything get decided; how does anything work if nobody is here to listen?' Whilst I am confident of the parliamentary process here, what does concern me is how our constituents ever get to hear about the issues that are not contentious, that do not provoke extended debate or the ensuing flurry of media attention.This bill is exactly the kind of item about which I speak. Many might say that its provisions do not warrant attention, but if nobody is here to make sure that all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, then where is the certainty that we are doing our job properly? The Defence Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 is one of those bills that assures the people of this country that not only do we have the vision, the big picture, but also that we have the energy to make sure that all the small things get done.This bill continues our good work in order to make sure that a cohesive set of general principles of criminal responsibility are established. It also improves the efficient and fair prosecution of offences by clarifying the physical elements of offences and through the amendment of inappropriate fault elements. Yet again, this coalition government continues to demonstrate in a coherent way that it is all about transparency of process and fairness and balance of outcome.Our good and careful management of the smaller details allows us to build great visions on solid foundations. As was highlighted by my colleague the member for Maranoa, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, this bill is one of the steps in a process that will give Australians greater certainty, protection and confidence under the criminal law. It is exactly this certainty, confidence and protection that attracted the visitors from my electorate, to whom I have referred, to Australia many years ago. They were all migrants to this country, and have added much breadth and depth of experience and wisdom to my electorate of Gilmore, especially through their work with the Illawarra Migrant Resource Centre. These people are particularly interested in this legislation today, just as they were interested in certain obvious pieces of legislation yesterday, because they are anxious that our defence personnel have the ability to do what they need to do in order to protect our borders. Like my own parents, they came to this country because of our guarantee of the rule of law, the safety on the streets, the freedom of speech and association, and the opportunities available for people to help themselves to a better quality of life. It is important that we modernise and improve our legislation, including our defence legislation, because we need to keep attracting such valuable people to this great country. For this reason, I commend the bill to the House.10:58:0031195Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—As the member for Paterson, representing the area that contains the Williamtown RAAF base—Australia's biggest Air Force base—I am pleased to support the Defence Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001. Like the member for Gilmore, I am very proud of the people that I represent who are in our defence forces, because they do a wonderful job. In particular, I think we should take note of the extremely difficult conditions they have experienced over the last five years, because since the Howard government came to power the number of people in our Defence Force has dropped from the 58,000 that this government inherited to 50,000—and the figure was on its way to 42,000 until the defence chief stepped in and said, `That is not a suitable number.' Now, of course, we are trying to build the number of defence personnel back up, and we are experiencing difficulty. It is no wonder that we are experiencing difficulty, when we have a look at the erosion of conditions for defence personnel that has occurred under this government. Under the coalition, defence personnel now have many of their allowances added to their group certificates for fringe benefits tax purposes, which affects their ability to get allowances such as family payments—4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr Causley—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering what this has to do with the bill before the House, which is about the Criminal Code. It seems to me that it is well away from the bill. 10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—I am sure the honourable member for Paterson will bring his remarks back to the bill, bearing in mind—not so much with this bill, the debate on which has just started—that all morning there have been fairly wide ranging debates here; I thought that was the essence of this chamber. Could the member for Paterson somehow relate most of his comments to the actual bill?UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. Having just listened to the member for Gilmore, I certainly did get the impression that it was a wide ranging debate. But, as the member for Page says, what does this have to do with criminal activity? Many people would consider that the actions of this government in the treatment of the defence forces have been quite criminal.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—Withdraw that.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Do you think that that is unparliamentary, Minister?YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—Yes.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I certainly do not, and I can assure you that the people I represent do not. As I was saying, there has been an erosion of conditions. Because of fringe benefits tax, defence personnel now have increasing difficulty in getting access to family payments. There are also HECS debts and superannuation charges. All these sorts of things have had a serious effect on people in our defence forces. Under a new formula devised by the coalition government, defence personnel serving in remote locations have seen the cash amount that they are paid to travel to their leave locations fall. These are all conditions affecting defence personnel, and that is one of the reasons that this government is having extreme difficulty with recruitment and is spending so much money, I dare say, on advertising in an attempt to get people back. YT4Scott, Bruce, MPUU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I am quite happy to inform the electorate of Paterson on important issues at any time, particularly as this government certainly abrogates its responsibility in that regard. It is obvious that this criticism of the government has hit a raw nerve—and we can go on. The government has been promising much to Australia; the rhetoric has been great, but the delivery has been poor. For example, Minister Scott knows—or perhaps he is not aware of this but his senior minister, the Minister for Defence, would be aware of it—that at present we have only half the number of pilots necessary to fly the FA18s that are housed at Williamtown. We have only half the number of pilots, compared with the number of planes.When the Prime Minister goes overseas and promises defence support for the United States—as I believe he should; and I believe our defence personnel, when they are called upon, will do honour to this country, as they always have—it is difficult to see where those personnel are going to come from. I would have thought that the majority of our army forces are fully occupied with East Timor. We saw recently that a third of our navy was required to go to Christmas Island to take into their control one fishing boat—and I would think that significant naval reserves are now occupied with the operation that is going on in Nauru—and we find out that we can fly only half our planes because of the low number of pilots that we have. There is no doubt that under this government the conditions for the defence forces, and the number of defence personnel, have seriously declined. It does need to be addressed. I will conclude my remarks now because I know that the minister has taken it on board. I thank the House.11:05:0031196Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—in reply—I thank all those who have made a contribution to this debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001. Also, importantly, I thank all those members of the defence department who have put together the legislation to harmonise the application of the Criminal Code. Some members of the defence department are here with us today. I and the government appreciate the work that has gone into the development of the legislation. I guess few in this House would appreciate the essential work that has to go on behind the scenes to get the legislation drafted in a manner that is legal, that meets the requirements of the government and, importantly, that is able to be applied across the board.The Defence Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 proposes to apply the Criminal Code Act of 1995 to all offence creating and related provisions in acts administered within the Defence portfolio and to make all necessary amendments to the provisions to ensure compliance and consistency with the general principles of the Criminal Code. The Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 was enacted as part of the development of a national uniform Criminal Code by 2001. Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code standardises the principles of criminal responsibility applicable to all Commonwealth officers. The Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 will apply to all Commonwealth offences from 15 December 2001. The code contains a standard approach to the formulation of criminal offences and may alter the way in which offences operate. The code replaces common law notions of a criminal act and a guilty mind with physical and fault elements, respectively. The application of the code to all offences will improve Commonwealth criminal law by clarifying important elements of offences, particularly fault elements. All Commonwealth departments are required, as a matter of law, to review their legislation with a view to harmonising affected statutes with chapter 2 of the code. The code will affect defence legislation generally. It specifically affects 10 defence statutes containing criminal offence creating provisions. Defence is required to comply with chapter 2 of the code by 15 December this year, 2001. The Defence Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 will harmonise offence creating and related provisions with the general principles of criminal responsibility as codified in chapter 2. The code has particular relevance to the service offences contained in the Defence Force Discipline Act of 1982. The bill does not change the effect of the criminal law provisions contained in Defence portfolio legislation; rather it preserves current law following application of the Criminal Code. The proposed amendments will ensure that the relevant offences continue to have much the same meaning and operate in much the same way as they do at present.The bill is consistent with a number of other bills that have been prepared in relation to criminal offence provisions administered by other portfolios. The bill will modernise and improve defence legislation and will generally bring the operation of the DFDA into line with civilian criminal law. This harmonisation of offence creating and related offences in defence legislation with the Criminal Code is an important step in the government's program of legislative reform that will achieve greater consistency, clarity, certainty and cohesion in Commonwealth criminal law. As I have said before, this is an important bill that will give Australians greater certainty, protection and confidence under the criminal law. I thank all those who have made a contribution to this bill. I commend it to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.31197Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:10:0031197Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I would like to focus on this bill while the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is here. I refer to subsections 82(1), (2) and (3), in the sense that these are offences where people make sketches, drawings or photographs of defence installations. I would like an answer regarding subsections 82(1), (2) and (3). I refer also to subsections 83(1), (2) and (3), which relate basically to people misrepresenting themselves as far as Defence Force emblems are concerned. With respect to the actual fines and the terms of imprisonment, do you think they are appropriate? One is a penalty of $40, which seems minimal, and that is for a person who is guilty of trespass on a defence installation. I would like a comment from the minister in terms of the Criminal Code and whether, in 2001, they are appropriate penalties.11:11:0031197Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I acknowledge the member's interest in the harmonisation of the bill and the application of the Criminal Code. I undertake to get a response for him in writing, because I know he has a great interest in the bill and in defence matters. He comes from South Australia, where the Collins class submarine has been an important job creator and an important part of the defence capability. I undertake to respond to the member in writing.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills31198S302Consideration resumed from 30 August.3119811:12:0031198Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This government is committed to a modern, effective approach to law enforcement. The Measures to Combat Serious and Organised Crime Bill 2001 will update a whole range of laws governing the investigation of crime by federal law enforcement agencies.Controlled OperationsSchedule 1 to the bill contains a new scheme for the conduct of controlled operations. Controlled operations are a vital criminal investigation tool. In a `controlled operation', law enforcement officers allow criminal activity to proceed, in order to gain evidence of the broader criminal scheme and apprehend the organisers and financiers. Under the existing part 1AB of the Crimes Act 1914, a controlled operation may only be conducted in relation to suspected narcotics offences. The authorisation period is limited to 30 days and there is no scope for civilian participation. These and other limitations severely hamper the ability of law enforcement agencies to effectively infiltrate and combat organised crime. The new regime removes these limitations. Law enforcement agencies would be able to use controlled operations to investigate a much broader range of Commonwealth offences, as long as detailed authorisation criteria are followed. A certificate could remain in force for up to six months, subject to a mandatory review at the three-month mark. Law enforcement officers, and other persons specified in a certificate—excluding informants—would have access to criminal immunities and civil indemnities. Existing requirements for agencies to report to the minister and for the minister to report to parliament would be enhanced.The proposed controlled operations regime was amended in the Senate, following a report on the bill by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. There were also extensive and constructive negotiations between the government and opposition.Although a number of changes do not reflect the model this government preferred, we were prepared to accept them to ensure passage of this important legislation.The amendments include provision for oversight of control operations records by the Ombudsman, and the mandatory review of an operation would be conducted by an Administrative Appeals Tribunal member.Customs have been excluded from the main scheme, but will be covered by a narrower regime allowing controlled deliveries of prohibited imports, prohibited exports and smuggled goods, under the Customs Act.Recent events have highlighted the necessity for these powers, to tackle crime at the organisational level, including money laundering and people smuggling operations.Assumed IdentitiesSchedule 2 to the bill establishes a framework to govern the use of assumed identities by law enforcement and intelligence officers where there is a Commonwealth agency involved, either as the issuer of the identity or as the agency authorising the use of the identity.Assumed identities are false identities adopted to facilitate intelligence and investigative functions, or infiltration of a criminal, hostile or insecure environment with a view to collecting information and investigating offences. The agencies expressly authorised to use the assumed identities scheme would include the Australian Federal Police, National Crime Authority, Australian Customs Service, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australian Secret Intelligence Service, and state and territory police services and anti-corruption agencies.Officers and others who use an assumed identity in an authorised manner would not be criminally liable for that deception, and, where such use is authorised by a Commonwealth agency, they would be indemnified by the Commonwealth for any civil liability. This means that a third party who suffers loss would have a right of recovery against the Commonwealth.Misuse of an assumed identity would be an offence carrying up to 12 months imprisonment.Commonwealth agencies would have to retain and audit records, and to report annually on their use of assumed identities.Intelligence agencies would report to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.Law enforcement agencies would report to their respective ministers, who would report to parliament.Child Witness ProtectionsSchedule 3 to the bill contains important new protections for child complainants and child witnesses in Commonwealth sex offence trials.The proposed protections would apply to witnesses and complainants under the age of 18 in proceedings for Commonwealth sexual offences, including child sex tourism and sexual servitude offences.The provisions are intended to minimise the distress and trauma experienced by child witnesses in giving evidence and ensure they are able to testify as effectively and unreservedly as possible.The proposed protections are consistent with the recommendations in the Model Criminal Code Sexual Offences Against the Person report, and have been commended by the New South Wales Commission for Children and Young Persons.Child witnesses would be able to give evidence by means of closed-circuit television.Children giving evidence in a proceeding would also be able to be accompanied by an adult of their choosing, to provide them with reassurance and support while testifying.Under these amendments, the Commonwealth will be at the forefront in having rules to govern child witness testimony that take into account the latest legal and psychological analysis.Part 1C AmendmentsMost of the amendments in schedule 4 to the bill are the result of a review of part 1C of the Crimes Act, and also contain further refinements following the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the bill.Part 1C allows investigating officials to lawfully detain suspects for questioning and confers a range of rights and protections on suspects.The proposed amendments to part 1C clarify the operation of the part, to ensure that safeguards are given full effect and address some problems that have hampered effective law enforcement.In particular, the amendments replace the concept of `deemed arrest' with the notion of `protected suspect', to make it clear that in the absence of a lawful arrest there is no power to detain a person. Listening Device WarrantsSchedule 5 to the bill contains proposed amendments to the listening device provisions in the Customs Act 1901 and the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to permit a warrant to be used in relation to a particular item where a suspected offender cannot be identified.FTR AmendmentsSchedule 6 to the bill contains proposed amendments to the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 to clarify and update the operation of the act.Spent ConvictionsSchedule 7 to the bill amends section 85ZL of the Crimes Act to provide that the exemption allowing the use and disclosure of `spent convictions' information previously held by the National Exchange of Police Information will now be held by the new CrimTrac agency.ConclusionThe measures contained in the bill will ensure that investigative powers remain relevant to contemporary law enforcement needs and keep pace with developments in criminal activity.I commend the bill to the Main Committee. I present the revised explanatory memorandum.11:20:0031200Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I thank the parliamentary secretary for her remarks regarding the process of consultation that occurred in relation to the Measures to Combat Serious and Organised Crime Bill 2001. The bill contains a variety of measures, some of which are directed towards fighting crime and others of which are about clarifying the rights of suspects and child witnesses during questioning and trials. The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. That committee tabled a substantial report on the bill in June. The Labor senators on the committee produced a dissenting report, which, whilst agreeing with many of the recommendations of the majority, made further recommendations of their own.The main areas of disagreement between the government and the opposition relating to this bill in the committee report related to external authorisation and oversight of the proposed extension of controlled operations and the role of Customs in extended law enforcement operations. I am pleased to say that, after many discussions between the minister's office and the opposition and through debate in the Senate, there has ultimately been agreement on a raft of amendments which address the concerns the opposition had with the bill. Thus the bill, as it is now presented in this chamber, is a substantially improved piece of legislation from the one which was presented to the Senate. It ensures that law enforcement has the robust powers it needs to combat organised crime, and also that there is effective oversight of the use of those powers.I turn to the main issues covered in this legislation. The first is extending controlled operations. A controlled operation is an investigative method in which a law enforcement agency becomes involved in a specific illegal activity, involving the participation of an informant, an agent or an undercover police officer. Importantly, law enforcement officers are not permitted to entrap the suspect merely to facilitate the conduct.Historically, covert operations have been seen as a legitimate and common policing method in relation to the investigation of a wide range of serious offences. However, before 1995, controlled operations were conducted in the absence of any legislative approval. It was not that there was no framework for their authorisation, but it was an internal process and was not the subject of legislative authorisation. As a result, the evidence obtained from those operations was subject to the exercise of judicial discretion to exclude evidence so obtained on the grounds of public interest at any subsequent trial, and the law enforcement agents had to rely on the favourable exercise of prosecutorial discretion to ensure that they were not charged with any criminal offences arising from their work. In order to give certainty to the collection of evidence, legitimacy to the actions of law enforcement officers and, perhaps most importantly, transparency and accountability to those operations, a legislative regime was put in place in 1995 by the then Labor government for the conduct of controlled operations in relation to narcotics offences. At present, the legislation exempts from criminal liability those law enforcement officers who commit narcotic drug importation offences in the course of obtaining evidence that may lead to an importation offence.Since that time it has been widely accepted, both domestically and internationally, that organised criminals have become ever more sophisticated in the way they operate and have branched out into crimes other than drug trafficking. The United Nations Convention Against Transnational Crime, to which Australia is a signatory, provides for the appropriate use of controlled deliveries. The Financial Action Taskforce, an international intergovernmental body which focuses on money laundering and of which Australia is a member, recommends the use of controlled operations for white-collar and financial crime. Consequently, Australian law enforcement agencies have called for a legislative framework in which to conduct controlled operations into serious crimes other than drug trafficking.Labor has always acknowledged that controlled operations are an important tool for law enforcement. But because controlled operations allow law enforcement operatives—sometimes working under cover under assumed identities—to themselves break the law, we have always taken the principled position that they should be strictly managed and never lightly undertaken. With inadequate supervision they present dangers to both law enforcement agents and innocent citizens and may prove a fertile ground for corruption. In the course of the negotiations that occurred, Labor put forward the proposition that controlled operations should not be conducted for all Commonwealth offences. As I have indicated, controlled operations are a special law enforcement tool, and the opposition asserts that they should be used in circumstances where a covert operation is essential to pursue organised criminals for serious criminal activity. The opposition moved amendments in the Senate which would restrict the National Crime Authority to conducting controlled operations relating only to those offences which are set out in the National Crime Authority Act and which would restrict the Australian Federal Police to a similar set of offences, with the addition of a number of other serious offences. This is not a small list of matters. It canvasses the full range of serious crimes from which Australia is under threat by serious organised criminal activity. But we did not think it appropriate for these kinds of immunities in relation to law enforcement action to occur for what we might call trivial or minor offences. We think the legislation is the better for those changes. We also had concerns about the extension outside the traditional law enforcement environment to other agencies. We argued that Customs did not require the power to conduct its own controlled operations independently of the involvement or knowledge of the two principle Commonwealth law enforcement agencies: the Australian Federal Police or the National Crime Authority. That is not to denigrate Customs in any way. Customs has both regulatory and facilitating functions and is responsible for protecting Commonwealth revenue and preventing movements of prohibited imports and exports. However, it is clearly not a body which has the role of seeking out and suppressing organised crime. It is not a law enforcement agency as such and does not have the institutional structure, culture, tradition, training facilities or oversight and accountability mechanisms of a law enforcement agency. During the Senate inquiry it was argued that, because under New South Wales legislation the CEO of Customs is given authority to conduct controlled operations under that law, it should therefore also be prescribed under Commonwealth legislation. We did not regard that argument as forceful. Put simply, we do not believe this parliament should be convinced that the work of Customs is the type of work which requires the use of controlled operations. The other point that needs to be made here is that, through this bill, the government was seeking to give the Customs Service the power to use one of the more contentious law enforcement tools, without having conducted adequate public consultation. If Customs is to become a fully-fledged law enforcement agency, rather than an agency which has some law enforcement related activities—and that may be a proper course to occur in the future; I am certainly not saying that is not an avenue or course which is precluded either from this government or future governments—first there should and must be a proper, robust public discussion as to the appropriateness of that change. This government has not had that discussion and has indicated that it does not intend to do this.I might say that there was one very illuminating moment during discussions between the minister's office and me when we had briefings from the agency itself. It became clear that the request for these broader powers for Customs had not generated from the agency—that is, not from Customs itself. Customs did not believe it needed extended controlled operations powers. What Customs currently does—and what it wanted to be legislatively empowered to continue to do—is, on occasion, rather than immediately confiscate a prohibited import, allow it to be delivered to a recipient so that that person can be apprehended. In the Senate, Labor facilitated amendments to the bill, which were supported by the government, to provide for that certainty. In other words, this does not authorise controlled operations but it allows for controlled deliveries—the powers that Customs themselves sought in relation to this legislation.There have been other amendments which occurred as a result of discussions and agreements between the opposition and the government. These amendments implement the substance of Street legal, the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority, which was a detailed and comprehensive report into the way in which controlled operations ought to apply in respect to the National Crime Authority. Of course, many of those principles apply equally to the way in which those controlled operations apply to any law enforcement agency. Those amendments, which were passed in the Senate, established a new tiered system of authorisation for controlled operations with high-level internal authorisation in the first instance, the highest level internal authorisation for major controlled operations, and compulsory external authorisation for extended controlled operations. A major controlled operation conducted by the Australian Federal Police—that is, one defined in the amendments as:... a controlled operation that is likely to:(a) involve the infiltration of an organised criminal group by one or more undercover enforcement officers for a period of more than 7 days; or (b) continue for more than 3 months; or(c) be directed against suspected criminal activity that includes a threat to human life—can only be authorised in the first instance by the Australian Federal Police Commissioner or a deputy commissioner. A similar National Crime Authority controlled operation may only be authorised by one of the three National Crime Authority members. Once any controlled operation has been active for just over two months, it will have to be reviewed by the agency. If the agency then wishes to continue with the operation, authorisation must be sought from a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal who will conduct their own review before granting such an authorisation. That means there is a process of external authorisation for ongoing and continuing operations. The authorised continuation from that process cannot be for more than an additional three months. The amendments also gave the Ombudsman the jurisdiction to oversee controlled operations. They ensured that the Ombudsman would be supplied with the same reports as are given to the minister and would be given responsibility for inspecting law enforcement records, and would have the capacity to ensure that those operations are conducted in accordance with the framework that this legislation authorises. These amendments were essential to ensure that legislatively sanctioned controlled operations remain an effective and acceptable law enforcement tool and are not corrupted or misused in any way. Just as importantly, these amendments will allow the public to see that controlled operations are not corrupted or misused.I am very pleased that the government supported these opposition amendments in the Senate. Might I say that, even in circumstances where the Australian community might be more tolerant of measures which allow for these kinds of operations—and I concede that that is entirely the present case—it remains absolutely vital that those who work in law enforcement operate within a framework which is transparent to proper scrutiny. We have examples in Australia of agencies—at state level in particular—which have been dedicated to particularly serious and important law enforcement tasks becoming subverted. Thus far, that has not been the case with federal law enforcement—at least to any significant or institutional degree. That is a very proud record. As a former minister responsible for justice and these agencies, to be able to stand here and know that the same could be said for the government ministers of the day and to say this to the Australian community on behalf of those responsible for parliamentary oversight of those agencies is a very satisfying thing.If we are going to extend the remit and authorisation and recognise that these additional powers are now required of law enforcement, so too we need to be able to continue that same degree of confidence. I am very pleased, not only that such discussions have occurred and these outcomes were achieved, but also with the substance of that outcome. I believe it is an outcome which is fundamentally important.The bill did address another matter where agreement was not finally reached. We, of course, note that there is some extension of the use of assumed identities to Customs and the Taxation Office, where we felt that perhaps the legislation could have been better drafted. We do not die in a ditch on those matters. They are on the edge of this legislation, but we simply note that we regard that, as the parliamentary secretary said, as something in relation to the government's position. They welcome the changes that have been made, but perhaps it was not the format that they would have themselves adopted in all instances; the like can be said of us. That is one area where a proposition put forward by the opposition has not been accepted but, again, it is on the edge of legislation where there is broadly, and correctly, substantial agreement.One other point I should mention relates to listening device warrants, and I want to sound a note of caution. Currently under the Customs Act and the Australian Federal Police Act, a listening device warrant in relation to narcotic offences and other specified serious offences can only be obtained in respect of a particular person or particular premises. That provision came under some scrutiny when a court heard a matter relating to an instance where a listening device was attached to a bag under the authority of a warrant which authorised its placement in respect of an unknown person who was to collect that particular piece of luggage. It is quite an understandable event. As you would expect in that instance, the investigation to date had attached a large degree of suspicion in relation to what might be contained in the bag. Had they known the identity of the person who was likely to pick the bag up, they could have sought a person warrant—that is, a warrant to intercept those communications in relation to that person or to plant a device. But, of course, they did not know who the person was going to be, so they sought it against whoever would be the collector of that piece of luggage. As things turned out, when this came to court, the authority of that warrant was challenged. At first instance, if my memory serves me correctly, the court held that the evidence was admissible on a discretionary basis but held that the warrant had not properly authorised the use of the device in those circumstances. I may be wrong in my recollection as to the impact of that court case, but certainly it threw very serious doubt on to that practice. The government has, very correctly, introduced amendments to overcome that particular problem. The opposition accepts that in some circumstances the power to place a listening device in a thing, such as a bag or a container, will be invaluable to trailing the transit of illicit substances or following the course of some item and gathering evidence relating to crimes which may be in commission. However, we are aware that allowing the use of listening devices has the possibility of widening the net of people whose private conversations are caught by the listening device.It is important that individual civil liberties, such as the right to privacy, are respected as much as possible when we are giving law enforcement the power to eavesdrop. The issue has always concerned parliaments when we are asked to sanction the use of listening devices or bugs. However, for some anomalous reason, although there have been a number of reviews of the telecommunications interception policy there does not seem to have been a complementary review of listening device warrants. In other words, frequently we have looked at the issue of whether telephone services can be intercepted and under what circumstances, but there has been no comprehensive review of the circumstances in which bugs or listening devices can be used to track and to detail conversations. There seems no reason of principle why we should be more concerned with the privacy and civil liberties implications of intercepting a person's telephone conversation than we are about intercepting a face-to-face conversation. We did not oppose the extension of the use of specific item warrants, as set out in the legislation, but we do believe the time is ripe to instigate a thorough review of all legislation and practices which allow for a recording of a person's conversations without that person's knowledge or consent, with a view to ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of innocent persons are not unduly trespassed upon. Other countries have recognised this as a significant issue. For example, in the United States and Canada law enforcement agencies have the power to place such devices but they are required to inform any innocent third parties that their conversations have been intercepted. That obligation only arises after the law enforcement necessities have passed but it does mean that those who have had conversations nearby and perhaps had their conversations recorded even though they had nothing to do with the law enforcement investigation are ultimately informed of that fact. At least they then know that that has occurred and they can no doubt ensure that any transcripts that may be material to that case are dealt with in an appropriate way in accordance with privacy principles. They can be warned of the breadth of the knowledge that might have otherwise been extended to those completely innocent, non-law-enforcement related conversations.This issue actually gets more significant in the future rather than less significant because, as technology is changing, there is an increasing range of new tools which law enforcement agencies want to use and, no doubt, will be authorised to use. We know now that there are devices that permit conversations to be overheard. These devices are simply directed against glass panes. By that means, without the planting of any physical device whatsoever, the conversations that occur within the room are capable of being recorded through the window. We know that there are other devices which allow visual scrutiny of what is occurring within premises. A very interesting case relating to the admissibility of evidence reached the Supreme Court of the United States only some months ago. There was a situation where the United States law enforcement agencies used heat detecting equipment as they went past a variety of houses to assess whether or not there was greater than normal infra-red heat emanating from houses that did not look any different from others in the street. The reason they did that was that they suspected that within a house that was leaking excess heat there was likely to be hydroponic cultivation of cannabis—a not unnatural supposition. It could be simply that the occupants in the US winter were cranking their airconditioning up as sometimes they are wont to do—as anybody who has travelled to the United States discovers—but, no, in this instance they actually discovered that their suspicions were accurate, and they arrested a person on the basis of the fact that they had this external scrutiny. The case went to the Supreme Court—and I should point out that the US constitutional provisions guarantee that all citizens are protected against arbitrary search and seizure, which is a foundational element of the US constitution—and the Supreme Court of the United States in a divided decision, I think by a majority of one, held that the search had been unauthorised and unlawful and that the conviction could not stand. So we are dealing with a range of actual and live circumstances of this external surveillance: the conversations of persons, the physical movement of them and various emanations which can be detected. I might say that, apart from heat sensitivity, we know now of the capacity of ion detectors to sniff the air. There are some who advocate that such ion detectors should be placed in public places, such as airport lounges, to sniff the air for possible explosives or possible narcotics. Again, a range of issues emerge in relation to the kinds of intrusions that occur without our knowledge and without the kinds of restraint that we would expect—for example, suspicion to be a requirement for a warrant or for any other kind of examination of our conduct. These issues will not be resolved in Australia by way of constitutional inhibitions. The United States has that fundamental ground rock which prohibits search and seizure unless authorised by law, but in Australia it will have to be determined by this parliament. These are significant issues and I suspect we should not rush headlong into them, notwithstanding the pressure that may emerge from time to time to do that. The better course in an instance like this is to have a full examination of the issues that will be emerging and a proper parliamentary review of them—to make it a public process and to take our time about it and get it right.Some might say that this legislation moved through the parliamentary process a little slowly. It has taken several months to reach the point where it comes before this House for ultimate passage. But the benefit of that process has been that it has had full examination, the agencies have had an opportunity to contribute to its shaping, which they did not have even in the drafting, and all the parliamentary parties have had an engagement in its making. At the end of the day, we get good legislation which the Australian community will be foursquare behind and will support. I make this cautionary remark: the opposition requests and will request that we proceed to have a substantial review of these listening devices and other intrusive mechanisms of scrutiny of individual conduct that go outside the telephone interception system. We request them to be the subject of a proper and full parliamentary examination. As the life of this parliament is expiring, it may well be for me, as the incoming justice minister, to give such a reference. If that is not to be my fate, the request no doubt stands. Whatever the case is, this place is actually enhanced when people do not rush to make bad legislation. We made that criticism in relation to the legislation introduced last Wednesday in respect of the Tampa, where 40 minutes notice was given to the opposition. It is usually those instances of law making which are rushed and avoid the process of consultation with the opposition in a substantive way, or which do not involve any external discussion with those who will be the subject of the legislation, that make the bad laws that we later find we are forced to review and amend. In this instance we will let this through. We understand exactly why it is required, we understand the circumstances in which it arose and we have no objection to the course the government has taken. But we do think there are larger issues of public policy which are now exposed because of this circumstance. We commend to the government the reasons we should commence that process. We acknowledge that, in this late stage of the parliamentary process, it may not choose to act at this moment, but certainly it would not be a bad thing to initiate this even if the process is expected not to conclude until well into next year. It is not something we need to rush into. There are processes of public examination that do not require the continuation of the parliament; they can be external processes through some kind of departmental white paper or what have you, putting out the options and allowing for public consultation into these matters. With those remarks, I again thank the parliamentary secretary for her acknowledgment of the way in which the minister's office and my office worked together to seek good outcomes. I note the minister's adviser at the back of the room and those representing the Australian Federal Police and other agencies. I note the department's senior adviser on criminal law matters. All of these people have worked well and hard in relation to finding substantive outcomes in areas where the major parties sought to achieve common and good outcomes for the Australian community they represent. This is a good example of the way in which those processes should work and I thank each and every one of those people.11:50:0031206Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to rise to support the Measures to Combat Serious and Organised Crime Bill 2001 today, and I commend the previous speaker, the shadow minister, for his comments and for the bipartisan way in which this legislation has been approached. Most people externally do not appreciate that much of the legislation is worked through and that there is bipartisan support, even though on some of the small details there may be differences.In relation to this bill, I think it is interesting to see the perceptions that are occurring in our community in regard to crime. I was actually startled that in my own electorate crime has now hit the top of the polls in terms of issues that people are concerned about. It is not an issue for which the federal government is seen as predominantly responsible, but certainly the concern about crime has more than doubled since three years ago when I was looking, for obvious reasons, at issues in my electorate.I think a number of factors contributed to that, not the least of which being that in New South Wales there is a feeling of a lack of confidence in the senior echelons of the police service. We have a police commissioner who was brought in at $450,000 a year from the UK. There has been a loss of support in him from the community; there has been a loss of support from his troops. If you speak to the average policeman in New South Wales, they will quickly tell you the morale problems that exist within the police force in New South Wales, the extent of officers that are on leave, stress leave and the relationship problems within the police itself.At the same time, we have evidence of gangs operating in various parts of the city, including my own electorate—and I had the experience in my electorate of two gangs firing guns at one another in the main street of Cronulla, with bullet holes in the windows of the railway station. When I spoke to the superintendent at the police station, he said, `We do not have a serious problem here with crime in regard to other areas.' I said, `So you mean to say that having gangs fire guns at one another across the main street of Cronulla, which is after all a tourist destination, is not a problem?' I think that is what it is about: there is a deception in terms of the figures but a real concern about what is happening in relation to crime and about people's attitudes to crime. I am pleased to say that this government is taking crime seriously and this government is bringing in measures which are going to assist with the pursuit of those that are involved in criminal activities and to look at some of the major perpetrators, particularly as they relate to drug offences. It would seem apparent to me that the great escalation in offences comes back to the greater use of drugs within our community and all its incredible and alarming side effects in terms of impacts on households, the level of youth suicides, the level of debt that people run into and families being disrupted. A couple of weeks ago I watched somebody smash a window of a car in Elizabeth Street and take a bag out of the car—undoubtedly to sustain a drug habit.This bill will assist our law enforcement agencies to cope with modern criminal procedures, and this is what we want to see. It is not about having a harsh and repressive police state—none of us would want that. But we want to get to those who are involved in organising crime, who are responsible in distribution of drugs, who are involved in child pornography and who are involved in whatever major illegal criminal activities around the country. Being the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Crime Authority, I am aware from my discussions with Gary Crooke of the various ways in which the NCA go about their work, and this bill will assist the National Crime Authority in carrying out their role. The way they go about it is not the traditional method of having the constable out on the beat saying, `Hello, hello, what is happening here?'Rather, as the shadow minister said, there are fairly sophisticated techniques and methods as well as the controlled operations. Those techniques and methods, and the parameters surrounding them, have been mentioned in this bill. They include technical surveillance equipment, which has reached new levels in a wide range of activities, and we have legislation in this House to assist this. The Joint Standing Committee on the National Crime Authority looked at the new technologies and the controls that should be established. This bill sets out new schemes for controlled operations. It establishes a framework for the use of assumed identities in investigation. It also introduces a new series of child witness protections, particularly in regard to sexual offences, as well as making changes to the existing laws on listening devices. There is no doubt that modern criminals are using increasingly complex approaches to crime. That is why we need to extend the current legislation. As the shadow minister mentioned, controlled operations occur when law enforcement agencies allow criminal activity to continue under their observation. Such operations are used in the hope of gaining more information about some of the Mr Bigs that operate in our community and about the nature of the operations of and the participants in the crime rings around the country. This has received strong support from past reviews: the Woods royal commission, which supported the continuation and expansion of controlled operations, and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Crime Authority, before I became a member, which recommended extensions. The problem is that the current law permits only 30 days for controlled operations to operate. That is clearly insufficient time to continue operations. To be on the scent of significant operators and then have to cut off the investigation because of the legislation is not something we could sustain. The time frame is going to be extended and the Crimes Act of 1914 is going to be opened up to allow for a wider variety of situations—including money laundering, people smuggling and other forms of trafficking, bribery and corruption. To address the concerns about allowing the operations to run for a longer period, the bill provides for validating certificates to remain in force for up to six months, with a mandatory three-monthly review. It also allows officers from various agencies—Customs, the Australian Federal Police and three other organisations—to report to the Minister for Justice and Customs once every three months. I think that is an appropriate check in terms of what is happening. The second aspect relates to assumed identities which go with controlled operations. It is also an important part. It allows officers of the Commonwealth to assume identities and not be subject to penalties of up to 12 months imprisonment which normally relate to the assumption of assumed identities. Being able to check on criminal activities is an important way to go. Then there is the highly volatile area of child witness protection. No worse crime exists in our community, with such a pernicious nature in terms of its long-term effect on individuals, than child abuse. The protection of witnesses is absolutely appropriate. In my electorate there are victims of abuse who meet regularly. I have met many of the people who are members of that group and I have heard them outline their stories. The ongoing impact is horrific. There is also child sex tourism and other areas in which we need witnesses to come forward. It is very stressful for children to be a witness and to see in front of them those who perpetrated crimes against them. Obviously, that situation needs to be removed. The bill allows for children to provide evidence to the trial by CCTV through special screening arrangements. Again, that is an appropriate way forward. I congratulate the officers involved and the people from the minister's department for bringing this about. This is a very important inclusion in our legislation.In conclusion, this is appropriate legislation. It reflects the concerns that exist in our community regarding the escalation of crime and the way in which, from the Commonwealth's point of view, we can look to some of the major organisers of crime in our community by extending controlled operations and by allowing officers of the Commonwealth to assume identities. I believe that this is absolutely appropriate. With the distribution of drugs right across many levels of our community, there are very few families which have not had some experience of the devastating impact of drugs. Through this legislation, the wider community can assist in the pursuit of individuals who distribute drugs and are involved in organised crime. Finally, in terms of child sex crimes, the way in which you can have the evidence by way of the CCTV is appropriate. These are all good measures. I commend the minister, his department and the officers who brought this legislation forward. It is good to see the bipartisan way in which this legislation has been supported. I commend the bill to the House.12:01:0031208Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the member for Cook in relation to where crime and law and order sit in the minds of the electorate. It is certainly a very significant issue right across Australia and we know why. The Measures to Combat Serious and Organised Crime Bill 2001 has a number of amendments across a wide range of acts. I will confine my remarks to changes to the Customs Act 1901. I do that because last week I was able to visit the Customs House in Townsville to talk to the Customs officers who patrol the port of Townsville and the international airport. In fact, they cover an area that is bigger than the state of Victoria, right up to the Gulf at Karumba—a huge area to look after. I was able to talk to the Customs officers and their team leader, Mary Hagan, and get first-hand knowledge of the problems that the Customs Service face. Certainly, the amendments to the Customs Act contained in this bill will help Customs officers discharge their duties in a more efficient way and in such a way that they are legally protected in doing so. Originally, the Customs Act made it an offence to import any prohibited imports, to export any prohibited imports or unlawfully possess or convey any smuggled goods or prohibited imports or exports. The proposed new subsection in this bill that adds to the Customs Act introduces a simplified regime to allow the Australian Customs Service to conduct controlled deliveries. We have seen some major Customs operations recently. A significant one was a very large drug haul that most will remember recently on the coast of Western Australia. That originated with intelligence in the Customs Service in Mackay in North Queensland. That boat was tracked right around the northern part of Australia. Customs are getting very sophisticated these days in using the intelligence available to them from all sorts of services, including Coastwatch, to do everything in their power to stop the import of prohibited substances—generally this is drugs. We are also concerned about unauthorised arrivals across our border, and that can be in the port of Townsville. It does not necessarily have to be in the outer territorial seas of Australia. In addition, we have to be mindful to watch out for exotic diseases that come across our borders. When I was being briefed by the Customs officers, I was able to see first-hand the new $680,000 closed circuit monitoring system that Customs use at the port of Townsville, which was made operational last week. Information from that system allows Customs to track what is happening, without people knowing. That information is fed to Brisbane and also to the National Control Centre in Melbourne, and so operations in Customs are coordinated. Suspected people and vessels can be watched, and that is where the amendments in this bill come in in relation to Customs conducting controlled deliveries.It is right that Customs officers should have immunity at law, as is provided in this bill, for any criminal liability in relation to these matters. I also note that there is another amendment which requires the Minister for Justice and Customs to report annually to the parliament on the controlled deliveries undertaken by Customs officers pursuant to the immunity from criminal liability that would have been available under the proposed subsection. It is right that the government and the opposition back the Australian Customs Service in the discharge of its duties in this way. It is right—and it is appreciated by the people of Australia—that both the government and the opposition in this instance want to be tough on crime, and that we are giving them additional powers to do so. Certainly, on behalf of my electorate, I put on the public record my electorate's support for the measures contained in this bill today.12:06:0031209Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—in reply—In summing up this debate, I thank the members for Denison, Cook, and Herbert for their contributions. The Measures to Combat Serious and Organised Crime Bill 2000 is a most significant bill. In particular, while the member for Denison applauded the engagement of the opposition in developing this bill and looked forward to it delivering a much better regime for our law enforcement agencies to operate under, he made several points which I think I should respond to.The first point was in relation to Customs being given full controlled operations powers. In particular, the member for Denison commented that the government should have consulted in making it a full law enforcement agency. The point about all that is that Customs already has significant law enforcement responsibilities. To discharge these effectively it needs some controlled operation powers—a point that the opposition did ultimately accept. There was never any intention of altering the functions or nature of the Customs Service, and there has been public consultation on the question of Customs having full law enforcement agency powers, not only in the context of New South Wales giving it these powers but also through the hearings on this bill by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.In relation to listening devices, the member for Denison wondered why they had not been, as he said, `subject to a general review'. I need to make the point that the Commonwealth listening device laws actually fall within the portfolio responsibilities of the Attorney-General and, as the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Ellison, noted in the Senate, the developments affecting listening device laws and the need to consider possible reforms is a matter that our government is now giving serious attention to. As part of that process, the government is keeping well abreast of overseas developments. I was very pleased that the three speakers were able to draw attention to the fact that there has never been a more important time than right now to ensure that we have the most effective legislation to back up what our operatives who help with law enforcement in our country do and to protect them as individuals. This bill will enable federal law enforcement authorities to more effectively detect, investigate and prosecute serious and organised crime. Organised crime groups are well resourced and use increasingly sophisticated methods to evade detection. To infiltrate these groups, it is imperative that law enforcement agencies have advanced up-to-date investigative tools. This bill will provide law enforcement agencies with those necessary tools. The amendments to controlled operations legislation would allow this important investigative technique to be used in relation to a range of criminal activity, including people-smuggling, money laundering and illegal trade in arms. The amendments also recognise the crucial role that civilians often play in assisting police to apprehend those responsible for organising criminal enterprises.The new assumed identities provisions will enable more effective investigation of criminal organisations by establishing a proper legal framework for the use of false identity documents by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Assumed identities provide vital protection for undercover operatives engaged in infiltrating organised crime groups or collecting information relevant to national security. The bill will also address a significant impediment to the use of listening devices in gathering evidence of serious crimes, by enabling a listening device warrant to be issued in respect of a particular item such as a bag containing drugs. That was a particular example the member for Denison referred to.Modern criminal syndicates are ruthless and resourceful organisations. The amendments to this bill will equip our federal law enforcement agencies with the powers necessary to enable them to pursue and prosecute the organisers and financiers behind these organisations, instead of merely arresting couriers and intermediaries. In concluding this debate, I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendments.Adjournment31210Motion (by Dr Stone) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.3121012:11:0031210Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—All Australians were shocked when they first saw the disaster unfolding on television on Tuesday, 11 September. Like other Australians, I had never seen anything like this horror. Civilian aircrafts had been taken over by terrorists and crashed into the World Trade Centre buildings in New York and into the Pentagon in Washington. It was an act of barbarism; it was a crime against humanity, and humanity is sickened by the nature and scale of this crime. Innocent, unarmed civilians were attacked at the places where they worked. They had no warning of the horror that was to be unleashed on them and they had no way of avoiding it. Indeed, many of those who sought to come to their rescue— fire personnel and police—were themselves victims as the buildings collapsed on top of them. The targets of the terror were obviously deliberately chosen as they were the symbols of the economic and military power of the United States. It mattered not one jot to the perpetrators of this crime that the buildings held thousands of people, including more than 70 Australians as well as people from other nations. It mattered not that it would be human beings, not symbols of America or its power, that would be destroyed.The terror of last week's attack against American civilians has created new images. These are the pictures of systematic violence done to one of the most advanced cities in the world. They are the pictures of the massacre of thousands of civilians in a major centre of civilisation. These images have been burned into the collective consciousness of countless millions of people around the world. These images will unquestionably change the way civilised people see the world. That is why it is vital that civilised nations join together to express their utter rejection of such barbarism, punish it and work together to prevent it ever happening again.This horrific event means that none of us, as nations or as individuals, can tune out world affairs, switch off our responsibilities for the planet and pretend we can hide in some kind of solitary fortress. The nightmare that has been inflicted on Americans this week by terrorists tells us what enormous damage can flow from hatred. The world does not become safer and more peaceful through hatred, fear and intolerance; it becomes safer and more peaceful when everyone has a place in the sun, where wrongs are corrected and when injustice is tackled. The security that will endure is the security that promises benefits to all nations and peoples. It will endure because it is based on giving all nations and all people a fair go. There is a lot of injustice in the world; it is getting worse, not better. It is sickening that some of the old prejudices and intolerance are surfacing anew in Australia following the recent attacks by terrorists on the United States. There have been deplorable attacks on Muslims in Australia: there have been attacks on Muslim religious temples and on individual Muslims. This parliament and this government have to act to stop this. There are always the fanatics and the merchants of hate. They come out of their caves when they think the time is right. In recent weeks they have got their voices back because of the phoney atmosphere of crisis that has been created over asylum seekers entering, or seeking to enter, this country. I call on the coalition government to speak out firmly against the crazies in this community who insult and assault other Australians and who want to impose or reimpose their old prejudices and hatreds. In a nutshell, it is time that some government spokespeople stopped playing the race card and stopped using asylum seekers for their own party political purposes. I am referring to recent comments by the members for Flinders and Fisher. On one hand the government is publicly deploring the hatred that inflicted such horror on the United States last week, yet on the other hand some government members are deliberately and cynically arousing racial tensions within Australia. As some commentators have observed, the Prime Minister has blown every dog whistle he knows, and the pack knows how to howl when the whistle is blown.The United States has suffered an unspeakable tragedy from the mass violence of last week. Australians are horrified to see the suffering that has been inflicted on fellow human beings and friends. As I stated earlier, I believe the grief experienced by the people of the United States has been felt by every home in my region of central Victoria. We Australians care very much about others. We especially care about Americans. We share their grief and our hearts go out to them at this time of sorrow. Around the world people have shown their capacity to feel for Americans in this terrible situation, to identify with Americans and to share the suffering of Americans. Americans are resilient people. They will recover and they will rebuild. They will revive more completely knowing that Australians and the rest of the world care for them, share their grief and wish them well. 3121212:16:0031212Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I take this opportunity to support the condolence motion which was moved in the House on Monday by the Prime Minister, John Howard, and supported by the opposition, with respect to the terrorist attacks in the United States. I extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to all Australian families who have lost loved ones in this awful tragedy. In particular, I extend my sympathy and condolences to the family of Andrew Knox, in my electorate of Makin, and especially to his twin brother, Stuart. There are no words that can ease the pain of losing a loved one, whether it be a son, daughter, sister, brother, mother, father or grandparent. My own mother died at a very young age, even after surviving World War II, and it was quite some time before I was able to accept and come to terms with her passing. The thing that helped me most was the warm and loving support of friends and family. I want to let the Knox family know that my thoughts and prayers are with them in their sorrow and grief. On Monday, our Prime Minister moved the following motion: That this House—1. Expresses its horror at the terrorist attacks which have claimed so many lives in the United States of America; 2. Conveys to the Government and people of the United States of America the deepest sympathy and sense of shared loss felt by the Government and people of Australia; 3. Extends condolences to the families and other loved ones of those Australians killed or missing as a result of the attacks; 4. Declares that such attacks represent an assault, not only on the people and the values of the United States of America, but of free societies everywhere; 5. Praises the courageous efforts of those engaged in the dangerous rescue operation still underway; 6. Believes that the terrorist actions in New York City and Washington DC constitute an attack upon the United States of America within the meaning of Articles IV and V of the ANZUS Treaty; 7. Fully endorses the commitment of the Australian Government to support within Australia's capabilities United States-led action against those responsible for these tragic attacks; and 8. Encourages all Australians in the wake of these appalling events to display those very qualities of tolerance and inclusion which the terrorists themselves have assaulted with such awful consequences.It is most important at this time—and the member who preceded me in the debate alluded to this—that we all remain calm and that, as Australians, we need to be aware that our Muslim migrants are also citizens of Australia and that they do not support the actions of these terrorists in America. Before I left home this week to travel to Canberra, my 15-year-old son, Graham, sat down with me to have a discussion about the events which had unfolded on Tuesday, 11 September 2001. His major concern was what our response as a nation would be to the terrorist attacks. He asked me to tell our Prime Minister that, while he understands that we need to take action in support of the United States of America, he did not want a nuclear war to happen. His words were as follows:We have to stop the terrorists, but I don't want to see more innocent people hurt and destroyed the way they were in America—please don't let anyone hurt the innocent ones, because they are human beings just like me and you, Mum.It must be very concerning and frightening for our young people to be witnessing such a shocking tragedy at this time. Unlike other countries and peoples, they have only seen war, destruction and violence on TV, in video games and on film. That is bad enough, but it must be so difficult to comprehend the consequences of this latest terrorist attack, because even as adults and community leaders of our nation we are unable at this time to predict what the outcomes and consequences are going to be. My answer to my son Graham was that, as an ex-serving member of the defence forces and now as the member for Makin, I have every faith that the Prime Minister, John Howard, will guide and steer our nation in a sensible and steady response in support of the United States of America in this conflict. President George W. Bush has stated that, although there will be some sacrifices, we must fight to protect our free democratic societies. I am pleased that the opposition has agreed to support the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001, the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 and the Border Protection Bill 2001. These pieces of legislation are so important, as the Prime Minister has stated, as they protect our borders and national sovereignty. Finally, I would like to apologise to Graeme Morris for the telephone call I made to him at 1 o'clock in the morning to endeavour to discover whether our Prime Minister was safe and secure in the United States. (Time expired)3121312:21:0031213Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—There is no truer saying than that a week is a long time in politics. At the last adjournment debate during the last sitting fortnight, I had some remarks cut short, and I want to continue those today. Those remarks were in relation to another world event which was going to happen during the following week, and that was the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. I will now continue those remarks. The students of Morisset High School conducted a survey in response to a letter I sent them, and what I want to do today is to read into the Hansard record what their responses, which I submitted to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to take to the world conference on their behalf, were.There were five themes at the world conference. The first was `sources and causes'. The students identified the sources of racism as name-calling, taunts, non-cooperation without obvious reason, belittling, nastiness and bullying. One respondent stated that they had not experienced racism at Morisset High. The students identified the causes as the thoughtless spilling over of community racism to children and the different beliefs within groups in communities. The second theme was `victims of racism', and the Morisset students identified those who look or act differently, the brainy ones, the quiet ones and the minority groups. They said that racism results in anger, frustration and humiliation and can have a long-term impact, producing depression, the loss of self-esteem, antisocial behaviour, loneliness and absenteeism, as well as dislike and avoidance of certain classes or particular days at school, which can lead to partial or whole day truancy. The third theme addressed by the students was `prevention and education'. Among their responses was the suggestion that keynote speakers be invited more often to school assemblies. They also felt that support should be offered and the word of the victim believed, even when the offender is lying. They said attitudes about `dobbing someone in' need to be changed, and we need to get tougher with bullies. They also included joint counselling and peer mediation programs as suggestions, and the Aboriginal centre at Morisset High School received a great deal of praise for providing activities and for just being there so that the students were always aware. The fourth theme was `effective remedies', and the students included the recommendation that there should be severe consequences for racist behaviour and suggested that they should look for schemes in other schools that are successful and adapt them for their school, as well as enforcing the current antiracism system in place at Morisset High School. They also suggested that offenders should be referred to lunch detention, to referrals and to parent contacts or even suspended. They felt it was important to make students respect the opinions of others. The fifth theme at the conference related to the strategies to combat racism. The students said that they needed to warn people of the consequences of discrimination and racism, to introduce successful schemes from other schools and to involve a committee of students, of all ages and backgrounds, and at least one teacher from each faculty group. I congratulate the students of Morisset High School for coming up with such a considered response. I assure them that I did send their responses to the conference, which, as we saw, was unfortunately marred by a walkout by the Americans and Israelis.Finally, I have a few comments about the recent events in America. The terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September constituted the worst single act of terrorism we have seen. The world has changed because of it. I am sure that we all share a sense of disbelief, shock and horror at what has happened. We must ensure that a response to terrorism is motivated by the desire to seek justice for the victims of the attacks rather than by an angry thirst for revenge. I would like to extend my condolences and those of my family, ALP members and all members of the Charlton electorate to the families and communities of those who have died in these events—but also to the families and communities of those who have died, and continue to die, in various violent conflicts which continue around the globe.3121412:25:0031214Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I welcome the group from Pop Sullivan's Tours who have joined us this afternoon from Australia's largest tropical city, Townville. It is terrific to have you in the nation's capital today and I look forward to sharing some time with you shortly. I would like to raise an issue in relation to school funding. I have been deeply concerned about the amount of misinformation that has been broadcast out in the public arena by special interest groups. The information that has been put out is dead wrong. I am concerned that people have a view that state schools are not being looked after by the taxpayer and that somehow or other non-government schools are getting more money. That is simply not the case. A student in a state school gets eight times as much taxpayer funding as a student in a wealthy private school. If you put that another way in looking at the figures, a wealthy school gets 13.7 per cent of what a state school gets.State schools report to me that they certainly do have significant issues. In Queensland— and I can only speak for Queensland—as I move around and talk to the principals across the state schools in Townsville and Thuringowa, they say there are tremendous maintenance problems. The member for Hinkler probably hears about the same problems. The maintenance budget is provided for state schools by the state government, and the schools need, in a year, 10 times as much as they get to attend to their maintenance obligations. They are not getting it. That is an issue that has to be addressed, and quickly, by the state government.The government provides dollars to support students in non-government schools because there is a public interest in every child, no matter where they go to school. But the teachers union—and this certainly concerns me greatly—have confirmed on the record that their position is that there should be no government funding from either level of government to non-government schools. Where does that leave Catholic schools? We all know the service that Catholic schools provide. Where does it leave community schools? Where does that leave indigenous schools, if there is no funding or government support? We need to be on guard about the agenda being run by the teachers union.I think it is very important in our community that there be choice in education. Parents should be able to say, `I would like to see my child have a Catholic education,' or `I would like to see my child go to the Annandale Christian School or the Calvary Christian College in Townsville', or `I would like to see my child attend the shalom school or the indigenous school in the city.' But that is not to say that the government should not continue to properly fund state schools, because state schools are good schools. State schools are every bit as good as those in the non-government school sector. My daughter-in-law teaches at Annandale Christian School, and you could not get a better primary school. Carol Buchanan at the Willows State School might object, but certainly Willows is very good. The Northern Beaches High School, for example, is as good a state high school as you could ever get in the Commonwealth of Australia. There will always be ongoing pressures for more funding for school students. It is important that the community in Australia understands and recognises that the government will continue to support both streams of education, and we will do it in a fair and equitable way. This scare tactic promoted by some that wealthy schools are getting more money is just that. Wealthy schools are not overfunded at the expense of government schools. 3121512:31:0031215Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I have spoken previously in this chamber about the importance of negotiations between the defence department and the Moonee Valley City Council in my electorate over the council acquiring a parcel of Defence land that is in Afton Street, Essendon on the Maribyrnong River. This is a very important parcel of land in terms of ensuring continuity of access along the banks of the Maribyrnong River so that the community can enjoy that area of Melbourne to its fullest. Negotiations have been going on for some considerable time, and this is reflected in correspondence that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence has been sending over time. For example, in March this year, he wrote to a constituent of mine where, amongst other things, he says:I am advised that negotiations are progressing well, with the Council currently preparing a submission in support of a priority sale of the land.The parliamentary secretary wrote to the council itself on 25 May this year, in which he indicated his awareness of the council's interests in proceeding relatively quickly with purchasing the property under a priority sale arrangement. The minister in that letter introduced an element in relation to a somewhat larger parcel of defence department land on the opposite bank—the southern bank of the Maribyrnong River, the former Maribyrnong explosives factory site—and indicated that he wanted to create some sort of linkage between that site and the northern site, the Afton Street site that I am referring to.The situation has deteriorated somewhat rapidly, and I might say the parliamentary secretary has been made to look somewhat foolish by some defence department officials who are presently taking a rather ham-fisted approach in their discussions with the Moonee Valley City Council. In recent discussions, the Defence officials linked the possibility of decisions in relation to this land, the Afton Street land, which the parliamentary secretary back in March was saying were progressing well, with the possibility of creating a cross-river road link at this point in the Maribyrnong River valley.The local community has, by and large, been very cooperative in seeking to support a successful outcome for the defence department in disposing of both parcels of land, but I can assure the parliamentary secretary and his minister that they will harvest a massive community campaign on these issues if they persist with this nonsense of wanting to put a road link across the river at this particular point. This would not only destroy magnificent parkland and recreation areas—the Rose Creek valley is the proposed alignment for this road link—but it would also produce significant quantities of traffic into residential streets that are not designed to carry this sort of traffic. These ham-fisted officials of the defence department are, frankly, in addition to making the parliamentary secretary look a bit foolish, also in the process of, I think, putting at risk the community consensus that they need to underpin the successful outcome of their approach—the disposing of this totality of Defence land in the area—by taking I think a short-sighted and silly approach. The Defence officials have also raised the question of some `limited development' on the Afton Street site. This area of land is dramatically unsuitable for any sort of use other than recreational and environmental. Development of the land would compromise the environmental values of the remnant western plains grassland on the site. Development would interrupt the green corridor potential along the Maribyrong Valley and cut off wildlife from an important freshwater source in Rose Creek. Excavation run-off from any development on the hillside, which is where any development would need to occur to avoid the flood plain, would expose both Rose Creek and the Maribyrong River itself to siltation and increased flood risk. This is a precinct of Melbourne that needs more open space, not less. The community has demonstrated its goodwill regarding the defence department's intention to develop the land on the southern bank of the river, and that goodwill and cooperation are very much at risk. The local community and the local council will vigorously oppose any plans that the defence department has for a river crossing. This needs to be taken note of very promptly by the parliamentary secretary. He ought to assume control of his officials rather than be made to look a dill by them as is presently the case.3121612:36:0031216Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to say a few words on behalf of the people in my electorate about the immigration problems that Australia has encountered over recent months, and in particular since the Tampa incident. It is interesting that we have been beset by a circumstance which was not of Australia's doing. The whole idea of migration is that it should be conducted in a safe and orderly manner. We have responsibilities to ensure racial harmony in Australia. We have responsibilities to see that the sorts of migrants who come to Australia can make a social contribution to our way of life. There are health and quarantine implications of illegal immigration that also have to be taken into account.I do not think Australia should be taken as an easy touch, nor do I think that Australia has been ungenerous in the way that it has made this country available to people in dire circumstances. We took 13,500 refugees or people with humanitarian type visas last year and 8,000 of those have been resettled. On an international scale, we are second to Canada in opening our doors to people from foreign countries. But if we allow illegal immigration to take precedence, we reward the clients of these people smugglers by giving those clients an easier entry into this country than those who have been sitting in United Nations camps for years on end.As a country, we have been very unfairly treated by the international community. These refugees should have been processed in the country of first asylum, which in most cases is Indonesia. It seems to me that our external territories of Cocos (Keeling), Christmas and Ashmore islands have been used as an easy entry into this country. I fully support their removal from the migration zone.I think it is tragic and unfair that people who have money for air fares to fly from the Middle East, for example, to Malaysia, the Philippines or Indonesia and then burn their passports and other documents have precedence over genuine refugees, people who are real prisoners of conscience, who are in desperate need and who have been living in squalor for two or three years in United Nations camps. We should not be rewarding clients of the people smugglers ahead of those genuine refugees. I do not want to be unduly political, but I think it is a great pity that the opposition did not support the bill of three weeks ago.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPKV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—These are stricter bills. It seems to me unusual that you would not pass the bill three weeks ago but you are now prepared to.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MP10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Hinkler will ignore the member for Maribyrnong and address his remarks to, and through, the chair. KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I still make the observation that it is unusual that the opposition would not support a bill three weeks ago but will now support an even stronger bill currently before the parliament. It just seems to me to be inconsistent. I suggest the reason they are doing this is that the weight of public opinion has been so overwhelming on the issue they dare do nothing else. These bills we have before us are fair and just. I think what happened in America last week should be a signal to us to be ever vigilant about who comes into this country and the way that they come into the country.Main Committee adjourned at 12.41 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing31218The following answers to questions were circulated:31218(Question No. 2608)260831218O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) How many (a) high care and (b) low care beds have been allocated within the electoral division of Bass.(2) How many (a) high care and (b) low care beds are currently on-line.31218Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question, in accordance with advice provided to me, is as follows:The Electorate of Bass is within the Northern Aged Care Planning Region of Tasmania. The allocation of places is not based on Electoral Divisions.(1) (a) and (b) There are currently 648 high care beds, 543 low care beds and 139 Community Aged Care Packages allocated in the Northern Aged Care Planning Region.In the 2001 Aged Care Approvals Round, a further 44 high care beds have been released for allocation in the Northern Region for small communities with poor access to residential aged care services. An additional 14 high care beds, 14 low care beds and 41 Community Aged Care Packages have been released for allocation anywhere in Tasmania. Recurrent funding is guaranteed for all of these new aged care places.(2) (a) and (b) There are currently 639 high care beds, 435 low care beds and 139 Community Aged Care Packages operational in the Northern Aged Care Planning Region.Since 1998, this Government has released 32,000 aged care places to make up for the 10,000 aged care place shortage identified by the Auditor General in 1998 as a result of the former Labor Government's failure to release sufficient places.31218(Question No. 2728)272831218Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) Is it a fact that:(a) workers over the age of 75 are excluded from the Pension Bonus Scheme,(b) people who return to work after a period on the Aged Pension are excluded from the Pension Bonus Scheme, (c) the pension bonus scheme provides an incentive for people to work past retirement age when the Income Tax Assessment Act requires that monies invested in superannuation and approved deposit funds must be released if the holder is aged 65 and not gainfully employed, and the Superannuation Industry Supervision Regulation 1993 stipulates, (d) that superannuation funds may accept all contributions made by or on behalf of employees after they reach age 70; if so, why.(2) In light of the taxation and superannuation deterrents facing people who wish to work past pension age detailed in part (1)(c):(a) is it anomalous that the Pension Bonus Scheme encourages people to work up until age 75, (b) how was the age of 75 chosen as the upper limit for the Pension Bonus Scheme and is the selection of such an age discriminatory, (c) why is there an age limit at all for the scheme, and (d) will the Government amend the various pieces of age, tax and superannuation legislation to ensure age consistency across all portfolios; if not, why not.(3) Given the longstanding view of successive governments that the compensation system has the first responsibility for the provision of income support for workers injured at work, what powers does the Federal Government have to ensure that people over pension age who choose to work, but are injured, are paid workers' compensation and not forced to rely on the Aged Pension for income support. 31219Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) No. People registered with the Pension Bonus Scheme can remain as members after age 75 if they are still working. However, they can only accrue a bonus for themselves up to age 75. If they have a younger partner in the scheme, their work can be used to increase their partner's bonus.(b) No. People who have received Age Pension can register as a member of the scheme, but cannot be paid a bonus. However if they have a partner in the scheme who has not received Age Pension, their work can be used to increase their partner's bonus.(c) No. A regulated superannuation fund can accept contributions only in accordance with the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations (SIS Regulations). Under the SIS Regulations, employer contributions on behalf of employees are either:· mandated employer contributions, which can be accepted by a superannuation fund regardless of the person's age or number of hours worked; or· non-mandated employer contributions, which cannot be accepted by a superannuation fund for a person aged 70 years or more or for a person without sufficient connection to gainful employment. The age limit was 65, but it was increased to 70 from 1 July 1997.The SIS Regulations define mandated employer contributions to include:· contributions that reduce the employer's liability to the Superannuation Guarantee (SG) charge (this does not provide a basis for contributions for persons aged 70 and over, as the SG charge does not apply); and · superannuation contributions payable under an industrial agreement or an award made on or after 1 July 1986 by an industrial authority. There is no age limit for contributions made under this heading.As a result, contributions can be made to a complying fund on behalf of a person aged 70 or more only under an industrial agreement or award approved by an industrial authority.The SIS Regulations also require superannuation funds to pay out member benefits or ensure that these benefits are rolled over for payment through an annuity or pension product when a member has reached aged 65 and is no longer working at least ten hours per week or has reached age 70 and is no longer working at least 30 hours per week.(2) (a) No. The Pension Bonus Scheme provides a financial benefit to persons working past normal retirement age. This is independent of whether or not the person (or their employer) are making superannuation contributions.(b) The age limit was reached after extensive consultation between the Government and key Seniors' groups. At age 75 men had 10 years and women around 13 years in the scheme in which to accrue the maximum 5 year bonus.(c) Same answer as for 2(b) above.(d) The Government does not intend to amend the maximum age limit specified in the SIS Regulations as it considers an age limit to be appropriate in light of the tax concessions provided for superannuation.(3) Apart from workers' compensation arrangements for its own employees, the Commonwealth does not have responsibility for compensation schemes. This responsibility lies with State and Territory Governments. 31219(Question No. 2786)278631219Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 28 June 2001:(1) What is the Howard Governments outlay on the National Highway System, Roads of National Importance and other road funds, including untied grants to local government for roads, for each of the six years starting 1996-97.(2) What is the Howard Governments actual outlay on the rail capital works programs, and other rail outlays, including the former Australian National Railways Commission and the Australian Rail Track Corporation, for each of the six years starting 1996-97. (3) What is the Howard Governments actual outlay on urban public transport, including for the Building Better Cities program for each of the six years starting 1996-97.31220Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Outlay on the National Highway System, Roads of National Importance and other road funds, including untied grants to local government for roads.1996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-02($'000)($'000)($'000)($'000)($'000)($'000)ActualActualActualActualActualBudget1 596 7171 614 3641 688 4721 653 3201 431 910 1 806 791(2) Actual outlay on the rail capital works programs, and other rail outlays, including the former Australian National Railways Commission and the Australian Rail Track Corporation.1996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-02($'000)($'000)($'000)($'000)($'000)($'000)ActualActualActualActualActualBudget322 4223 4249 69850 64238 00214 585 (3) In 1996-97 the Commonwealth's involvement in urban public transport was funded under the Building Better Cities program. The total Commonwealth outlay for projects under the program including urban public transport was $52.3 million.31220(Question No. 2894)289431220O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 23 August 2001:(1) How many persons have been breached in the Tasmanian Northern Statistical region.(2) How many breaches were in the 7248, 7249 and 7250 postcode areas.31220Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) For the period 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2001 there were 298 persons who have had at least one breach penalty imposed in the Tasmanian Northern Statistical region. Note: The figures are slightly inflated because they attribute all customers resident in the 7215 postcode area while not all of that postcode is within the Northern Statistical Division. It was not possible to disaggregate customers in that postcode between statistical divisions.(2) Post Code724872497250Number of persons breached for period 1 January to 30 June 20015324107Number of Breaches for the period 1 January to 30 June 20015925123