2001-02-063918REPS2387502001-02-06—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Condolences238752387514:01:0023875Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That this House records its deep regret at the death on 26 December 2000 of John Elden McLeay, former federal minister and member for the division of Boothby, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement and loss.John Elden McLeay was born in Adelaide on 30 March 1922, the son of the late Sir John and Lady McLeay. After attending Scotch College, Mr McLeay enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in 1941 and served in New Guinea as a gunner with the 13 Field Regiment Royal Australian Artillery from 1942 to 1943. He joined the Liberal-Country League, later the Liberal Party, in 1940 and was elected to the Unley City Council, where he served from 1949 to 1970, including a period as mayor from 1961 to 1963. In 1966 Mr McLeay succeeded his father, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, the late Sir John McLeay, as the federal member for Boothby and he continued to represent that division in this parliament until his retirement in 1981. During his federal parliamentary career John McLeay held several portfolios, including Assistant Minister to the Minister for Civil Aviation, Minister for Construction and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. He also served as Minister for Administrative Services in the Fraser government from 1978 to 1980. As Minister for Construction, he gave great support to the preserving and restoring of some of the most significant Commonwealth owned historic properties. He devoted himself to a wide range of political issues beyond his portfolio responsibility as a minister. He was regarded as controversial by some for the views he held, particularly on foreign affairs issues, in particular his position on South Africa and the then Rhodesia, and he participated in many heated debates in the House on those matters. He resigned from parliament in 1981 and was appointed Australia's Consul General to Los Angeles from 1981 to 1983. During this time he founded the Australian-American Chamber of Commerce in Los Angeles. For this he received a special commendation from the United States Secretary of State. He also did much in this period to build the business relationship between Australia and California and the United States as a whole.John McLeay was very active in the South Australian community, where he founded the Unley Senior Citizens Club and enthusiastically supported both handicap and pensioner organisations. Aside from his political career, John McLeay was a highly successful businessman, founding the family business of McLeay and Sons Carpets in Adelaide, a firm which still operates today. He showed strong leadership qualities, demonstrating highly ethical standards in both his business and his political career. As members will know, a state memorial service, attended by a number of our colleagues, was held at Scotch College on 12 January 2001. To his wife, Clythe, their three sons, Travis, Robin and Digby, and their families, I extend, on behalf of myself, the Liberal Party of Australia, of which John McLeay was a very faithful, long serving member, and the parliament, our very deepest sympathy on his death.14:05:0023875Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I want to support those words of the Prime Minister on the death of the Hon. John Elden McLeay, a former minister of the McMahon and Fraser governments. He was born into a world of politics, both his father and uncle being federal politicians. He was first elected to parliament, as the Prime Minister said, in 1966 for Boothby, succeeding his father who had held the seat for over 16 years. For over 30 years the people of Boothby were represented by a McLeay, and that is a remarkable record. He was a controversial political figure, as the Prime Minister alluded to. That spotlighted his views on a number of matters during the course of the 1970s. Needless to say, those views did not receive wholehearted support on this side of the House. He held several portfolios during his time as a minister, being first appointed to the ministry in 1971 in the McMahon government as the Assistant Minister to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In 1975 Mr Fraser appointed him Minister for Construction and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. In 1978 he was appointed Minister for Administrative Services, as well as retaining his position as Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, and he held those portfolios until 1980, retiring in 1981. For a period of time in the late 1970s he was the only South Australian minister in the Fraser government and was identified as the South Australian spokesperson within it for that period of time. As Minister for Construction, as the Prime Minister has said, he paid particular attention to the issues of preservation and restoration of important Commonwealth historic properties. He also had responsibility for fighting for funding for new developments, including the establishment of the Australian Antarctic Division headquarters in Hobart. I would like to offer, on behalf of the opposition, our sincere condolences to his wife, Clythe, and to his family.14:07:0023876Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I wish to add my comments to this condolence motion. John McLeay was educated at Scotch College, Adelaide, in the heart of the electorate of Boothby. While at school, he captained the teams for cricket, athletics and football. As has already been mentioned, he followed his father and his uncle into federal parliament. He also followed his father as Mayor of Unley. He served as the federal member for Boothby from 1966 until 1981. In his maiden speech, he touched on issues of Australia's security and aged care and referred humorously to following his father into parliament. He did not mention his father by name but congratulated the previous Speaker for his long service and mentioned that:While he was Mayor of Unley, he put forward a similar suggestion to my federal member, but I found myself in conflict with him on this matter. In fact, I found myself in conflict with him on many occasions.John McLeay was fiercely anticommunist. He was controversial for his remarks on socialism, communism and Rhodesia and held those views with great conviction. I first met John McLeay five years ago, well after his public life had ceased. He worked actively in the family business until recently. I treasure the time I had with John McLeay, having had the opportunity every three or four months to meet with Harold Young, Jim Forbes and John McLeay at a regular lunch meeting at the Kent Town Hotel. I know that they will miss him and I will miss him as a source of advice. John McLeay had a longstanding friendship with former defence minister Jim Killen which went on long after their time in parliament. John and Clythe would often visit Jim Killen and spend some time with him in Queensland.14:09:0023876Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I would like to add a few words to this condolence motion. I did not know John McLeay very well but I did know him a little. He was a fine member of the Liberal Party in South Australia and, before that, the Liberal Country League. As the Prime Minister said, he served as the member for Boothby from 1966 until 1981. He certainly was always a man of strong principles and beliefs. He was deeply anticommunist. He was also a very strong opponent of socialism and was never afraid to speak out in support of the values he believed in. He was a supporter of Australia's participation in the Vietnam War. That was a very controversial view to hold, particularly towards the end of the 1960s and into the early 1970s, but he never wavered in his belief—whether or not people share it today is another thing—that that was a just war to stop the spread of communism through South-East Asia.When John McLeay retired in 1981 to take up the position of Consul General in Los Angeles was when I first became involved in politics, contesting the preselection for Boothby, which I did not win. However, we have a very fine member for Boothby now, as we did before in the person of Steele Hall. John McLeay's family served that part of Adelaide extraordinarily well for a very long period. John McLeay will be very much missed by many people in and around Adelaide, in the business community and in the political community. I extend my condolences to his wife and to his three sons. 14:11:0023877Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I would like to briefly add my comments to those already made. The southern end of my electorate was once in Boothby. When I first joined the Liberal Party in 1976, my branch, my home and all the connections I have with the party were in Boothby. In fact, at the time he resigned from parliament, I was a prominent member of John McLeay's federal electorate committee. I knew his wife and his sons and would like to add my own words of condolence to them. Without going over the history that has already been given, I certainly remember his retirement from this place and the current member for Mayo's involvement in the preselection when Steele Hall became the member.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.2387710000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House of the death on Sunday, 10 December 2000, of James Anthony Mulvihill, a former senator. James Mulvihill represented the state of New South Wales from 1965 to 1983. As a mark of respect to the memory of James Mulvihill, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.Miscellaneous2387723877SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House that on 5 February 2001, I received a letter from the Hon. John Colinton Moore, resigning his seat as the member for the electoral division of Ryan. Consideration is being given to possible dates for the by-election and I am consulting with party leaders on this matter. I will inform the House in due course of the dates which I have fixed for the by-election.Ministerial Arrangements2387714:14:0023877Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—On 19 December last, I announced a number of proposed ministerial changes to take effect consequent upon the resignations from the ministry of the Hon. John Moore, former member for Ryan, Senator the Hon. Jocelyn Newman and Senator the Hon. John Herron. Those changes have now taken place, with the exception that the member for Longman has as yet to be sworn in as Minister for Employment Services. He has also resigned as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. For the information of honourable members, I table an updated list of the full ministry. I also inform the House that the Minister for Finance and Administration will undergo surgery this week and will be absent from his portfolio duties in parliament for some weeks. I know that all honourable members will wish John well and a very speedy recovery to full health. He goes to surgery with the very good wishes of all of his friends and colleagues, particularly in the Liberal Party. The Assistant Treasurer, Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp, will act as Minister for Finance and Administration during the absence of the minister. The Treasurer will answer questions in the House on his behalf.Miscellaneous2387714:16:0023877Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, before resuming my seat, could I say a view brief but very sincere words about John Moore's contribution to the government, to the parliament and to the Liberal Party of Australia.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister may proceed, and I had a similar request from the Leader of the Opposition's office and I will, of course, extend similar indulgence to him. ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—John Moore served the division of Ryan and the people of that electorate in Brisbane for over 25 years. During that time, he served as a minister in the Fraser government and, subsequently, on the election of the government that I have the honour to lead, he served as a senior cabinet minister in two portfolios. In those two portfolios—namely, Industry and Defence—he made a significant policy impact. The role he played in restoring confidence to Australian industry, along with other senior ministers in the government after our election in 1996, is widely appreciated within business circles in Australia. He played a significant part in the development of the government's motor vehicle manufacturing policies in 1997 that resulted in the retention within Australia of a strong motor vehicle manufacturing industry which is of particular importance to the states of South Australia and Victoria. More recently John served as Minister for Defence. At the end of last year we unveiled the white paper, which is the most constructive blueprint this country has seen for defence policy for a quarter of a century. That white paper announced significant increases in financial support and, as a result, there is a widespread view within the service community that at long last defence is being given the money and priority it has long deserved, and John Moore can take a great deal of credit for the part that he played in putting that white paper, and the policy that underpins it, together.I also record my thanks to John for the contribution that he made to the organisational activities of the Liberal Party, particularly the Queensland division. He was president of the Queensland division on two separate occasions. He was president at the time of the Fraser government's election in 1975 and he was subsequently recalled—if I can put it like that—to the party colours in 1983 at a particularly difficult time for the Liberal Party in Queensland, after the break-up of the state coalition in the early 1980s. That of course was a period of time when there was not only the inevitable contests between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party but also considerable difficulties between the two coalition parties, particularly at a state level.John gave great service to the Liberal Party and I record my great thanks to him and to his wife, Johnnie, for the contribution they made. I wish both of them well and I am sure, in different ways, he will continue to make a very strong contribution to the Australian community.14:19:0023878Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—If I may have your indulgence, Mr Speaker, on the same matter, I suppose the resignation of John Moore as member for Ryan is well known, so the time has come when we may praise him, and we note the deep relief that was evident in his comments the other day that he no longer felt personally responsible for the Liberal Party in Queensland. Indeed, it must be a considerable burden lifted from his shoulders and, with that, we can entirely sympathise with him.He has had a long and distinguished career in this place, having been elected in 1975; so his service has been approximately three and a bit times the average service of a member of parliament in this place. He has also been very active in affairs outside the parliament. He was a stockbroker and company director before entering parliament and served as a member of the Brisbane Stock Exchange. He has been a member of the Australian National University Council, a member of the Anti-Cancer Council of Queensland, a member of the Queensland Festival of Arts Board and a former chairman of the Freedom from Hunger campaign. I guess we will never know whether he played tennis at Wimbledon. That is the one question mark over his career that remains unresolved at the conclusion of it!He was Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in the Fraser government, and Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism and then Minister for Defence in the Howard government. As somebody who has had some degree of responsibility at one point in his own life writing a defence white paper, and who has had some understanding of the Defence portfolio, I know it is indeed a difficult task and he acquitted himself well. He produced a good white paper—and I say it is a good white paper because, despite all appearances to the contrary, prior to its delivery, it has followed, essentially, the lines of the white papers produced by me and then by Senator Ray when he was Minister for Defence. And I might say that before John Moore got hold of it a very different outcome looked likely. So I express my personal gratitude to the former minister for his performance in that regard. He was, as the Prime Minister said, obviously a good party man. His self-sacrificial way of going at a time that was a high point in his political career represents that. He understood thoroughly the need to encase the embattled member for Flinders in a tank and his disappearance at this point of time has enabled that to be done. We wish him well in his retirement. We know that he will enjoy his retirement enormously. We will miss him in question time. He had a unique way of answering questions in this place: so opaque was it, suffice to say that it brought every attack to a juddering halt. There has been no-one else in our experience quite like that. We have had plenty of people fail to answer the questions asked of them but we have had very few who have not answered the question at all. That is, as I said, a unique style that will be missed. We know he will enjoy his retirement, and he goes with the good wishes of the Australian Labor Party.In conclusion, I join the Prime Minister in his remarks about the situation of the minister for finance. We wish him well in what must be an extraordinarily difficult period in his life and for his family. I am sure it has come as a total shock to all of us that he finds himself in this situation. We hope for and are confident of a very quick recovery.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I draw the attention of members of the House to a statement I presented to the House in the early hours of 8 December. As the statement concerned a number of issues that had been raised by members and focused specifically—but not exclusively—on question time, I am very anxious that it should have a wider currency than its presentation at 5.30 a.m. may necessarily have afforded it. There are copies of the statement available on the table if members have not already availed themselves of it from Hansard or any other source.Questions Without Notice238792387914:24:0023879Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, will you adopt Labor's commitment to introduce a once-a-year GST BAS reporting regime?23879Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I very warmly welcome the question. As I said this morning, one has to distinguish between payments and reporting. In relation to quarterly payments, the system of quarterly payments has to continue, obviously, otherwise you would not have money for the states. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition then went out and endorsed the system of quarterly payments. He said, `They would be paying quarterly'—and we agree with that—`they could do it on the basis of the average established in one of those payments, the final of those payments.' What he seemed to be saying is that you pay quarterly. His idea was that you would just take off last year's return. There is only one problem: there is no last year's return on GST, a point that was made to him by John Laws. John Laws said, `Is Peter Costello misleading the people by saying there are no past estimates for them to work on?' The Leader of the Opposition made this statement, basically conceding that I was again right on that point—that there are no past estimates. He said this: `The past estimates will be created by the next BAS statement. You will actually have a year's worth of BASs.' You will not have a year's worth of BASs by the next statement because the next statement is due in April but you will have it by June. So he got that wrong. He said that you will have a year's worth of BASs by the next statement, by June. Essentially, what he is saying is that it has to be done quarterly and, what is more, in the first year—the transitional year—you cannot go off a previous year's statement, so you will actually have to do at least four quarterly returns in the transitional year. That is the policy of the Leader of the Opposition. I thought that it was more revealing for this point. I want to explain, when you take a policy-lazy position, the trouble that you get yourself into. Suppose next year that you were to take your quarterly payments off this year's return; suppose next year, in the financial year 2001-02, you were to take your payments off the returns that have to be done this year. It would only work on the basis that the GST base was the same. If you had a rolled-back GST in 2001-02, how could you use the quarterly payments on 2000-01? You would be paying on the current base in respect of a whole new rolled-back GST. The one thing you cannot do in 2001-02 is use this year's return whilst rolling back your base. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order on relevance. The Treasurer is entirely relevant and has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The one thing you could not do in a subsequent year is take the returns off this year if you were using a different base because you would be collecting GST on this base which would not be the base in the year of assessment and payment. I do not think he has actually thought for a moment about his roll-back. Since 16 July, he has been promising roll-back. He has not thought about it for one moment and his statement today illustrates how lazy he has been because he is now promising to collect instalments out of an unchanged GST base.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory!IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is warned.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That is what he is promising to do. The government has made the situation entirely clear: the quarterly payments will be continuing. After the first year has been completed—after having the year of experience, which you actually agree with—we will be ensuring that in future years the system is simplified, with all of those transitional matters which are taken out of it. We have already commenced consultation in relation to that. It will be substantially simplified once we have gone through the transitional period—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Oh, yes. Transitional?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!CT4Mr COSTELLO—which you actually support and say has to be done. And, Mr Speaker, I can assure the small business community of Australia, which has performed magnificently with now over one million returns in, that where those matters can be simplified they most certainly will be simplified, consistent with a quarterly payment period which even the opposition has now brought itself out to support.2388014:31:0023880Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House of the significance of recent government initiatives to encourage innovation, research and higher education? How will the government's Backing Australia's Ability initiative ensure that Australian ideas will result in income and jobs at home for all Australians?23880Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Cook for his question. I am pleased to confirm to the House that last week I announced on behalf of the government a group of measures, worth almost $3 billion over a period of five years, which represents the largest commitment ever made by any Australian government to science and innovation. These initiatives are, of course, underpinned by a strong economy: no initiative in an area like this can hope to work effectively unless it is underpinned by a strong economy. One of the things that this government set out to do on election was to create very strong economic conditions and we have been successful in doing that over the last five years. The reforms that we have implemented have given us high growth, higher productivity and low inflation.I want to record my thanks to the members of the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, particularly the Chief Scientist, Robin Batterham, and also the many other representatives of the academic and scientific community who sit on that council. It has been the source of very regular advice to me on matters relating to science, education and innovation. The aims of our strategy are to strengthen our research base, accelerate commercial applications and develop and retain Australian skills. The measures I announced included a doubling, through the addition of $736 million to the Australian Research Grants program, $246 million to upgrade university infrastructure, $176 million to create two centres of excellence—one in information and communications technology, another in biotechnology—major changes to the R&D concessions, including the introduction of a premium rate for additional research and development of 175 per cent, and, very importantly, an increase by no less than 80 per cent in the volume of money from the federal government going to the collaborative research programs. This represents an additional $227 million. We are doubling the very successful COMET program. We are putting in another $100 million for innovation access programs and $151 million for 21,000 equivalent full-time student places with priority in ICT, maths and science. We are also introducing a loans scheme for postgraduate students which, it is calculated, over the years of the program will benefit something like 240,000 postgraduate students within Australia. That initiative in particular has been widely acclaimed, as indeed have all the other measures, by the universities of Australia and by Australia's scientific community. I am very pleased to note that, in the lead-up to the making of the statement and in the news reporting that has followed, there has been a very justified and welcome focus on the scientific achievements of Australians. It is worth recording in the wake of this statement that, of the Nobel peace prizes that have been won by Australians, only one—that was the one awarded to Patrick White—was in areas other than research particularly in relation to medical science. This country has a very proud record in generating new ideas. We have always punched above our weight in areas of medical research and medical science. I believe that the Backing Australia's Ability initiative will not only provide more resources—in some areas record levels of resources—but also send a very strong signal to the brightest and best within our community, and also to some formerly within our community now abroad, that this is a country, this is a government and this is a people that very strongly support science and innovation. 2388114:36:0023881Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Do you stand by your claim this morning that all you have to do to simplify the BAS is to get rid of three boxes on the BAS form? Why won't you do something serious for small business and get rid of three weeks of paperwork instead by backing Labor's commitment to a once-a-year BAS GST reporting regime instead of just tinkering at the edges—an approach endorsed by the National Tax and Accountants Association—or do you rule this option out?23881Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Of course, the member for Hotham completely misrepresents us, as he usually does. What the government has said today, and what I have just said previously, is that, having come through the transitional year—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Tell that to the small businesses.CT4Mr COSTELLO—You are actually in favour of quarterly reporting. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It's a disgrace.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked his question and will hear the Treasurer in silence.CT4Mr COSTELLO—You are in favour of quarterly reporting; it has been confirmed by both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. In the first year, where there are no previous payments to work off, you are in favour of quarterly reporting. They come out today: they are in favour of quarterly reporting in the first year and they are in favour of ongoing quarterly payments. That is their policy. What we have said is that after you have come through the transitional year you can simplify this very, very considerably, as I said earlier on today, with very substantial changes in relation to the form, which involves all manner of transitional issues. The government has said that it will be considerably simplifying the system once we have got through the transitional period. We have said that. The only way that you can considerably simplify is by keeping the base the same. There is no doubt that the Labor policy of roll-back would be the most exponentially increased complication of the system. Honourable members here will remember that it was 26 June, I think, when we last heard about roll-back. The Labor Party were going to roll back the GST on all manner of things; they just cannot tell you what they are. DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Hotham interjects. He said, `We just did tell you what we're going to roll the GST back on.' What, fresh lettuces, is it? Is it tampons? It was education, it was books, it was pens, it was transport. They cannot name any single item, after five years of policy-lazy opposition. They are going to roll back the GST and massively complicate the system, and the only thing they cannot do is tell you how. Simplification, as we move through the transitional period, will come from keeping the base the same, knocking out all of the transitional things that were required for the first year and the first year only. The government will be ensuring that there is very, very substantial simplification after it has fully consulted with all the interested parties.2388214:40:0023882Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer please detail to the House the system of indexation of excise? Is the Treasurer aware of any proposed alternatives to the system?23882Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Indi for his question. The indexation of excise operates automatically under legislation where excise, which is a flat dollar or cents amount, is indexed to the CPI so that it remains constant in real terms. The last indexation point took place on 1 February under legislation which was introduced in 1983 by the Australian Labor Party and under which the Australian Labor Party automatically moved the excise to the CPI on 23 occasions. The Labor Party passed excise legislation in 1983, and on 23 occasions it moved the excise to the CPI. I am asked whether I know of any proposed alternatives. The answer is that I do not know of any proposed alternatives, because the Leader of the Opposition, for all of his huffing and bluffing, did a very revealing interview on 3AW yesterday. He was asked this question:Mitchell: Is it possible you would look at taking the GST off petrol?Beazley: I don't think that we'd give that contemplation.Mitchell: But you might look at taking the excise off?Beazley: Nor the excise, for that matter.Mitchell: Will you consider taking the excise off petrol?Beazley: Well, if you took the excise off petrol, what particular schools would you start to shut?He has been out there arguing about petrol, and when it actually comes down to it he is in favour of GST and he is in favour of excise. And, what is more, he is in favour of indexation. The Leader of the Opposition says that he is against indexation if it is done now—it actually occurred on 1 February—but if he ever gets into government he will actually be in favour of it then. In other words, his proposition is this: he is against indexation when he does not have any power to do anything about it but when he has power to do something about it he is actually in favour of indexation. He is in favour of indexation if there is a Labor Party government, and he is against indexation if there is a coalition government. This is just another policy-lazy response from an opposition which will not give a straight answer to this question. If you are so against indexation which occurred on 1 February, why won't you reverse it? Why won't you reverse it if you are ever elected? The reason that the Australian Labor Party will not reverse it is that they do not want to stand up and say that $500 million—which we would have to spend in reversing the indexation—as Mr Beazley said, will be saved by closing the following schools. That is what he does not want to do. He wants to go out there and create this idea that he is somehow against indexation, but he will never reverse it. If he is against indexation, let him say that he will reverse it. Let him say which roads will not be built, which schools will be closed. Let him say that he will do something when he absolutely has the capacity or some power. But this idea where he is only in favour of doing something when he has no power to do it is a policy-lazy response. It is just a stunt. If the Labor Party were serious, they would be pledging to reverse indexation.2388314:44:0023883Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is also to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall the coalition's promise to Australian small businesses to cut their red tape by half by the year 2000? Have you kept that promise? Given the enormous paperwork burden your new tax system has imposed on small business, why won't you back Labor's policy to introduce a once a year GST BAS reporting regime instead of just tinkering at the edges?23883Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Labor's policy is to have two more quarterly reports under GST—April and June. That was the policy which they announced—two more quarterly reports, one in April and one in June. So, first of all, the shadow minister should understand the policy—that he is in favour of two more quarterly reports, one in April and one in June. He is also in favour of radically changing the GST base, which would require every business in Australia to reassess what GST was on and what it came off—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Why would it?CT4Mr COSTELLO—and to also report separately on different liabilities. The member for Melbourne says, `Why would it?' Because at the moment they are returning GST based on those things to which GST applies. When you change those things to which GST applies there will be some businesses that will not have to return any GST, one would think, because their products would become GST free.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—They've got it wrong, as usual.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition persists in defying the chair. The Treasurer has the call and is entitled to the courtesy of being heard in silence.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The reporting system which is on the BAS is not just in relation to GST; it is in relation to what used to be called group tax, PAYE, it is in relation to luxury car tax, it is in relation to wine equalisation tax, it is in relation to company tax, it is in relation to what used to be the prescribed payments system, the reportable payments system and other payments systems. Thirteen separate payment systems have now been reduced onto the one form. So, instead of doing up to 13—some of which were monthly, the wholesale sales tax; some of which were quarterly and some of which were annually—they have now been reduced onto one form. That means that people have to have their quarterly reports in line but they do not have to do 13 payment systems. That has been a great improvement. Other great improvements for small business are: reductions in company tax, the 50 per cent cut in capital gains tax, the opportunity to roll over capital gains tax if you happen to be a retiree and the opportunity to have scrip for scrip capital gains tax free swaps in relation to scrip—all of which took a coalition government to introduce and all of which have been of benefit to small business.2388314:48:0023883Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Would the minister advise the House about the positive reactions from many in the business, scientific and research communities to the government's Backing Australia's Ability initiative? 23884Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I am delighted to answer this question on behalf of the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Can I say that, whilst the innovation statement has been very well received in industry, business and the research and educational communities, it has also been very well received in the defence area, because they are very big on research and development. I have already had some brief briefings on that from them. It is an integrated package dealing with skills, commercialisation and encouraging research and development. Not surprisingly, we have seen very positive reactions right across the board to the government's proposals. Just to pick out some, though, in answer to the question, the chairman of the CRC Association, Tony Staley, said it well when he said:This has exceeded all expectations—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—No relation—and is a great vindication of the CRC program.The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies president, Sue Serjeantson, said:We have re-entered the race to be internationally competitive. This is a great start. It drives home the message that science means business.Philip Holt, on behalf of Australian Business Ltd, and obviously looking at it from a small business point of view, said:The businesses that will benefit immediately are those at the sharp end of change, especially in IT.The Australian Industry Group, which has been a very strong proponent and advocate for the business interest in research and development, said:The innovation statement comprehensively addressed the key elements needed to strengthen Australia's innovation system.And the BCA applauded it as a:... major step forward which was very closely targeted.This is a credit to the minister and to the Prime Minister's chairmanship of the scientific advisory committee. It shows you that when a professional approach is taken by a government with the right priorities you can deliver real benefits where they are needed in the Australian business community, and that has been well recognised by these statements. What a contrast it makes to the policy-lazy lot we have on the other side. They have been there for five years, and the only thing they could think of was to put a few lectures online for university students, which has been available to them for years. I pay tribute to the PM and to Nick Minchin. This is a great statement and a tremendous move forward for innovation in Australia.2388414:51:0023884Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, have you seen the results of the Victoria University study which shows that the average cost of small business GST implementation and compliance was some $12,380? Minister, do you now concede that the government's $200 GST voucher was grossly inadequate?23884Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I am pleased that the member for Hunter has asked me a question. Why would you believe a university study commissioned by the Labor Party in Victoria? Why would you believe a study commissioned by a Labor Party? It takes full benefit of every cent of GST income collected from the new tax system. The question has given me a great opportunity, though, to look through what your policies on small business might be.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—That won't take long.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—And it won't take very long at all. You have not got any except roll-back, and your leader has just said that he is not going to roll back the tax system.2388514:54:0023885Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer provide the House with an update on the lodgment of the second quarterly business activity statement and how Australian businesses have responded to the challenge of implementing A New Tax System?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have not as yet recognised the Treasurer and will very rapidly deal with those who are making it difficult for me to ensure that he is heard in silence.23885Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Forde for her question. I can inform the House that the filing of the second quarterly BAS, which if you were filing as an individual was due on the weekend, has now seen, as of yesterday, a better lodgment rate than the first quarter BAS with over 1.1 million second quarter BASs returned. No doubt it will be a disappointment to the shadow minister that 1.1 million businesses have actually lodged their forms. For those that are lodging through tax agents, there is still another two weeks from the weekend to lodge those returns. As I said, 1.1 million with two weeks to run for tax agents—the lodgment rate was better than for the first quarter BAS.Lodgment information from the Taxation Office shows that 93 per cent of returns were lodged on time, and this represents a better outcome than comparable lodgment rates under the old system, that is, compliance has been better than under the old system. Ninety per cent of businesses indicated that they are confident that their BAS has been completed correctly. Research from the taxpayers themselves shows that, in relation to the first BAS, 63 per cent reported that it took them less than two hours to actually file. Ninety-two per cent of businesses needed to fill out only five boxes in the calculation area. I again recommend to businesses the accounts derived method, which is where you take the actual amount of GST straight from your computer records. There is no requirement to fill in the calculation sheet. I know I have said this in the House before and recommended this method, but I do recommend the method because there are still some businesses that believe you have to do the calculation sheet on the second side, when that is not actually required.Notwithstanding that, there are obviously businesses that have found that it has taken more time than the majority have suggested to fill out the BAS. The government believes that it should do everything it can to simplify reporting obligations. Now that we have the experience of the two returns and are halfway through the transitional year, we have the opportunity to very substantially simplify the reporting obligations. I can assure members of the House that it is the government's intention to do that. It has commenced consultation with all business groups in relation to that and believes that, after that consultation, it can introduce in a well thought out way very substantial simplification.2388514:58:0023885Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall telling ABC radio last week that a fall of a few cents a litre in the price of milk was good because for `a lot of people who are on stretched budgets, any fall in the price of something like milk is very welcome'? Prime Minister, given that the average family spend four times as much on petrol as they do on milk, why is a cut to their weekly milk bill a good thing but a bigger cut to their weekly petrol bill not worth bothering about?23885Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In an ideal world, we would have cheaper milk, we would have cheaper petrol, we would have cheaper food, we would have cheaper rent and we would have lower housing interest rates. And we would have more schools, more hospitals, more roads and would even spend more money on research and development, even more money on defence and even more money on everything else—in an ideal world. But, as the Leader of the Opposition must surely know, we do not live in an ideal world. We looked very squarely at the possibility of cancelling or in some way reducing the excise adjustment for petrol that took place last week. We did look at that. We had a very lengthy debate about it. We made a decision that it was of better long-term benefit to the Australian people to invest $1.6 billion in additional road funding than it was to make an adjustment in relation to petrol. It is not possible in this less than perfect world in which we live to both increase road funding by the amount that we did, to defer the indexation increase— PE4Beazley, Kim, MP0000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is not possible to do both and also, in present circumstances, to maintain a responsible budget position. Those who argue that we should not only maintain the increased road funding but also defer the indexation increase should have the courage to put their commitment where their rhetoric is and promise that, if they become the government—DT4Crean, Simon, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—No, do not wave a piece of paper around in the parliament. Why don't you have the courage to stand up and say, `If I, the Leader of the Opposition, become Prime Minister, I will cancel the February indexation rise for petrol.' DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!ZD4Mr HOWARD—But you were asked 21 times on Neil Mitchell's program whether you would be willing to do that. You were asked 21 times.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The only petrol tax cut that can be believed from the Labor Party is a Labor opposition promising to do it if they win the election and then going ahead with it. Everyone knows that what the Leader of the Opposition is doing is running around the community saying, `Look, they ought to stop the February increase.' But, when somebody says to him, `If you become Prime Minister, will you cancel the February 2001 increase?' he says, `Oh no, you can't ask me to do that—don't ask me to do that.' You know what he wants: he wants to refrain from making the promise so that, if at the time of the next election he does not feel under any pressure to make the promise, he will not make it. That is exactly the thought process of the Leader of the Opposition. All of this posturing does not represent any sincerity on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.You can attack our position, but it is a transparent position. We looked at this before Christmas and we had two options: we could have either put $1.6 billion extra into road funding or deferred the February increase. We decided to put it into road funding because we thought that was a better disposition of the money. You cannot do both: you cannot responsibly put $1.6 billion into road funding and defer the increase—at the cost of $500 million annually, which adds up to about $2 billion over a four-year period—and maintain, according to the opposition, an even larger budget surplus than the government are delivering. At the end of the day, when you start running around as a political leader, you have got to produce something that adds up and makes a bit of sense. You can have your pennyworth of fun running around holding up a bit of paper, but in the end you have got to tell the Australian people what you will do if you become Prime Minister. So far you have been given 50 opportunities and you have dingoed it on every occasion.2388615:04:0023886Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—Thank you, comrades. I am pleased to be back, too.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hume will come to his question.83QMr SCHULTZ—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the government commenced the new year with a focus on roads projects for both urban and regional Australia? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative policies?23887Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, we had a very productive start to the year 2001 in terms of road funding and roads announcements. In the first week of the new year, we announced the full details of a $1.25 billion Western Sydney orbital road in Sydney—a vitally needed part of the national highway grid, which runs right around Australia. It will provide— Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—You would think they did not want it, but actually, you know, the ALP, in a policy breakthrough, said that they thought it was a good idea. The Western Sydney orbital will provide a 39-kilometre route linking the Hume Highway in the south of Sydney to the M4 motorway in the north. It will bypass up to 56 sets of lights, it will save motorists up to an hour each way in travel time and it will, of course, bring very substantial economic development and further jobs to the western areas of Sydney—again, widely welcomed by people on all sides of politics in Western Sydney, despite the noises made in certain quarters in this place. It will, in fact, be the largest single road project under construction in Australia at the time that it is being progressed. At the same time, we announced a detailed study into the northern link to look at how we are going to connect the national highway between the M2 and the F3 in northern Sydney. It will provide a true north-south bypass of Sydney and will bypass the very heavily trafficked Pennant Hills Road. Investigations into options will begin shortly. I should add that they will not reopen the sensitive so-called B2 and B3 corridors.On January 4, I announced a substantial road package for the Illawarra and South Coast region. It was also very widely welcomed. As part of this package, the New South Wales Labor government have finally recognised Main Road 92 as a road of national importance and they have agreed to match the federal government's commitment to this important link road. At the same time, we announced the $34 million contribution to the North Kiama bypass on the Princes Highway, enabling that project to be fast-tracked.In Western Australia we have recognised the importance of the Roe Highway in outer Perth. That, too, will be funded as a road of national importance: we will put $76 million towards it. Higher mass limits are finally under way—an $840 million improvement in GDP annually. Which state held it back the longest? It was New South Wales. But we have had a breakthrough at last. As announced, the federal government will upgrade and strengthen bridges on the Newell Highway as part of $125 million in improvements on that highway.Of course, there is then the Roads to Recovery Program, which was widely welcomed by local governments across Australia. We are on track to start paying cheques under the Roads to Recovery Program by the end of this month. The Prime Minister referred a moment ago to the commonsense approach of looking to the future and building this national infrastructure. The fact is that it is a responsible government that builds for tomorrow and does not tamper with the excise system. That is what we are doing.The final part of the question went to alternative policies. The only alternative we have in this area is a policy bypass—not even laziness; just a policy bypass. The only announcement we have heard is the recognition that it was good to go ahead with the WSO. Labor never had a RONI program, so there was no Main Road 92, North Kiama bypass or Roe Highway. If they had had their way, there would not be higher mass limits. The New South Wales Labor government has held out for a long time on that vital reform. That is not just policy laziness in this area but a policy bypass.2388715:08:0023887Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Minister, do you recall saying that you cannot afford to give fuel excise relief because you are spending $400 million a year on roads? Is it not true that your fuel tax windfall is much greater than that? Even the National Farmers Federation said:Claims that abolishing the February excise increase could not be afforded are misleading. They ignore the windfall gain accruing to the Government as a result of higher oil prices boosting resource rent tax revenue. Minister, why will you not do something about your broken petrol promise and do something for struggling Australian motorists?23888Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—My initial remark is that the wild talk of windfalls by those opposite simply does not stack up. That is all that needs to be said. The second point that must be made is that we are spending a great deal of extra money—as I have just outlined—on a series of very valuable road infrastructure projects across Australia. The reality is quite simple: better roads deliver all sorts of economic benefits, such as lower fuel usage and safety—which is very important in Australia today. They reduce transport costs and make it possible for people to do simple things, such as take their children to school in many remote areas. That cannot be done in many parts of this country when there is wet weather or whatever.The other point that must be made is that, when it comes to fuel excise, Labor's hypocrisy knows no bounds. You are the masters of increases in fuel excise. Under you—with your high inflation policies—fuel excise rose by 500 per cent. That is worth repeating in the lull. You loved it; you were addicted to it. You could not help yourselves: you loved the high inflation that drove it; you were on a fix. You could not break it then and, despite your cheap rhetoric, you cannot break it now.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the Deputy Prime Minister and all ministers of the obligation to address their remarks through the chair.2388815:11:0023888Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Will the minister advise the House what progress has been made in tackling unemployment in my state of Western Australia? How has this been achieved? Is the minister aware of any threats to this progress?23888Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the honourable member for Pearce for that question. I can inform her that unemployment in Western Australia peaked at 11.4 per cent in 1992 when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and the member for Fremantle was the state Premier. The good news is that, since February 1993—particularly since March 1996—Western Australia has been the gold medal economic performer amongst the Australian states. Since then, there have been 200,000 new jobs, unemployment has come down from 10 per cent to under six per cent and average weekly earnings have grown from under $600 to over $800—which is significantly above the national average. This increase is thanks, in part, to the spread of workplace agreements under federal and state legislation. Some 300,000 Western Australian workers—or nearly one-third of the work force—are on workplace agreements. I have been asked about threats to progress in employment. The Western Australian opposition has done a secret deal with the trade union movement to abolish workplace agreements. That secret deal, done by the policy-lazy Western Australian Labor Party, stipulates `the total abolition of individual agreements'. Forcing Western Australian workers back into the award system could mean a pay cut of up to 30 per cent. That means that Western Australian workers could be up to 30 per cent worse off if the Labor Party wins the coming election. The Court government has been a very good friend to the workers of Western Australia and it deserves to be re-elected on Saturday.2388815:14:0023888Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, is it correct that your decision to appoint the former pharmaceutical industry lobbyist Mr Pat Clear to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee triggered the resignation of four highly regarded previous members of the committee, including the chair, Professor Don Birkett? Why, when the Tambling review specifically said that industry representation on the committee `could result in an untenable conflict of interest', have you appointed a person whose only background is industry? Minister, will you restore the PBAC's independence and end the PBS crisis by withdrawing Mr Clear's appointment? 23889Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. She asked whether it is correct that it was my decision. No, it was cabinet's decision. Secondly, she asked whether it is correct that people have resigned. The fact is that nobody has resigned, because nobody was appointed. You cannot resign from a position that you have not been appointed to. I would have thought that would have been self-evident to anybody. Thirdly, she asked whether it is correct that the Tambling review recommended that the PBAC should not have an industry person. In fact, that was not one of the recommendations. I am told it was actually in the issues to be discussed. Finally, she asked whether it is correct that there is a crisis in the PBAC. None whatsoever. We have a better committee today than we had previously, from a more broadly representative group of people. The government has two main pharmaceutical advisory bodies, the PBAC and the PBPA. The Labor Party, when it was in government in 1988, saw nothing unusual about appointing an active person in the pharmaceutical industry to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority. For seven years in government, it was happy to have an industry person as one of five people on the body that recommends pricing. To have, out of 12 on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, one person who is no longer involved in industry, has no conflict of interest and has divested himself of all interests is a benefit to the committee, as is being put by a large number of people. It was best put by the Pharmacy Guild and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia today. In the Australian, they were reported as describing the reaction to Mr Clear's appointment as `nothing short of hysterical'. They went on to say:To suggest that the appointment of Pat Clear is somehow going to lead to a free-for-all on listing drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is an insult to Mr Clear and ... the other eleven members of the committee.The fact is that we have a better committee. It is a perfectly well-functioning committee. A few people did not get their way; they have spat the dummy and they are trying to do as much damage as possible. They are of no consequence.2388915:18:0023889Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister advise the House of any policy initiatives that the government has taken recently in health? What benefits will these initiatives bring to Australian communities, particularly in regions like Dubbo and the Parkes electorate?23889Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for Parkes for his question. I am pleased to be able to inform honourable members that this morning I went with the member for Gippsland down to Bairnsdale in the eastern part of Gippsland to announce the rural clinical schools and university departments of rural health. This is a $117 million commitment by this government to dramatically change the way medical education is delivered in Australia and which will affect it for generations to come. We have had some idea of how this is going to work through what we have already done with the university departments at Geraldton, Whyalla, Shepparton, Broken Hill, Mount Isa and Launceston, and the new clinical school at Wagga Wagga. These have been a staggering success. In Wagga Wagga alone the clinical school has attracted 12 doctors through GPs—specialists who would not be there otherwise. I visited Shepparton with the member for Murray late last year. In Broken Hill there are over 60 people employed at the university department in rural health who would not be there had we not put the initiative in place. I was able to announce today new clinical schools at Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Rockhampton, Toowoomba, Kalgoorlie, the Riverland—in your own electorate, Mr Speaker—Bairnsdale, Shepparton, Whyalla and Burnie. In addition, we have new university departments at Tamworth and Lismore. This will mean that, when these are operating in 12 months time, 25 per cent of all medical students will spend half of their clinical training in rural Australia. A kid who comes from eastern Gippsland will not have to go to the city for six or seven years to study medicine. They will be able to go to the city for three years to do their basic science training and then go back into the country. We will be putting in a substantial medical and health infrastructure. In the cities in which it is already operating, we have shown what a difference this can make. In contrast, I was asked about other policies. We have a benchmark for the Labor Party. At the ANF annual conference the member for Jagajaga outlined areas where policy development should occur. She said:I will highlight the areas where I believe we should be developing new policies: ...Develop a publicly funded coordinated care program to supplement Medicare ...Overcome the major inequities of our health care systems with programs targeted at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health ...Improving access to health in rural and remote Australia.Tackle the special needs of mental health.Focus on health promotion ...Early intervention ...Control rising costs by ensuring technology is used effectively ...Reduce the frequency of adverse events by promoting quality ...Provide greater access to information for consumers ...In the honourable member for Jagajaga's own words, these are the areas where the Labor Party was going to develop policy. The only trouble is that that was July 1999. The honourable member said that she would be developing policies over the next nine months. Ten months after these policies were due we have seen not a single thought or idea in any of these areas. We have seen nothing but laziness and carping, with negative, opportunistic interventions in health, no policy work and none of the hard intellectual work that is needed to understand health and fix the problems of health.2389015:22:0023890Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, how many nominees approached to serve on the PBAC refused to be appointed if the pharmaceutical industry lobbyist Mr Pat Clear remains on the committee? Why are you so committed to appeasing the pharmaceutical industry and continuing with Mr Clear's appointment even though it threatens the viability of Australia's subsidised medicine scheme?23890Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I cannot tell you off the top of my head how many decided not to serve—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—How many?8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—but I can tell you that 10 out of 10 who were offered a place amongst the most eminent people in Australia are actually on the committee already—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—You can't answer!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga has asked her question!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—and the fact is that you have a broader based committee than you had previously. The PBAC is under no threat whatsoever. The only threat to the PBAC was when we introduced one of the major reforms, therapeutic group premiums, that the Labor Party opportunistically decided to oppose. That was about half a billion dollars a year that is in fact being paid by the industry to keep the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in control—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—How many rejected you?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga is warned!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—and the Labor Party opportunistically opposed it. So, if anyone is kowtowing to industry, it is Labor.2389015:23:0023890Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Minister, in December last year the government released a white paper entitled Defence 2000: Our Future Defence Force. Would you inform the House of the paper's contents and the government's priorities arising from it? 23891Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I thank the honourable member for his question. As he himself has demonstrated a very strong interest in defence matters, he will know that the government's white paper has been very well received—I must say that not just in the defence community or the broader defence family but generally in the community it has been very well received. If you could apply the barbecue tester, which I suppose I did over the summer period, Australians were saying that this was something that was important and in the national interest and that it was great that the government was giving priority and putting the money behind our Defence Force to make sure that they have got the resources. I am pleased to say that, since that guidance was provided, the government has already started to act on some of the principal elements. The capability plan was of course at the core of the white paper. Before Christmas we signed up on the airborne early warning system, the AWACS, and we have also started the tender process in respect of the armed reconnaissance helicopters—both cases demonstrating that the government is on the job, proceeding with the implementation of the defence white paper.I also want to say that, whilst that is obviously a high priority, with my colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and minister assisting, we will certainly have personnel issues as a priority issue in the time ahead. It was nominated in the white paper. We are fortunate in this country: we have some of the best people in the Australian Defence Force. But we do have a challenge: we have got to keep the people that we have got and we have got to continue to attract good people. I must say I was very pleased to be able to meet some young recruits at HMAS Cerberus in my electorate, as my first official visit as the defence minister to a base. And I tell you what: it was heartening to see the quality of young people prepared to serve their country through the ADF, and I want them to know that this government is absolutely committed to this project, to the defence white paper, and I believe that will provide real opportunities in the future.I must say it brought a wry smile to my face when I read on 29 December that the Leader of the Opposition was extending to me a helping hand.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—I take it in the spirit in which it was offered. But, when I got to the last paragraph, I must say I had to sort of reappraise this, because he said then:... I suspect, as always, it will be a Labor prime minister and a Labor minister for defence who will get Australian defence back fully on track.Today is not the day, but I tell you what: I have started reading the files on submarines, and let us never hear from this man again when it comes to defence. They never did what they said they would do, and I tell you what: when you read the subs file you know they never had the capacity to do what they said they would do. Under this government, defence is in good hands, and that is good news for the country.2389115:27:0023891Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you confirm that in the government's recent innovation statement the five-year cost of the 175 per cent tax concession was estimated at $460 million and savings from changes to the treatment of plant items used for R&D were estimated at $345 million? Is it the case that, in addition, the government changed the definition of R&D to require companies to meet both innovation and high technical risk rests to qualify for R&D tax concessions, extended the application of the exclusion list to cover supporting activities and introduced a new requirement that R&D activities which receive the tax concession are to be the subject of a plan approved by a controlling entity? Prime Minister, what are the estimated savings to revenue of these changes?23892Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can confirm that the early part of the question put to me is substantially in accord with my recollection, without having the document in front of me. It is true—and the government made no attempt at all to hide this fact—that we have made changes that introduce a premium rate but at the same time result in some revenue savings, and that was made perfectly clear. As to the cost of those last items you have mentioned, I frankly do not have that with me. I will be very happy to find that out and let the honourable member know. But can I say, in relation to the R&D component of the plan, that it has been very well received by industry. It is not everything that industry wanted. Industry wanted us to go back to 150 per cent and some of them wanted a 200 per cent premium rate and of course they wanted the widest possible eligibility criteria. We all want everything in an ideal world, and we decided that a greater premium ought to be placed on putting resources into things like the CRCs. The CRCs have been successful. One of the pieces of evidence of the success of the CRCs is that they were originally leveraging about $2 for every one government dollar; it is now closer to $3 or $4. That does represent very good value for money. Overwhelmingly, the advice that we got when we were putting the group of measures together was that we should have a greater emphasis on the research side of the equation. To those ministers who accompanied me to meetings of the Prime Minister's Science Council, particularly the last meeting, when we went through very carefully the options that were open to us, it was very clear that there was unanimous support for a doubling of the Australian Research Council grants, and obviously you had to put in extra university infrastructure to make them viable. There was very strong support for putting extra resources into biotechnology and into information and communications technology—very strong support indeed. There was quite a bit of debate about the relative value of the R&D part of it. It is instructive that the tax concessions in the United States, according to my understanding, are less generous in relation to research and development than they are in Australia. Therefore I say to people who simply recite the industry mantra that all you have to do is ramp up the taxation concession to ever higher levels, that that is not necessarily the universal experience of those around the world. But I would be very happy to see if I can get the information for the honourable member, and when it is available I will give it to her.2389215:31:0023892Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House of any new initiatives that will give Australian consumers more information about the banking services they use.23892Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Wentworth for his interest in consumers, and particularly banking customers. Yesterday Westpac announced that it is going to start displaying on its automatic teller machines foreign bank fees associated with withdrawals and various other transactions at that automatic teller machine. So, if you are using a card other than a Westpac card at a Westpac automatic teller machine, they will start to tell you what fee is charged for that service. We welcome this because it puts consumers first. I am pleased to advise the House that I have been advised that today BankWest will announce that it will be following this policy with its 200 automatic teller machines. I am also pleased to advise the House that the Commonwealth Bank is going to follow and have this disclosure at its 4,000 automatic teller machines. This is a very important step forward. It is a small step but it is a very important step because it is starting to put consumers first. This government has delivered real reforms for banks. It is now time for banks to start to deliver the benefits not just to shareholders but to their customers. We are doing it through real policy initiatives. You get the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition who in November last year stood outside a Homebush branch of one of the major banks and started talking to the locals about how important it is to be tough on banks. We are currently undertaking the most significant review of consumer banking in Australia over the last few years with the Viney review of the code of practice for banking. The Leader of the Opposition is so tough on banks that when I went to see what submission the Labor Party had made to the Viney review, I saw submissions from the Australian Consumers Association, the ACCC, ASIC, the National Seniors Association, the National Farmers Federation, ANZ, Westpac, National Australia Bank—even the Victorian Minister for Consumer Affairs put in a submission— CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Who is that?DK6Mr HOCKEY—Good question: who is that? The Australian Bankers Association put in a submission, I put in a submission on behalf of the government—but where was the submission from the Labor Party? Where was the policy contribution from the Labor Party? Why would it be that the Labor Party would not even bother to put in a submission to the Viney review of banking? Could it be that the Labor Party is a great example of policy laziness? Could it be that the Labor Party really does not give a fig for the interests of consumers? Could it be that the Labor Party is all gas and no action? It is about time the Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party started to deliver real policies instead of gas.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker238932389315:35:0023893Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, would you please write to the Treasurer and the Minister for Health and Aged Care seeking answers to questions Nos 2040 and 2041, put on the Notice Paper on 10 October last year?23893SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Greenway.2389315:35:0023893Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00— Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, could I seek your assistance in getting a reply to my question No. 1890, lodged on the Notice Paper on 30 August last year, from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services?23893SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Port Adelaide, as allowed by the standing orders.2389315:36:0023893Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Speaker, on 11 October question No. 2046, addressed to the Prime Minister, appeared on the Notice Paper in my name on whether the Prime Minister thought Sydney needed a second airport. I would be grateful if you would follow that up under standing order 150. Also, on 8 November question No. 2145, addressed to the Attorney-General, appeared in my name in terms of the DPP's possession of information about the state of health of former senator Malcolm Arthur Colston.23893SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Lowe does not need to elaborate on the question, merely to identify the number. I will follow both of those questions up.2389315:36:0023893Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Mr Speaker, three times now I have asked for you to write to the Treasurer to get an answer to question No. 1290 that I put on the Notice Paper on 3 April last year. We have now kicked over into a new millennium. Could you write to him a fourth time and ask him to answer that question?23893SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Rankin may be assured that the matter will be followed up, as the standing orders provide.2389315:37:0023893Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I too, Mr Speaker, would like to make a request under standing order 150. On 10 April 2000 I directed question No. 1415 to the Prime Minister concerning his wine cellars, et cetera at Kirribilli House. As it is now nearly 12 months, and I know you have written before on my behalf, I would like to have an answer to the question from the Prime Minister and request you to take action for me.23894SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter, as the standing orders provide. Personal Explanations2389415:37:0023894Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Melbourne claim to have been misrepresented?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne may proceed.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—On 11 December, in the Financial Review, Christopher Pearson stated that I `did not support INTERFET's deployment to East Timor'. That statement is a complete lie.15:37:0023894O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Burke claim to have been misrepresented?CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke may proceed.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—During recent weeks, there has been substantial media coverage of the emerging evidence associating deep vein thrombosis with long-distance flying. Some of that coverage has included reference to me, arising from my own health incident and my proposal for the installation of walking machines on long-haul flights. A number of those reports have described me as a `DVT victim', or words to that effect. I wish to ensure that the record on this is accurate, particularly as my own experience occurred during travel on an official parliamentary delegation. The facts are that, while my symptoms turned out to be the same as those reported by people afflicted with a DVT, in my case it did not reach the clotting stage and so it is not correct to describe me as a DVT victim. To conclude, I would like to point out that in all media interviews on the topic I have gone to some lengths to point this out. I would not want members of the House to think that I had claimed otherwise.Miscellaneous2389410000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—In accordance with the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the report of the Independent Auditor, dated 22 December 2000, on a performance audit of the Australian National Audit Office's planning and resource allocation processes.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents238942389410000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit reports Nos. 22 to 27 for 2000-01. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents2389423894Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Treasury Tax Expenditures Statement 2000 - requirement of the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998. (Tabled out of session on 25 January 2001).Treasury Foreign Investment Review Board Annual Report 1999 - 2000. (Tabled out of session on 20 December 2000).Attorney-General's DepartmentCopyright Agency Limited Annual Report 1999-2000section 135ZZD of the Copyright Act 1968 (22 November 2000/24 November 2000).Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) 2000 - Replacement of Explanatory Memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance238942389410000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to freeze the February 1 fuel excise increase in order to give struggling Australian motorists relief from higher fuel prices caused by the GST—in direct breach of the government's promise. 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—15:40:0023895Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I announce today that, as soon as possible, I will be moving a private member's bill to cut petrol taxes to prove that you can roll back John Howard's goods and services tax and make the taxation system simpler and fairer. There is a very specific reason why this fuel excise increase, above all others, ought to be frozen right now and that is that most of this fuel excise increase comes from the inflationary impact of the goods and services tax. Among his solemn undertakings to the Australian electorate, the Prime Minister undertook that the GST would have no effect upon the price of petrol. If the Prime Minister has any integrity at all, he will accept that this legislation needs to be passed now by this parliament, to offer relief to Australian taxpayers. A week or two ago, the Prime Minister took pleasure in a small reduction in the price of milk, but when it comes to a greater reduction in costs to households through this change to the price of petrol, he turns away from it. In so doing, he compounds the deception of the Australian people which he engaged in when he made the undertaking on the impact of the GST on the price of petrol.Fuel prices have risen and taxation measures associated with them have been indexed over the years. In the 1980s, when the Labor Party was confronted with a substantial windfall of the dimensions in dollar terms which we now confront, we paid it back. That is what we did for the Australian people: eight times we paid it back. Along with the NFF and with the AAA, we asked this government to pay it back just once and to keep their promise. I call on all the cowardly lions, in their Liberal and National Party electorates, to support my private member's bill.Opposition members—Where are they?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—There are none of them in this House. I will call upon a number of them by name and quote what they put out to their electorates as positions that they support. Let us start with the member for Makin, Trish Draper, probably the premier in this regard. She says:I would have to say that I am disappointed that we didn't win the argument to have the excise frozen.Day after day, she has gone on radio and is in the newspapers in Adelaide demanding that the government freeze this excise increase. We will provide her with an opportunity in the House to make clear the same position as she makes in her electorate. Then we have Bob Katter, the member for Kennedy in Queensland, who has refused to commit to the government's position, saying:I just think it's appallingly unfair to people in country areas and we are not getting any offsets.Then we have Alby Schultz, the member for Hume, who backed the Labor Party's calls for the government to freeze the excise, saying:The price of fuel throughout this country and the factors that affect it is nothing short of scandalous.To Trish Draper, Bob Katter and Alby Schultz we say, come on down! Then we have Fran Bailey, the member for McEwen, who has not only vowed to see that the Prime Minister's petrol promise is kept—I cite the Diamond Valley News, 1 March 2000—but also told ABC radio last October that she expected her call for a freeze on excise to gain increasing backbench support. So Fran Bailey, come on down! And all those mythical backbenchers who are with you, come on down as well!Then we have Peter Lindsay, the member for Herbert in Queensland. He has called on the government to freeze the February excise. Well, Peter Lindsay, come on down! You will have your opportunity to freeze the February excise. We could go on through the list: Bob Charles, Kay Hull, Bruce Billson, Dr Sharman Stone. One after another they have indicated to their constituents that they would be very pleased to have the opportunity to support the idea of a petrol freeze. The point of this exercise, the reason we are arguing this, beyond simply the fact that there was a Howard government promise, is because we know right now that this is affordable. The government, who argue that they have introduced a charter of budget honesty, are notably dishonest and reluctant about revealing the size of the windfall that they have obtained from the impact of petrol price rises on their tax collections. But they know and we know that the windfall is substantial—and, more to the point, organisations such as the National Farmers Federation and AAA know that the windfall has been substantial. And we were able, in a committee that we had operating on this, to demonstrate that that was so. Mr Howard's defence in this place is that he will spend the entirety of that windfall on $1.6 billion worth of road funds over the next four years. That is $400 million a year for the next four years. This windfall started to be reaped months ago. The first spending from it starts in July—that is, there will be 10 months free of any offsets. But we also know from what we have been able to discern that that $400 million a year is a great deal less than what the government reaped from changes in the resource rental tax that they did not anticipate in the last budget; it is less than what they are reaping on this strike price that they originally contemplated for the GST, and less than what they are now reaping from a massively increased price of fuel, particularly in rural and regional Australia. The government have talked about the strike price being 90c. In fact, for every cent a litre over 74c that the price of fuel rises, the government increase their take over that which they compensated for in reductions in fuel excise, and for every cent over, probably, the mid-eighties, but certainly 90c, they reap a greater return than they anticipated in their budget. The budget contained that deception, or the consolidation of that deception, but they are doing even better than their budget allowed for.I might say that the calculation by Lauchlan McIntosh of the Australian Automobile Association is that it is $1.34 billion per annum that they are reaping in windfall—that is, $1.34 billion per annum more than they anticipated in the last budget. The Prime Minister asked me today, `What do you mean by the term “windfall”?' I presume he knew there must have been some form of windfall there, otherwise you would have had a different explanation for his $400 million. But what he has not done is challenge these figures that have been forthcoming with anything like a detailed alternative. So if you add together his $400 million and the effect of this freeze, you will see that it in fact comes to something like $900 million out of that $1.34 billion. So let it not be said that this Prime Minister could not afford it from the windfall and still do it within the constraints of fiscal responsibility.The Australian Labor Party is saying that we will move this legislation and we will put pressure, from now until the conclusion of this parliament, on those backbenchers who said that they would implement the Prime Minister's electoral promise. We will be doing that. And we will of course be taking a look at the next set of budget papers and at what the government does in fact do with this windfall before we finally make up our minds on what we intend to do about incorporating this within our roll-back of the goods and services tax. We will be doing that. But right now what we will be doing in this parliament is ensuring that this parliament has a regular opportunity to vote in favour of the Prime Minister's taxation promise at the last election. We will ensure that this parliament has a regular opportunity to uphold the Prime Minister's personal integrity as far as this matter is concerned.This government has not been shy about increases in fuel taxes. It has now presided over four increases in fuel taxation in just seven months. The first occurred on 1 July with the government's refusal to drop the fuel excise by the full extent of the GST to which I have already referred. The second increase in fuel taxation occurred on 1 August when the fuel excise was automatically adjusted for inflation during the first six months of 2000. The fuel excise adjustment at that time was 0.675c per litre, and the GST added a further 10 per cent to this increase, making it a total of 0.74c. The third increase in fuel taxation occurred as a result of the GST adding 10 per cent to increases in fuel prices caused by other factors such as the rise in world oil prices and a depreciating Australian dollar. And the fourth increase in fuel taxation occurred on 1 February 2001 as a fuel excise indexation adjustment flowed from the inflation outcome for the second six months of 2000. So we have had four increases in seven months in the price of fuel as a result of decisions taken by this government. Those four increases have assisted in producing that result of a substantial windfall to the budget. As our petrol price committee went round the country we found, from one witness after another—from owner drivers, from the taxi industry, from farmers, from the fishing industry and from the tourism industry—indications of a slowdown in their business activities which were directly related to the price of fuel. It should be noted, in the public generally and in this parliament, that, despite the optimism that has been around the Australian economy now for eight years, there is now pessimism amongst consumers and amongst businesses. That pessimism is reflected in intentions about business investment, which are lower than just about at any time in living memory. It has nothing to do with the impact of changes in the United States economy, on the Australian economy or on those of our trading partners. If the United States is experiencing a slowdown, there will be some impact of that on us later in this year or early next year. The slowdown which is occurring in this country now comes from economic management incompetence reflected in the way in which the GST has impacted on business activity—a totally home-grown proposition—which has enmeshed business people in paperwork, which has taken their attention off the main game and which is spoiling their efforts to employ Australians. It has come from the considerable impact of the increase in price of petrol on activity in a whole range of businesses where travel is involved, particularly for those who are the consumers.There was a plea from the heart of those people, who are no friends of Labor in normal circumstances, that we do something about it. There has been an even bigger plea from country Australia. Last week, I was in the Kimberleys and had an opportunity to look at some of the prices being paid by folk in the Kimberleys in the last week. The monthly high in Broome was 112c a litre. Understand this: the impact of the GST on all goods and the impact of the GST on fuel in particular is a massive additional impost on rural and regional Australia. For the first time, governments have found a way to slug the rural areas with higher levels of tax than they slug folk in the city.The consequences have been that in places like Broome it is 112c for a litre of petrol; in Bunbury, 106c; and in Carnarvon, 108c. When I was up there and suggested that the effect of this Labor Party bill would be to lower it by 1½c, I have to tell you that they did not sneer at me. They thought it was a pretty darned good idea and a pretty good start. We are going to keep faith with them, because we are going to move this bill all year. We will be able to demonstrate who are the friends and who are the enemies of ordinary Australian consumers; who keep promises and who do not. We will be demonstrating that clearly throughout the course of this year, and this is the start of the process. (Time expired)15:56:0023897Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I noted that the Leader of the Opposition just said—and he repeated it on a number of occasions—that they are going to move this bill all year. That is, unless they get into government. In that case, if they have the numbers in this House, they will not move it. It is very simple for the Leader of the Opposition to stand in this place and provide all the rhetoric he wants to keep Hansard going for 15 minutes. But he just had an opportunity to pledge to the Australian people that, should the Labor Party be elected to government, they will reverse the excise increase. What does it say about a leader of the opposition who comes in here and pledges to move, in opposition, a bill to repeal the excise increase, and who then will not give a commitment to move the same bill should he be elected into government? What does it say about a leader of the opposition who rants and raves about excise increases and who rants and raves about the GST and who then pledges to keep it? The Labor Party opposed the GST right up until one minute past midnight on 30 June last year. They opposed the GST lock, stock and barrel until it was implemented, in which case it became their policy. What does that say about the Labor Party; what does that say about the Leader of the Opposition? It says that they are hypocrites. It means hypocrisy. The Leader of the Opposition is a hypocrite—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Minister, withdraw that.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I am happy to withdraw it. The Leader of the Opposition has cast a shadow of doubt over his preparedness to be truthful to the Australian electorate. He is doing that because he is saying, `When we're in opposition we have one policy and when we're in government we're going to have another.'When it comes to excise let us have a look at the Labor Party's record. The Labor Party has a good history on excise because the excise increase, even in allowing for the impact of the GST, was less than 2c in February this year. In 1986 the Labor Party increased excise by 5.3c a litre, nearly three times the increase of February this year, and only a few months later the Labor Party increased it again by 2.622c a litre. That was in 1986—it was Labor Party policy—and they did it again as a special budget initiative in 1994. They increased it by 3c a litre. But we have crocodile tears from the Labor Party now. Then only a few months later it went up 1.1c a litre and then again by 1.3c a litre. It is one thing in opposition; another thing in government! The best way to explain it comes from the shadow finance minister. I could not have said it better than the shadow finance minister. In this place, in 1994, the shadow finance minister, the member for Melbourne, said:Where do honourable members opposite think the money for the public health system comes from?... ... ...Stop all this nonsense and bleeding heart rhetoric that it is terrible for some people to pay a few dollars more per week in petrol.That was the Labor Party in government. We heard from them today—the Labor Party in opposition, the Labor Party opposed to the excise increase but not so opposed to it that, should they be elected into government, they are going to reverse it.0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs Draper—They can't make up their minds.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It is interesting policy, isn't it—if you could call it policy when the Labor Party says one thing in opposition and another thing in government? We had the Leader of the Opposition thumping the table about the people in Broome, protesting how the people in Broome were ropeable about petrol prices. Under the new tax system, people in Broome get a 1c and 2c subsidy per litre from this government. In fact, people right around Australia, in rural and regional Australia, are getting a 1c and 2c subsidy from the government, which was never provided by the Labor Party. In fact, we found last year the member for Hunter expressly saying that the Labor Party were going to remove it.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson—That is quite right: they never liked it.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—He said it in this place during an MPI. He said it was not such good policy. I have not got the exact quote—I am happy to track it down if you want it—but the member for Hunter said the Labor Party are going to remove the subsidy for regional Australia of 1c and 2c a litre. It is just that one and one is not equalling two here. The Leader of the Opposition came in here and said, `Mr Speaker, we are going to fight for the people in Broome. They are worried about every cent of petrol. They are worried about every cent and the impact of this.' Damn right they are worried about every cent! We know that. That is why we gave them a 1c and 2c subsidy on their petrol. That is why we did it—nearly $400 million a year, a subsidy to people in rural and regional Australia as part of the introduction of A New Tax System. I am not going to let the Deputy Leader of the Opposition off the hook here. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is a feisty character when it comes to these issues, has so far been mute during this debate, but I am sure he has something to say. One of my colleagues drew my attention to some words from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition last year in an ABC radio interview in Queensland. I quote:We were not proposing to make any changes to the fuel excise regime.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Would you say that again?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—These are the words from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: We were not proposing to make any changes to the fuel excise regime.I will go back to the beginning of the quote. The question is:What about fuel excise, Mr Crean? That causes a lot of problems too. What—what sort of commitment can Labor make regarding fuel excise?SIMON CREAN: Well, what we've—basically our position has been that there needs to be this mix between indirect taxes and direct taxes. We always had fuel excise in that mix. We were not proposing to make any changes to the fuel excise regime.I commend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because he is consistent. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said last year is absolutely right. The Labor Party, if they are elected, will do absolutely nothing to change excise on fuel. So how can they come into this place, pretend to move a bill to repeal the introduction of the excise— nearly 2c a litre in the beginning of February—and say in this place that they are going to push in opposition all year to repeal that excise increase when, if they get into government, it will be: `Oh, no, we're not going to do it'? It is a policy vacuum. The only words that can express it appropriately are `policy lazy'. The Labor Party have not done their homework. Even in this place today during question time with the little stunt on the annual returns for BAS, they were caught out. Why were they caught out? Because they cannot deliver on their stunt on annual returns for BAS. Why can't they deliver? Because they have not done the policy hard work that would explain to the small businesses of Australia that you cannot change the tax base and expect to have comparable quarterly figures. You cannot have roll-back and deliver an annual return. You cannot do it, and they have been caught out. They have not been out to lunch; they have just been out over the last five years. The Labor Party have not done their homework.If this is just a small taste of the Labor Party's attitude towards policy development, we are going to get a fantastic opportunity over the next few months to point out the stark differences between a policy-lazy opposition and a government, a coalition, that is doing the hard yards. When it comes to petrol prices, we know that people have been hurting. We know that there is great volatility in petrol prices around Australia. Volatility comes about for a number of reasons. No. 1 is competition in the delivery of petrol to consumers; and No. 2, and the most significant reason for that price volatility, is the volatility in the price of oil. Australia imports around 65 per cent of its petrol. The price differential between the Singapore mogas level one day and the Singapore mogas level the next day is reflected at the pump, and every government in the world is facing the same problem. There is consumer concern. We understand that, but we are fair dinkum with the Australian electorate. We say we are not going to pull on a stunt that is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year. We are not going to do it because we want to be fair dinkum with the Australian electorate about the fact that we want to spend some money on roads.A one-off stunt such as dropping the excise on fuel in February has a cost, and it will cost roads. It will cost roads on the Mornington Peninsula. It will cost roads in Geelong. It will cost roads in the electorate of Indi. It will cost roads in Ipswich. It will cost roads in Ballarat. It will cost roads in various electorates right around the country, including the Labor electorates. That is what it will cost. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that it is going to make a huge difference to the price of petrol over a year to have a single change such as the excise change that he is proposing, he is sadly wrong, because that volatility will remain whilst the world oil price is the single most significant factor in considering the price of petrol at the pump. We are coming into a very challenging year, an interesting political year. In an interesting political year, certain events are obviously going to unfold which start to reveal the true character of the key players. This is the first event. The first event occurred today, when the Leader of the Opposition put forward two proposals which are not credible. Proposal 1, which we talked about, involves the annual BAS statement, which he cannot deliver straightaway if he is going to have roll-back at the same time. The second proposal is that they are going to stop the excise increase on petrol. You have to have integrity to be believed by the electorate. They have to be able to say, `Yes, I believe what that person is saying and I'm going to support them.' The problem for the Leader of the Opposition is this: when it comes to policy there is no integrity because there is no consistency, and Australians can see right through that. They can see that the Leader of the Opposition is talking the talk in opposition but that he will not walk the walk in government.The Leader of the Opposition is facing a more significant problem when it comes to policy. The Leader of the Opposition has to think about what the real impacts are of these fly-by-night initiatives that are being thought up the morning before in his office. He has to think about what the cost is of his promises at election time. He has to think about how he is going to deliver the larger surpluses of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition while, at the same time, spending more money on health and education. He has to think about how he is going to be able to spend more money on innovation and how he is going to spend more money on roll-back and, at the same time, to deliver for the Australian people. This is the first MPI debate of what is going to be a long year of policy debate. The fundamental problem the Labor Party has is that it lacks policy integrity, and that has come about because the Labor Party is policy lazy.16:10:0023900Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who has just spoken, talked about being fair dinkum, he talked about integrity and he talked about the money they have spent on roads. Let me say this about integrity: what more does it take than for a Prime Minister during the election campaign to promise the world that the price of petrol would not go up as a result of the GST but, when he introduced the GST, the price of petrol did go up as a result? Talk about being fair dinkum! Talk about honouring your promise! That is what this debate is about. This was a promise of the Prime Minister's—no ifs, no buts. It was an absolute, ironclad guarantee that the price of petrol would not go up as a result of the GST, but it has.Today we announced a private member's bill, the petrol tax cut bill, which seeks to get this government to honour that promise. We know it will not honour it because we have been calling for it to do so for some months now, ever since it announced the cut in the excise, so what we are proposing is a bill that does no more and no less than deliver its integrity and deliver on its promise to the Australian electorate. The Australian punters will not forgive a government that says one thing during the election campaign and then ditches it as soon as it gets into office, and that is what you have done in relation to the GST and petrol. But this is also a bill that tests the mettle of local coalition MPs who say one thing at home and another in Canberra—the `heroes at home but cowards in Canberra' brigade. There is a nice little list of them: the member for Makin, the member for Kennedy, the member for Hume, the member for Murray and the member for McEwen, who is not here today although I noticed that she was up in the plane with us on Sunday night. Conveniently, she is not here today for this debate. She has been one of the most vocal in calling for the petrol tax excise to be frozen for the February adjustment. There is also the member for Herbert, the member for Dunkley and the member for Riverina. All of those coalition members of parliament have, at one stage or another, called for cuts to petrol prices or for a freeze in the indexation of petrol. They have called for it in their electorates. They have gone out and got the local newspapers and the local radio stations together and said, `I'm representing my constituents. I'm going to go down to Canberra, and I'm going to make merry hell with John Howard and Peter Costello. I'm going to tell them to deliver the promise that we campaigned on.' But get them back into this parliament and they cringe like cowards. These people do not deserve respect. They cannot have it both ways: they cannot promise to do something in their electorate and then rat on it when they get up here in the parliament. The purpose of this bill is to test their mettle, to give them an opportunity to speak here, to act here and to vote here in a way which reflects what they have been telling their constituents back home. Let us just go to what caused this problem in the price of petrol. John Howard promised during the election campaign:... the price of petrol will not rise as a result of the GST.That was his commitment to the Australian public. But it was made by not only John Howard but also Peter Costello, who said in the parliament on 25 November:In fact, when you equalise out the tax arrangements, you get the same amount of revenue anyway. The excise comes down and the 10 per cent—that is, the GST—goes back up. It is the same amount of tax.This is the Treasurer of the nation telling this parliament that the government was going to reduce the excise by the amount the GST went up. The trouble is that it reduced the excise by 6.7c a litre and the GST put it up 8.2c a litre—a 1½c a litre difference. That is the first windfall to this government, because that could not have been factored into the budget. Why couldn't it have been factored in? Because this government was going around the country promising it would drop the excise by the same amount the GST went up. That is the first windfall. But it is a problem that is compounded by the GST and indexation, because it is a tax on a tax. Every time the GST goes up the indexation applies to that increased amount. That is the second windfall which we are trying to get the detail of and which the government is not forthcoming on.There is another windfall, and that is the widening gap between the tax paid by the city and country, because for the first time in this country regional motorists, rural motorists, outback motorists are paying more tax on their petrol than those in the city. Under Labor's proposal we had a flat excise. It applied the same wherever you lived. But now, because the GST applies to the retail price, it widens when the gap widens. That is another windfall, at the cost of regional Australia. What of the Prime Minister's commitment in terms of the Nyngan declaration that we are not going to widen the city-country divide? There is also the OPEC windfall, whereby every time the petrol rises a cent the government gets another one-eleventh of it. That is not to mention the further windfall, which is the petroleum resource rent tax windfall.Labor have put 36 questions on notice to this government trying to identify the extent of the windfall from all of those different interacting parts. No answer yet from the government. That is why we are keeping going the petrol inquiry that the Leader of the Opposition referred to. But the most disgraceful performance today was from the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that those figures on windfall do not stack up; that is all you need to know. What contempt is this—for the government to not only break a promise but then withhold the information by which we can ascertain the extent of windfall and actually pin down the detail of what we could do by way of returning that windfall to Australian motorists? I will give this government a challenge: tell us the extent of the windfall, and we will start identifying what we do with it. But until such time as you tell us that information you are contemptible in suggesting that we have got to nominate what we do. Forget about what happens when we become a government 10 months down the track; what people want to know is what is going to happen now. They want petrol tax relief immediately, and that is what this bill that we are proposing does. It argues that we should reverse the decision already taken which imposes the 1 February indexation adjustment. We should reverse that decision because that is the same as washing the GST impact out of the petrol price adjustments. What would be the end impact of that? It would result in motorists getting around 2c a litre off their petrol. That is us delivering the government's hand on heart pledge, the pledge that said the price of petrol would not go up as a result of the GST and the promise that they would reduce the excise by the amount that the GST took it up.When it suits him the Prime Minister talks about the Australian motorists not really caring about 2c a litre. Go and tell that to the Australian motorists. It may not matter to you, Prime Minister, who would not have had to have paid for a litre of petrol in decades, but the Australian motorist, who has to pay this day in and day out to get to work, to take the kids to sporting events, et cetera, is the one that needs it. Labor want to test this bill in this House, and for that reason I move:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from introducing forthwith a bill to reverse the 1 February excise rate increase for petroleum and a bill to reverse the related customs rate increase and the bills being passed through all stages without delay.I move that and say that the House should debate this immediately and get those cowards to come down here and be counted. We are saying that this is a mob out of control. This is a mob that has not got a policy, and they want to criticise us. This is a government that made a promise and has broken it. We want the suspension of standing and sessional orders. The government do not know what they are doing. Where is Peter Reith? Bring them in. But most of all we want the member for Makin, the member for McEwen and the member for Herbert. Come on down!Motion (by Mr Williams) put:That the member be not further heard.16:25:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) 71Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Baird, B.G.Barrisi, P.A.Bartlett K.J.Billson. B.F.Bishop. B.KBishop, J.I.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.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A.*Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F..Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.63Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Fahey, J.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?16:30:0023903Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—I second the motion. Trish Draper, come on down! Fran Bailey, come on down!Motion (by Mr Williams) put:That the member be not further heard.16:32:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) 71Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Baird, B.G.Barrisi, P.A.Bartlett K.J..Billson. B.F..Bishop. B.K..Bishop, J.I.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.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A.*Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F..Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.63Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Fahey, J.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Williams) agreed to:That the question be now put.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Crean's) be agreed to.16:35:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) 63Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.71Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Baird, B.G.Barrisi, P.A.Bartlett K.J..Billson. B.F..Bishop. B.K..Bishop, J.I.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.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A.*Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F..Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.O'Byrne, M.A.Fahey, J.J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.16:48:0023904Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—It has been a rather interesting MPI, and one that has fallen flat because it is a stunt. It is quite interesting to see that the opposition wanted to interrupt its own case in the MPI by pulling two further stunts—that is, moving a motion for the suspension of standing orders and then the consequential division. There was not much logic in trying to galvanise the Australian community to support the Labor Party's policy. The most important thing that has come out of today is the confirmation that the Labor Party does not actually have a policy on this. It has a policy to have many stunts to try to create fear and uncertainty, and also to attract attention, but in doing so it highlights the fact that its strategy in this regard is causing confusion. It is not really getting brownie points as it thinks it is. People should look at today's Adelaide Advertiser, under the heading `ALP's mixed message on fuel pricing'. The article said: A Labor government would not remove the GST from petrol, nor would it cut fuel excise, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said yesterday. During the MPI today, the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the legislation that we have just had the stunt on, about the fuel excise. He said, `We will look at the budget papers before we finally make up our mind,' referring to the policy regarding excise and indexation. Then we heard the shadow Treasurer as the second speaker in the MPI, before those opposite pulled a stunt and arranged that his speech did not go on. You can understand a shadow Treasurer not wanting to get too far into the question of whether a Labor government with him as Treasurer would in fact want to vary the excise revenue stream that they so rely on, and I will talk about that in a minute. We heard the shadow Treasurer say, `Forget what's going to happen if Labor gets into government in 10 months time,' or words to that effect. I took notes as the shadow Treasurer spoke, and they may not be the exact words but that is the meaning of what he said. Again, that was confirming that today's MPI is a stunt. ALP shadow ministers and backbenchers have been parading around over the question of the fuel excise and indexation, trying to convince the Australian community that they are going to do something substantial and effective about the excise and indexation. In fact, today we have had confirmation on the record in the MPI that all they can do is pull a stunt, that they have not finally made up their mind, as the Leader of the Opposition said today. The shadow Treasurer says, `Forget about what is going to happen in government.' In other words, he says, `Don't ask us about that; it doesn't matter what we are going to do in government.' We know, of course, that the Leader of the Opposition has said, `We haven't made up our mind anyway.'That is quite an interesting situation for Labor to have put itself in. If it wants to win the hearts and minds of Australians, it surely cannot do that. If it does do that, it does not deserve to win. That is particularly so because Labor's record on fuel and excise for 13 years in government is very well recorded and very well understood by the Australian community. I have been pleasantly surprised in talking with ordinary people about their understanding of Labor's dismal performance in relation to fuel excise and indexation. It is now very well known and understood by Australians that Labor governments started off their term of office in 1983, with Mr Hawke as Prime Minister, when excise was 6.1c per litre. By the time they left office 13 years later—sadly, because Australia still bears some of the scars of their 13 years of incompetence—they had increased the petrol excise deliberately as a budget exercise and taken it to 34.2c a litre. I have laid out the summary of the historical context of Labor governments for 13 years to try and show that what we have seen today in the MPI and what we see unfolding in Labor's campaign around Australia on fuel excise and indexation is inconsistent with their own performance in government. Today we have had Mr Beazley and Mr Crean actually confirm that in government they will do quite different things from what they are now trying to con the Australian community into thinking they want to achieve. We have corroboration that they will in fact do what? Let me say what they will do. They will go back to the days when they were in government, when they took petrol excise from 6.1c to 34.1c over their 13 years in government, increased taxes in other areas quite substantially and overspent and charged the government's current expenditure to the credit cards and put us into a $10-billion-plus deficit. That is what will unfold. It is quite clear. The reason they cannot come clean on this is that they already have a stack of promises and pledges and pay-offs and debts that they have to pay, as we see unfolding with the Victorian Bracks government, a similar example. In my electorate, at Wangaratta today the price of unleaded fuel is, as far as I have been able to ascertain from inquiries I have made, actually less than the price of fuel on 31 January this year prior to the indexation coming in. At 12.30 today the Apco service station, the independent service station in Wangaratta, was charging 88.5c per litre for fuel. My experience is that, if they are doing that, all the other service stations in Wangaratta are doing the same. Can I just mention that the Apco service system is a refreshing new system of retailing fuel in regional Australia, and I commend them for their efforts. Since they opened in Wangaratta, they have consistently brought the gap between city and country prices down, by about eight or nine cents on average. That is my observation. They are consistently marketing fuel in the Wangaratta region, for the first time for decades, at a price which is approximately the highest price you would find in a Melbourne metropolitan situation. So we now have real competition.The reason for that, apart from Apco's initiatives and investments and their courage to get into innovative marketing in fuel and to provide an efficient system of fuel distribution—and by the way they are apparently very profitable, too, so they are doing it very well—is that the Howard government when it was elected in 1996 said, `We are going to increase competition in fuel in regional Australia in order that country people can see the gap between city and country prices narrow.' It is very frustrating. It takes a long time to get this competition in; we all know that, but Wangaratta is an example of the Howard government's success in that regard. How can it come about? Apco have their own B-double tanker and driver, and they go and collect the fuel from Shell and Mobil refineries. And that is because the Howard government on election set to to reform industrial relations and to get rid of the sweetheart lock-out deal of the Laidley agreement which prevented people having access. We fought, and we had to fight the Labor opposition then. We had to get through the Senate. It took a long time. We fought to get industrial laws changed so that no longer could people lock out people who were there with their money, with a driver who was trained and a proper fuel tanker that was safe, to embark on commerce in Australia in the way it ought to be—a fair go for everybody. Now we see emerging incidences like Apco, due to the Howard government's reform policies. Might I add that every one of those reforms was opposed by the Labor opposition—every one of them. If we had not been able to get our legislation through, after a lot of delays, today the people in Wangaratta, a city I represent, would not be enjoying 88.5c a litre for unleaded, despite the indexation that occurred on 1 February. That is a significant development. In other cities and towns that I represent we are working hard to try to get new competition in. I know my colleagues in the government are also working in regional Australia to do the same. We call on local governments to help us and some of them are. Some of them are slow. Pull your socks up, local government! Let us get these independents in. Let us get real competition in and we will narrow the gap. The Howard government's policy is that that is what should happen. Let me also mention that the Bracks Labor government used to be— (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Leave of Absence23906Motion (by Mr Leo McLeay) agreed to:That leave of absence up to and including 8 March 2001 be given to the member for Bass for maternity purposes, and leave of absence for the autumn period of sittings be given to the member for Sydney for maternity purposes.Committees239062390616:59:0023906Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg your indulgence to make a short statement to the House.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Indulgence is granted.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—As the House is aware, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is undertaking an inquiry into the integrity of the electoral roll. As part of that inquiry, Mr Lee Bermingham was invited and agreed to appear before the committee at a public hearing held in Brisbane on Thursday, 14 December 2000. Unfortunately, Mr Bermingham failed to appear at the public hearing at the specified time, so a summons was served on Mr Bermingham to appear at the hearing that day. Mr Bermingham failed to appear before the committee on 14 December 2000 in response to the summons. As this is a serious issue, under House standing order 362(b), the committee is acquainting the House with this matter. Under Senate standing order 176(2), one of the senators on the committee will similarly report to the Senate. Following the completion of the hearing on 14 December 2000, Mr Bermingham contacted the committee secretariat to explain his reasons for not attending. He subsequently appeared before the committee at a public hearing held on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 in Sydney. Accordingly, the committee does not wish to take this matter any further.239072390710000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr McMullan to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund in place of Mr Melham.Motion (by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop)—by leave—agreed to:That Mr Melham be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund and that, in his place, Mr McMullan be appointed a member of the committee.239072390717:01:0023907Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 26 February 2001.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members business on Monday, 26 February 2001Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members business on Monday, 26 February 2001. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE—STANDING COMMITTEE:Coordinating catchment management.The Committee determined that statements on the report be made—all statements to conclude by 12.45 p.m.Speech time limits —Each Member—5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Mr Bevis: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Corporations Law, in order to assist workers to recover employee entitlements lost in cases of artificial corporate re-structuring. (Employment Security Bill 2001—Notice given 29 November 2000.)Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 15 minutes—pursuant to sessional order 104A.2 Mr Beazley: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to school funding. (School Funding Amendment Bill 2001—Notice given 6 December 2000.)Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 15 minutes—pursuant to sessional order 104A.3 MR K. J. Andrews: To move—That this House: (1) notes that stroke is the second highest cause of death in Australia; (2) notes that there has been a slowing down of the decline in stroke death rates in recent years; (3) notes that the number of people dying from stroke and those surviving with a permanent disability is likely to increase in the future; (4) notes that the risk factors for stroke include high blood pressure, tobacco smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, high blood cholesterol, being overweight, and insufficient physical activity; (5) notes that the length of stay in hospital for stroke is twice as long as that for other cardiovascular conditions; (6) notes that while more women are affected by stroke, the proportion of men who suffer a stroke is 30 per cent higher than for women, and that for people aged 25-64, those from the lowest socio-economic group are twice as likely to die from stroke as those in the highest socioeconomic group with indigenous death rates from stroke in the same age group being eight times the rate in the rest of the population; and (7) urges the Government to continue to support public awareness about the high risk factors associated with stroke. (Notice given 6 November 2000.)Time allotted—private Members business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits —Mover of motion —10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4 Mr emerson: To move—That this House: (1) expresses its alarm at large-scale tax avoidance by unscrupulous company executives; (2) expresses its disappointment that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has issued a series of favourable private binding rulings in support of schemes that the ATO itself has likened to the infamous bottom of the harbour schemes; (3) condemns the Treasurer for refusing to legislate against the abuse of executive share schemes and for obfuscating on promised legislation to crack down on tax avoidance through the use of family trusts; and (4) calls on the Government to act against tax avoidance schemes wherever they emerge, using both legislative and judicial means. (Notice given 6 December 2000.)Time allotted—30 minutesSpeech time limits —Mover of motion —10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.5 MR Hawker: To move—That this House: (1) recognising the increasing demands being placed upon Australia's armed forces; (2) welcoming the widespread community support for our armed forces; (3) accepting the need for the Parliament to be as well informed as possible on all aspects of the operation of the forces but recognising that fewer Members and Senators now have direct experience of service in the forces; agrees that a Parliamentary Armed Forces Scheme be introduced to enable Members and Senators to gain first hand knowledge of service life and to enable service personnel to gain an insight into political life.(Notice given 29 November 2000.)Time allotted—remaining private Members business time.Speech time limits —Mover of Motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutesOther Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Miscellaneous2390910000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 7 February 2001, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous23909Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That:(1) the Communications and the Arts Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2000 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration, and(2) the following order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate:(3) Defence 2000—Paper and ministerial statement—Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate.Bills23909R116823909Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendment No. 1 disagreed to by the House and has agreed to the amendment made by the House in place thereof.Bills23909Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000Wool Services Privatisation Bill 2000National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Bill 2000States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000ACIS Administration Amendment Bill 2000Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2000Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000Fuel Quality Standards Bill 2000Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Bill 2000Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2000Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2000Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services (Repeals and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2000Education Services for Overseas Students Bill 2000Education Services for Overseas Students (Assurance Fund Contributions) Bill 2000Education Services for Overseas Students (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2000Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2000Migration Legislation Amendment (Overseas Students) Bill 2000Gene Technology Bill 2000Gene Technology (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000Gene Technology (Licence Charges) Bill 2000Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill 2000Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 2000Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000Roads to Recovery Bill 2000Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2000Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000Bills23910R102623910Debate resumed from 14 March 2000, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.17:03:0023910Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—Over the past couple of years the opposition has shown a great deal of bipartisanship in the management of immigration issues. In particular, the opposition has assisted the government's attempts to stem the rise of people smuggling as a global enterprise and to reduce Australia's attractiveness as a destination for illegal immigrants, especially those without valid claims to refugee status. However, there remain some areas in which the government and Labor cannot agree, where the fundamental differences between our two parties remain. Labor believes that compassion, fairness, flexibility and principles of natural justice should override administrative efficiencies. One such area is the restriction of legal avenues for migration appeals. There are two bills currently in the pipeline that seek to deny the right of review to visa applicants: the judicial review bill, which the minister for immigration has delayed in introducing into the House, and the bill being debated here today, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. This so-called class action bill is, the opposition believes, based on a flawed rationale and is intended to restrict judicial review by preventing class actions in migration matters before the Federal Court and the High Court. If passed by parliament, this bill would introduce absolute time limits for applications to the High Court in migration matters—an action which in itself may be construed as an attempt to impede the High Court's constitutional rights. In the opposition's opinion, the minister is either misinformed or misguided in his belief that the introduction of legislation such as this bill will lower the costs of litigation in migration matters or shorten delays in appeals of decisions. On the contrary, the minister's crusade to eventually completely restrict the right to seek judicial review in all migration matters with bills such as this one and the judicial review bill, which is on even more tenuous constitutional ground, is likely to result in infinitely higher legal costs, both for the immigration department and their clients, and infinitely longer delays, which in some cases I understand may run into years. Class actions are an important instrument by which migration decisions can be challenged, as they offer equity and efficiency. Class actions provide a streamlined process for what could otherwise become a quagmire of individual decisions based on test cases, individual actions by a myriad of appellants or huge numbers of appeals lodged directly in Australia's highest court, the High Court. I am not for one moment, and neither is the opposition, condoning the practices of some migration lawyers who seek to recruit class action applicants by means that are less than ethical or are even misleading. However, we must not fall into the trap where we use the parliament and legislation to micromanage issues such as advertising by migration lawyers in local newspapers. Our goal should be the provision of a low-cost, efficient and equitable avenue for people to exercise their rights to a court hearing. In this respect class actions offer equity and efficiency. Equity comes from low cost to individuals, enabling them access to the courts—access that would otherwise be prohibitive. The courts can operate efficiently when considering class actions and they are able to resolve multiple identical claims in one hearing rather than being required to rule on often thousands of individual judgments.If the government's concerns are costs and delays, then retaining rather than removing class actions remains a compelling argument. The removal of class actions as a means of stemming rising legal costs and the incidence of litigation does not stand up under any measure of argument. The minister attempts to justify his decision to restrict class actions, group actions and representative proceedings by stating that, of the 14 actions commenced since 1997, none succeeded. In fact, I am sure that by now the minister is aware that in at least one instance a class action has been upheld in the Federal Court. I am referring to the 1998 decision of the Federal Court in Fazal Din versus the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. A number of other serious concerns were raised by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and supported by numerous reports submitted by community and welfare organisations. I will refer later to the dissenting report. I thank the members of that committee who dissented for the excellent job they did. One of the most controversial parts of this bill and one which arguably challenges the very nature of the role of the High Court is the imposition of an absolute time limit for lodgment of applications to the High Court. While the minister has tabled amendments extending the time limit from 28 to 35 days—if he has not yet tabled them, I understand he intends to—the principle remains and, being an absolute time limit, the High Court would be unable to amend it. Because the right to apply for review of administrative decisions is conferred on the High Court by the Constitution, it cannot be removed by legislation. Accordingly the government's move to impose a time limit goes beyond being merely a procedural limitation to achieve a policy outcome. Indeed, the imposition of this provision may be considered interference to the judicial process. Section 75 (v) of the Constitution states:In all matters—...(v.) In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth:the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.Categorically then, migration decisions come within the original jurisdiction of the High Court. While the government may not think that the imposition of time limits interferes with the judicial power of the Commonwealth, I can assure you that many constitutional lawyers would have a field day at the first opportunity of challenging this in court. Based on longstanding legal precedents, such as Lyinage versus R (1967), there is a view indicating that this bill's failure to provide the High Court with a discretion to extend the time limits in appropriate circumstances may constitute an attempt to control the High Court, thus interfering with the judicial process itself. The Howard government and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs are entering very dangerous, uncharted waters with such provisions. In a way, the minister should be thanking the Labor Party and the Democrats—who I understand will oppose this bill—for opposing this bill, thus saving him the embarrassment of successful constitutional challenges. Of course, I do not expect any thanks to be forthcoming.On the basis of policy rather than legal arguments, the introduction of a time limit will almost certainly impose unfair disadvantages on many legitimate applicants for judicial review of migration decisions in a bid to capture those who are said to be intent on abusing the review system. A limit of 28 days or even 35 days is hardly sufficient to allow an individual to learn of an adverse decision, realise their options, find and consult a lawyer and then file in the High Court. In their submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, the National Council of Churches stated:Asylum seekers should be reasonably expected to have more problems than other administrative law claimants do in meeting strict deadlines. They may need to have the written notification of the decision in their case and their right to review translated and explained. They are often in detention where their freedom of movement, access to communication and legal advice is severely curtailed. If they are in detention—and different issues face people in detention—they have to first realise that they do not have to go to the Federal Court or wait for the minister to turn them down before they can go to the High Court.Basically if they are in detention they have to try to access a lawyer and there are a lot of problems with external access for people in detention—phones etc. They have to find a migration agent or a lawyer. It cannot be any lawyer, it has to be a lawyer who is registered as a migration agent ... that again cuts down on the amount of pro bono access you can get. Understanding what the court will be able to do for them once they get there is a big problem.They have to have translators, they have to make sure they have understood the actual reason they were turned down in the first place and they have to explain that to their lawyers. They have to be able to get the notice of the decision or they might have to lodge FOI claims if they need to get specific security information that is related to their case— and on and on. They have to do all of this and more in 28 or perhaps 35 days. That is hardly possible and certainly, by no stretch of the imagination, fair. The High Court's proper role is as Australia's final appellate court and arbiter of the Constitution. Yet due to changes such as those contained in this bill, increasingly it is being asked to perform the role of lower courts. Justices of the High Court have expressed their objections on many occasions to performing trial work that should be confined to the lower courts. The changes proposed in this are likely to lead to many cases that could be heard by tribunals going to the High Court in the first instance. With insufficient time to make an informed decision or in some circumstances to gain access to information that is usually released only under freedom of information, lawyers will want to avoid risking actions against them for negligence. I talk about this from some experience, not in migration matters, but negligence on the part of lawyers and the medical profession has become more in vogue in recent years. Obviously, this has not been factored in. Any lawyer who is worried about the possibility of being sued for negligence, given the strict time limit available in which to go to the High Court, would, there is no doubt in my mind, file in the High Court, although probably not being properly prepared. Starting in the High Court may seem a safer bet as matters can be remitted back down the system but cannot move up the system if they miss the deadline.It is neither appropriate for the High Court to be treated in this manner nor is it efficient use of the court system. With only seven justices on the High Court and almost no capacity to remit matters to the Federal Court, delays will run into years, if not perhaps even decades. It is nonsensical to suggest that these measures will reduce the volume of litigation in migration decisions or that costs to the Commonwealth would be reduced. On the contrary, if these measures lead to channelling an increased workload of migration cases to the High Court, costs that would arise from delays and indefinite extensions for unlawfuls to stay in Australia would also, logically, increase. We can hardly afford that, as we already have over 50,000 undetected overstayers living in the community. There are people being held in detention for long periods of time. Some might be able to get bridging visas and stay out of detention but there might also be additional detention costs. Similarly, the measures to prevent class or group actions are equally, if not more, misguided. They are unlikely to stop proceedings that in substance but not form would be considered class actions. The Federal Court of Australia Amendment Act 1991, commenced in 1992, introduced class actions in the Federal Court. Class actions have been possible in the High Court since 1953. It is nonsense to advance an argument against the appropriateness of class actions in migration matters. The migration regulation structure is expressed in the language of classes of visa with common requirements and criteria, which of course apply to classes of persons and would logically therefore warrant class actions. A class action is one in which a proceeding is brought on behalf of a group of persons with claims that arise from similar, identical or related circumstances and which raise substantially common questions of fact or law. If class actions were prevented, a lawyer would only need to make relatively small changes to effectively achieve the same results as a class action. With some class actions representing thousands of applicants, under the proposed new arrangements the court would be faced with either hearing thousands of individual but essentially similar cases or running one as the test case and then applying the same decision to the remaining cases. That sounds a reasonable proposition but this amounts to a de facto class action anyway, only more cumbersome and with greater associated red tape, costs and delays.The argument that forcing lawyers to file individual cases would act as a deterrent because of the filing fees may have some force but will not deter any serious litigant because the court has the power to waive fees and almost always does, I understand, for impecunious applicants. There is anecdotal evidence to support claims by the minister that a small number of practitioners are running dubious class actions and are placing newspaper advertisements vigorously encouraging applicants to join class actions. Whilst the opposition does not in any shape or form support these people—if they are doing it simply for the purposes of making money— this is, nevertheless, how class actions against pharmaceutical companies and tobacco companies, et cetera get started. So, in many respects, what they are doing is not new. Introducing such restrictive legislation seems an extreme measure to combat the alleged unethical conduct by some lawyers. If the conduct is unethical, it should be raised directly with the various disciplinary bodies. The irony is, however, that the same lawyers the minister is attacking are likely to be the first to adapt to these changes and further clog up the courts with the increased administration associated with filing individual cases. Nothing is going to stop these lawyers running the same matters as a slew of individual cases filed in the High Court. The courts already have powers to stay or dismiss vexatious or trivial applications. That applies to all actions including class actions. Further, if a member of the action cannot demonstrate a sufficiently common element to the relevant action, that member can be ruled out.Ultimately, class actions are an efficient means of dealing with matters affecting many individuals with common complaints. Indeed, the restrictions may result in a multiplicity of actions that otherwise could have been dealt with in the one matter as a class action. The government claims it is concerned that members, by joining a class action, are immediately issued with a bridging visa for a period extending to 35 days after consideration of the case by the court. It claims that obtaining the bridging visa is, in itself, sufficient incentive for applicants with no relevant claim to join a class action. The changes will make this worse, not better. Even the government's own advice indicates its uncertainty that the proposed measures would have any material effect on the concerns repeatedly expressed by the minister. The explanatory memorandum says:For instance, if the bar on class, grouped or otherwise class actions does not increase the number of individual applications, the cost to the Commonwealth, including costs arising from members of these actions prolonging their stay in Australia, may be reduced. However, if the number of individual applicants increases, there may be an increase in litigation costs in addition to costs associated with each individual's prolonged stay in Australia.So even the explanatory memorandum makes it very clear—it says that in the event we are successful and are able to reduce the number of applications everything will be fine. So straightaway even the minister's own department is saying there is a chance that this might increase the number of applications that go to the High Court and courts. I want to congratulate the department or whoever it is that wrote that explanatory memorandum because they have got it spot on—if you like, they are watching their back. Blind Freddy can see that this is what will happen if you want to do something about stopping these so-called unethical lawyers— and they will argue the case, of course, that they are.You will not do it by introducing bills like this, where you throw out the baby with the bath water. You have to do whatever is necessary to get the law societies of each of these states—or give more teeth to the Migration Agents Authority—to look at ways these people can be stopped. I abhor the practice of people advertising and saying to asylum seekers, or whoever, `If you pay $500 you can join this action.' There is an enormous amount of money to be made here. As I said, this is not being condoned at all but sometimes you have to give a reasonable response to the problem. It does not matter whether you are an asylum seeker or whether you are an ordinary citizen of this country, the fact is that under international law all of us are entitled to our day in court, if you want to go to court. Once you are here, you are entitled to your day in court. The fact is that this action would stop many people from having that day in court. Simply because we are trying to make sure that people do not go to these so-called lawyers that advertise is not a reason for us to get rid of class actions altogether. The minister, to his credit, told me yesterday that he had received alternative advice—and I will mention that in a second—from a legal consultant about what else could be done. One of my colleagues who will be speaking later on this bill will probably refer to that. The advice he received from the lawyers was in terms of what he could do to try to fix the problem by trying to regulate these lawyers that are being, in his words, `unethical'. The fact is that that does not change the situation at all.The opposition believes that the real purpose of this bill is simply to advance the government's policy of restricting virtually all access to judicial review in migration related matters. The severe restriction or denial of judicial review raises questions regarding the principle of the separation of powers. But whatever their purpose, these provisions will backfire and create more delay, complexity and costs for those who go to clever or sometimes unscrupulous lawyers, while leaving those who do not with no safety net and no effective rights. The minister attempts to sell this to the public on the basis that all these appeals and this bill are doing is stopping judicial review for refugee matters or for those that may not have a proper claim to stay in this country. But the fact is that this would apply also to people who may be refused a visa from a high risk country, or an Australian resident or citizen who is not happy about the way that, for instance, the high risk factor list is being used. This is for all class actions for all migration matters, not just in the area of, say, asylum seekers.Labor believes that the perceived life and death nature of the administrative decision making process in migration matters requires that special allowance should be made for unforeseen circumstances in making an application to the High Court, which is the court of last resort. The structure of this proposed legislation is driven solely by the government's ulterior motive of restricting access to judicial review in migration matters. The real issues at hand are the number of abuses of the current system by some unscrupulous migration lawyers, the impact of class actions on the workload of the High Court and the lengthy processing times confronting current applicants.The government does not address these problems by attempting to introduce the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill No. 2 (2000). Whether by design or unintentionally, this proposed legislation panders to those fringe sectors of society who maintain that immigrants and refugees are not entitled to the natural justice that is afforded to Australian citizens.I believe that we should rise above that, and that the legislation that is presently before the House, debated and passed in this House, should be fair—all legislation in this House should be fair—and benefit all people who have a right to have their case heard in a court of law.I refer to the dissenting report of the opposition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, signed by my colleagues Dick Adams, the member for Lyons, Julia Irwin, the member for Fowler, Senator Jim McKiernan, Senator for Western Australia and my friend Bernie Ripoll, member for Oxley. In their conclusion they say:Opposition Members of the Committee maintain that access to class actions should be retained because they are an equitable, economic and efficient avenue through which migration decisions can be challenged. Access to class actions should therefore not be restricted without good and convincing reasons.Opposition Members have examined the arguments and evidence advanced for restricting access to class actions and have not found them convincing. We are prepared to examine any evidence of abuse and we will always act to curb or stop abuse when it is proven to be happening. The evidence was not presented on this occasion.We are also very concerned that alternatives to the restriction of access to class actions have apparently not been canvassed. We are concerned that the likely effects on the courts and on Commonwealth expenditure were not fully examined before the Bill was introduced.I did mention that the minister has advised me that he did seek legal advice on other alternatives, specifically for the purpose of trying to curb advertising by certain lawyers. That report says—according to the way he reads it—that that would be very difficult. My colleague the member for Denison will be speaking later in this debate and will be talking about that. I could not agree more with what appears in the conclusion of the dissenting report. It has been said very succinctly: the fact is that there is no evidence to substantiate the restriction of rights in this way.The government might think that there is some political mileage in it. If you have got to go for political mileage by doing these sorts of things—well, it is a shame; it is an absolute shame. The fact is that this will not do what the minister wants it to do. He has obviously asked his advisers to come up with ways and means of trying to curb the problems that he sees coming from advertising from these migration agents and from migration lawyers. This is not the answer, Minister. I have said to the minister before that if he can come up with something which is reasonable he will get the support of the opposition. The minister's response, of course, is, `Well, what's your solution?' Well, I am not the minister. The opposition is not in government. You are the minister. You come up with the solutions and we will have a look at them—you have got the whole of the department plus advisers ad infinitum. All I have got is one person.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs Gallus—Oh, tough.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—Well, who are you? You can sit down—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Labor opposes this bill and sends it back to the government, asking them to start from scratch and develop policies to realistically achieve their aims without punishing the victims. Later on in the consideration in detail stages I will be moving an amendment that schedule 1, page 3, line 1 to page 9, line 31 be opposed. I will move that at a later stage.If the government wants to fix the issues that need fixing in immigration, we will assist them. But if it wants to hoodwink us with false agendas wrapped up in pretty rhetoric, we will see through it every time and we will oppose them. The opposition will be opposing schedule 1 of this bill and I will move the appropriate amendment at a later stage.17:30:0023915Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—It comes as no surprise that the opposition will be opposing the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. That clearly shows that, once again, the opposition are not listening to the people of Australia and that they are not listening to what the community thinks and feels about the issue that this bill addresses. The shadow minister claims that there is no evidence to substantiate the problem. Late last year I took the trouble to visit a detention centre in Curtin in Western Australia. I wanted to see for myself what the detention centre was like, how the people in the centre were being treated and what the issues were. I came away with a very clear understanding that people were well looked after but that there was a number of people within the centre who were using every avenue possible to delay their stay in Australia for as long as possible and were encouraging others to become involved in what were no more than really artificial schemes. Of course, those delaying tactics cost the Commonwealth of Australia a lot of money. They are also clearly used by people who have come to Australia illegally, people who have jumped the queue, people who have used their own resources to get ahead of the genuine refugees whom we in Australia welcome in relation to our international obligations. So my first-hand experience, having seen the situation for myself, is that the parliament of Australia should be supporting this bill very much; but there is also the feeling of the majority of Australians that people should not be unreasonably able to use all sorts of legal devices to just extend their stay in Australia when they are here illegally in the first place. I reject out of hand the shadow minister's claims that in some way this is an attack on the rights of these people. I can confirm to the parliament that the rights of any individual remain unchanged. If an individual wants to take his or her case to the Federal Court or the High Court of Australia in whatever circumstances, he or she will be able to. In that sense the bill is therefore fair and does not deny natural justice, as was suggested by the shadow minister. This bill seeks to implement a number of government policy initiatives within the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs portfolio which will further ensure the `integrity' of Australia's immigration laws, and I think that is the mark of the current Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. If you looked for an adjective to describe the current minister, you would use the word `integrity'. The coalition's immigration policies have sought to achieve a proper balance between our social, economic, environmental and humanitarian objectives in a non-discriminatory way. That is very important. I think the Australian community understand that, and certainly it is very important to the government that it be non-discriminatory.The initiatives in the bill stem from the government's policy to restrict access to judicial review in visa related matters in all but exceptional circumstances. The government's policy commitment to restrict access in these matters was given in light of the extensive merits review rights enshrined in the migration legislation. One major point of concern which I have picked up on is the ever increasing cost and incidence of migration litigation, with its associated delays in the removal of non-citizens from Australia. In 1999 it cost the taxpayers of this country more than $11 million and it is expected in the 2001-02 financial year to cost Commonwealth taxpayers more than $20 million, not including court costs. I ask the parliament, the opposition and the people of Australia this: surely there are better ways to utilise these massive amounts of money? Surely we could particularly spend this money on genuine refugees, not people who have jumped the queue, not people who are using artificial legal devices to remain in Australia at taxpayers' expense for as long as possible. Surely that is commonsense. Surely that is reasonable. But the opposition opposes something that seems to every other Australian to be commonsense, and that is sad.There is a theory in the community that the class actions are being used to encourage large numbers of people to litigate with the aim of obtaining a visa. I have certainly seen that first-hand. I have seen the evidence, I know it happens and it is simply unacceptable. The changes in this bill are necessary to combat the recent increase in the use of class actions for people with no lawful authority to remain in Australia to prolong their stay and frustrate removal action. Most of those who participate in litigation would have no other option to obtain authority to remain in Australia and would hence be removed. I would like to inform the House of some statistics in relation to litigation. Those in the gallery who are listening this afternoon might also be interested in these figures. Currently there are 3½ thousand people in four class actions before the courts in Australia. Since October 1997, 14 class actions have been initiated. From these 14 class actions significant numbers of people have been able to obtain bridging visas to remain in Australia until the courts determine the matter. Ten class actions were decided by late last year, involving some 4,000 people, and were dismissed by the courts.The bottom line of all of that is a lot of legal argy-bargy, delay and cost—with taxpayers footing the bill—all coming to a conclusion that everyone knew would happen before it actually started. Going through these long processes is becoming more and more a feature of our society these days. You see it in environmental investigations, you see it in the legal situation—you know what is going to happen before the process starts, and it costs an awful lot of money and the world does not move any further forward. In this instance, what is happening is that people are just using this as a device to remain in Australia when they should not be here. I find this a disturbing trend, especially since the government's policy is to restrict access to judicial review in all but exceptional circumstances. We as a government do not rule out class actions altogether, as there may be some sound public policy objective for the availability of class actions in some matters. The problem, though, is that there is a substantial number of people who litigate for the sole purpose of getting a bridging visa so that they can stay longer in Australia. As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, bridging visas have no work conditions attached to them. The provisions in this bill ban class actions in visa related matters before both the Federal Court and the High Court. Furthermore, to deny those wishing to rush to the courts before the introduction of this legislation, provisions have sensibly been put in place that will subsequently be applied to all court applications made from when this bill was introduced by the minister. This bill also restricts those wishing to commence or to continue visa related proceedings in the Federal Court to cases where there is a person who is actually the subject of a decision or action. It is important to note, too, that this bill does not impose similar limits in relation to the High Court's original jurisdiction under section 75 of the Constitution. The bill does, however, stop the High Court from remitting such cases to the Federal Court, to prevent persons circumventing the restriction directly imposed on the Federal Court. While I understand the relationship between the court system and the parliament of Australia, there needs to be a time when the parliament, representing the people, makes very clear what the people of Australia feel and want. This bill addresses that feeling on this particular issue.Recently, I was discussing this bill with some of my constituents who were concerned about immigration. Their major concern was that they believed the government wanted to abolish bridging visas. But denying litigants access to bridging visas is not the government's preferred option. Many people, though, would still take legal action if their bridging visas were denied, and these people, as a direct result, become unlawful non-citizens who are required to be taken into immigration detention. This move would put more strain on the current facilities and would increase detention costs, which are very difficult to recover—another impost on the Australian taxpayer. I certainly wanted to speak on this bill today: I wanted to support it, I wanted to make clear to the people in Townsville and Thuringowa that I am backing their view on this matter. I would ask the Labor Party to reconsider their opposition to addressing the problem of the misuse of the judicial process by non-citizens who are simply refusing to leave Australia.17:41:0023917Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—My friend and colleague the shadow minister for immigration has spoken eloquently of our concerns about the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 insofar as it restricts access on the part of migrants to the court system in this country. Naturally, I share those concerns and fully endorse them. On this first parliamentary sitting day of the new millennium and of the Centenary of Federation year, I want to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the role of migrants in building this nation. I wish to speak of the importance of equality of opportunity, as it affects particularly the children of both migrant families and people from non-migrant backgrounds, to the formation of a decent, fair and harmonious society. To that end, I wish to move a second reading amendment in these terms: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House, at the beginning of the new millennium and during the Centenary of Federation:(1) acknowledges the invaluable role of migrants in building a fairer and more prosperous Australian nation; and(2) urges the government, in its pursuit of cost reductions in migration administration, to look at migration issues in a comprehensive manner and not to lose sight of the need to provide migrant families with equality of opportunity, especially educational opportunity, so that they have the best chance of contributing to the achievement of a fair, cohesive society”. Australia has been the beneficiary of a great postwar migration program. I should point out that this is not a program that was especially a skilled migration program. Some of the greatest contributors to the building of this nation arrived here as penniless refugees from war-torn Europe. We know the contribution of migrants from Europe, for example, in building the Snowy Mountains scheme, one of the greatest projects in this country and one of our greatest nation-building efforts. People like Sir Arvi Parbo and Peter Abeles arrived in this country penniless and with not much going for them in terms of their knowledge of the English language but they, too, made a great contribution to this country, as have countless thousands of migrants since that time—as I said, many of them unskilled migrants.We cannot rely exclusively on a skilled migration program to continue building a great nation. It is a very competitive world out there, and it is all very easy for people to say, `We want only skilled migrants; we don't want unskilled migrants.' Many countries around the world are seeking skilled migrants, and they are not as easy to come by as people might suggest. I want to put to the parliament today that there is real value in a migration program that includes unskilled migrants, that includes, obviously on compassionate grounds, refugees and that, of course, includes family reunions.Over the holiday break I was involved in a debate about our national anthem. On that I have very open views. I did want to—and I did at that time—point to the chorus of a song which I think is in every way terrific in paying tribute to the nation building efforts of migrants in this country, because the chorus of the song entitled I Am Australian goes:We are one, but we are many;And from all the lands on earth we come.We share a dream, and sing with one voice,I am, you are, we are Australian.I think that captures the spirit of Australia very well. Having said that, there is an issue of citizenship in this country. I note that the proportion of Australian citizens aged 18 and over in the population of my electorate of Rankin is just 57.6 per cent. That is a reflection of two things: (1) that the population of Rankin is very young and (2) that there are a lot of migrants who have not yet taken out Australian citizenship. I certainly will be launching a citizenship drive in Rankin. It is something that migrants who arrive here and spend some time in the country should contemplate—that is, making a commitment to the country by becoming Australian citizens.The second part of the second reading amendment deals with equality of opportunity for both migrants and non-migrant children in this country, and I want to tell a story in that regard. Amy falls pregnant at 17. Ten years later she will have had three children to different fathers. At 27 Amy is a single parent, longing for a stable relationship, yearning for male companionship. But she is wary—she was beaten unconscious by her last de facto partner. Amy would love a career. But, you see, Amy left school at 15 and her hands are full with three children. The eldest boy is on medication for attention deficit disorder. Amy smokes, drinks and buys scratchies and lotto tickets. It helps relieve stress and break the tedium. And maybe one day she will have a big win, buy a nice house and take the kids on a holiday.Jason lives under a bridge. He ran away from home at 14 after one too many bashings from his alcoholic father. Jason steals to finance his heroin habit. He wants to be a rock musician, but his dignity and confidence are shattered. Amy and Jason's fathers left school early after clashing with their teachers and principals. They could not read. They felt they just were not cut out for school. Amy's 10-year-old son hates school. He feels he is not cut out for it, like the grandfather he never knew. He is barely literate, so he is bored in the classroom and prefers to wag. Amy and Jason live in Werribee and Woodridge, Mount Druitt and Sunshine, Elizabeth and Inala, along with the children of poor migrants who speak little English at home. They, and the Aboriginal children of Walgett and Woolloomooloo, Arukun and Doomadgee, are the lives behind the statistics, and the statistics reveal the truth: Australia is in the grip of an education recession. Education is to the information age what coal was to the Industrial Revolution. Yet more than a million disadvantaged children like Amy and Jason are being locked out of the information age by government policies and the neglect that have created the education recession. Through its policies and rhetoric the conservative national government is widening and deepening the social divide. The education recession is not a recession we had to have. It was not inevitable that one-third of young Australians attending government schools should be dropping out of high school. It was not inevitable that young people from disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods, country towns and remote communities should be so heavily overrepresented in the early exodus from government schools. And it was not inevitable that government investment in education should be falling as a share of national income.The conservative national government cannot clutch at claims that the slackening public investment effort is being taken up by rising private investment in education. National investment in education as a share of the economy is lower now than it was a decade ago. Like a general economic recession, the education recession is leaving a legacy of broken lives and wasted opportunities. As the economically advanced and emerging countries compete in the race towards excellence in the information age, Australia is stalled at the starting blocks, the sound of the starter's gun a remote thud in the ears of the conservative national government.The nation is splitting into two sets of communities: those reaping rich rewards from adapting to the information age and those being locked out of it. In the 21st century affluent Australians will not ask how the other half live, because they will never have known them. Their children will never sit together in school or compete against them for the very best jobs the nation can offer. Angry and resentful at their exclusion from affluent Australia, the children of the excluded communities will take what they can get, carving out their own subcultures, turning to violence, using illicit drugs and stealing from affluent neighbourhoods to finance their addictions.Affluent Australia responds, calling for more jails and longer sentences, building higher walls in their enclaves and installing louder burglar alarms. Is this the sort of society we want—divided, intolerant and spiteful? The conservative message to the affluent aspiring middle class is that they are being held back by the indolent, the lazy, the drinkers, the smokers and the bludgers. Another bottle of fine red mellows the conscience of affluent Australia, muffling the cries of Amy and Jason, the children of poor migrants and all of the suffering and disheartened children of abandoned Australia.The conservative national government has taken wedge politics to an art form. Just last year the member for Batman in a speech entitled `Skills, location, population: bringing them together' on 6 March made this remark:I also want to stress today that we are prepared to look at flexibility in family reunion arrangements to attract skilled migrants and businesses to our region.On that the immigration minister arranged a dorothy dixer from the member for Petrie, Ms Teresa Gambaro—who should know better. In response to that dorothy dixer he said:If you are out there arguing that the brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts and parents can come to Australia as part of a family reunion scheme to get skilled migrants here without testing them against the labour market, make it very clear because, brother, you will all be in trouble in your electorates if that is what you are advocating.That is the art of wedge politics, and the nation is suffering as a result of it. Only a Labor government steeped in the traditions of fairness, equality of opportunity and nondiscrimination can lead an education recovery and repair our fractured society. Those Labor traditions are deeply rooted in the tree of knowledge in outback Barcaldine. Striking shearers, their wages cut without negotiation, gathered in solidarity under the tree of knowledge to determine how best to restore their working conditions. They sought to muster industrial strength through solidarity but were repressed by a conservative state government invoking an 1825 English conspiracy law—since repealed in England but still on the statute books in Queensland. Many shearers were dragged around in chains. A judge abused police for failing to open fire; badgered the jury for three days, ignoring their pleas for clemency; and sentenced 12 shearers to three years gaol for conspiracy. Determined to pursue social justice through parliamentary means following the defeat of the shearers' strike, the organised labour movement inserted into its earliest manifestos the funding of education for the children of working families. CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs Gallus—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the point that the speech has to be relevant to the legislation. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why shearers and the life of a shearing shed are relevant to this legislation.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G. H. Adams)—The honourable member has made her point.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—To be generous to the parliamentary secretary, she may not have been here when I read in detail the second reading amendment, which speaks quite clearly of equality of opportunity and the need to provide a decent education to all children, of both migrant and non-migrant families. I also point out that this was drafted in consultation with the clerks. So, if you want to keep going down that track, you will need to take it up with the clerks. As I was saying, determined to pursue social justice through parliamentary means following the defeat of the shearers' strike, the organised labour movement inserted into its earliest manifestos the funding of education for the children of working families—something that those opposite obviously have problems with. 100 years later, at the Centenary of Federation, privilege is firmly entrenched and the children of abandoned Australia, like their great-grandparents, struggle for a decent education.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs Gallus—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: with due respect, the past history of the shearers is hardly relevant to this legislation. It really is stretching a very long bow. It is migration legislation; it has nothing to do with the past or shearers.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member was drawing widely to make his points in relation to the amendment. The amendment is drafted in very broad terms, so I ask the honourable member to continue and consider that he is dealing with migration legislation.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—I speak now of the future, Mr Deputy Speaker. May the great Australian Labor Party draw strength from the struggle of the shearers as they sought a better life for their children and may the modern Labor Party draw inspiration from the nation-building of the Chifley Labor government as it saw the light on the hill. Setting a new course for Australia, following the horror of World War II and a real threat to the freedom of our nation, the Chifley government was the first national Australian government to involve itself in education. The Chifley government established the Australian National University, embarked on a postwar immigration program—CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps you may not be able to rule directly on this point of order, but I ask this question of you: is it now going to be a practice of the House that a member can come in and draft a broad ranging amendment to legislation and still not relate that amendment to that legislation?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member raises a point which is not that relevant. I think the member is endeavouring to be relevant to the legislation and his amendment.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—If the member for Moreton would listen, I said twice: `embark on a great postwar immigration program'. If you have any difficulty with that, then stand up after this and tell us what you have against the great postwar immigration program, of which I am proud and all members of the Labor Party are proud. If you have something to be ashamed about, get up and make your statement. The member for Moreton represents an electorate which has a very large ethnic Chinese community. If you have any difficulty with the great Australian postwar immigration program, please tell the parliament that. May the great Australian Labor Party, in its tradition of fairness, lift the spirits of the suffering children of abandoned Australia.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs Gallus—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer to the standing order that one member does not refer to another member across the chamber as `you' but as `the honourable member'.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—All points have to be through the chair.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—May the Labor Party instil in these children the hope of a better life and a yearning for knowledge. May the tree of knowledge spread its boughs to all the disadvantaged children of Australia so that we can truly become the knowledge nation. May those seeds fall in Altona, Alice Springs, Baradine, Broken Hill, Doomadgee, Dunedoo, Werribee and Woodridge. May the seeds of knowledge be blown by Labor's winds of change across the dusty plains to Alice Springs and Katherine; may they reach Arnhem Land, Cape York and the Gulf Country, the Pilbara and Coober Pedy. May the great Australian Labor Party offer an excellent education to the children of the disadvantaged communities, instilling in them the fire, the thirst for knowledge and the confidence in their talents to win the best jobs this nation has to offer.May the Labor Party instil in the children a pride in their efforts and the truth that to achieve is good and to excel is wonderful. May these children grow up educated and skilled so that they do not need to demand fair wages like the shearers of 1891. They can command fair wages from employers who have no choice but to award them, knowing that otherwise they will take their talents elsewhere. In the great nation-building mould of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, may Labor pour into the heart of every Australian child our pledge to an excellent education, a fair go and a genuine chance at the very best this great country has to offer. May Amy and Jason see the light on the hill. We hold the lantern to their souls.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.18:00:0023921Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased to speak in the debate about the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. In my mind, the matter of migration very clearly is a nation-building exercise, and I am certain that all those who listened to the contribution from the member for Rankin—all seven or eight of us—were totally confused by exactly what it was he was trying to say. It is extraordinary in the extreme that he should choose to selectively quote the past of the Australian Labor Party with regard to nation-building and leave out the fact that it was the Labor Party that introduced and maintained on their books as a national policy the policy of a white Australia. If the member for Rankin wants to enter migration debates and try to talk about seeds pollinating all around the country—perhaps the seeds of a socialist rose—I think it is also right for the member for Rankin to give a true and accurate reflection of the Australian Labor Party's growth in the area of migration and their late embracing of a far more universal concept than the White Australia Policy that they held dear to their hearts for about 40 years.This government has proved by its own actions that it has no such thing as an exclusion based on race. It is in fact a government that has encouraged the very best people from all around the world. We set a couple of preconditions on those who migrate to this country and it is all about integrity of the system. The preconditions are well known to those of us who enter these discussions and those of us who represent in this place people who have migrated to this country.Those simple conditions are: do they have something to offer to Australia? Do they bring with them some skills, some abilities, something that we could make good use of in our ongoing journey to build a great country—an even greater one than we currently have? Do they perhaps bring some of the fabric of a family that is missing from those who are currently here? That in itself is a major contribution to the cause. But of course the two strict conditions that are applied to all who apply to come to Australia, either as visitors or, for that matter, as permanent residents or ongoing migrants to live and become citizens here, are whether or not they are dealing—(Quorum formed) That quorum called by the member for Dickson is a disgrace. As she travels each day from the electorate of Moncrieff through the member for Fadden's electorate, through my electorate, through the member for Griffith's electorate, through the member for Lilley's electorate and through the member for Petrie's electorate to her electorate office in Dickson—from her home to Dickson through seven or eight electorates—the people along the way are going to know about this.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G. H. Adams)—Order!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The bill before us—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I asked for order. I ask the member to come back to the point.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I am speaking to the legislation, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—When I am speaking, you do not interrupt the chair.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—This legislation is all about nation building, which is more than the Australian Labor Party seem to be content to try to do. As I was trying to say, the member for Rankin was trying to selectively quote history with regard to the Labor Party's credentials in this particular area. He was the one who introduced the debate and the particular subject matter that seems to have upset the member for Dickson so much. As I said, this is all about a nation-building exercise; it is all about ensuring that those who were born here in Australia are satisfied that those who choose to come here to live, or those who seek refuge here, are here on fair and equal terms.As I attempted to say before the honourable member for Dickson churlishly called a quorum, the two basic credentials demanded of all those who travel to Australia and who seek to live in this country is that they be of good character and in good health—in other words, that there is no downside to their travelling to and residing in Australia. That sends an important signal to those in our community who are encouraged by the politically correct debate that the Australian Labor Party continues to generate. During his contribution, the honourable member for Rankin spoke of those who do not want anyone to migrate to this country. Some in our community say that those who arrive on our shores as refugees should meet with one of three responses: their boat should be shot out of the water, they should be shot on sight or they should be detained and sent back to their point of origin on the very next plane. They are the sorts of nonsense arguments that we hear in the community and, as those opposite attempt to promulgate splittist politics, we may hear them from many more people.Fortunately, this government does not practise such politics. This government believes people are entitled to an opportunity to put their case for staying in Australia. The only trouble is—the honourable member for Bowman outlined the defence case for the legal profession and migration agents in Australia—that there are those who seek to exploit both the basic rule of law in this country and our generosity, particularly regarding refugees. Such people advertise in the ethnic press inviting others to add their names to class actions, promising that, by so doing, they will be granted permission to stay in Australia for ever and a day. At the same time—the honourable member for Bowman mentioned this point—the High Court faces a backlog in considering such class actions. It is backlogged to billyo and back by people making cases to stay in Australia even though they arrived without papers or any proof of who or what they are. How can we determine whether such people are genuine refugees? It is a major problem that this government must contend with. Migration agents, lawyers and, it seems from the debate so far, some of those opposite are perhaps unwittingly offering succour to those who trade in human misery. Such people are running around underprivileged parts of the world where people get not a day in court but a moment in front of a brick wall before they are shot, saying, `Pay me money and I will get you to Australia. By the way, when you get there, a bunch of people will try to ensure that you never have to leave. Don't worry about the rules because the Australian Labor Party will do all it can to dissemble the facts,' creating expectations that can never be realised.What is the reaction in the broader community? It is one of great frustration as Australians witness an attack on the integrity of their migration system, which aims to attract to this country and give a home to people with something to offer and people of high integrity and in good health. This nation has grown from a few million people to 20 million in the past 40 or 50 years. We have trusted people to come to Australia and do the right thing. It is poor politics for those opposite to come to this place and attempt to create the false impression that this government is being cruel, hard or unnecessarily difficult in responding to those who come to our shores by means other than through the official system and seek refuge in this country. It is cruel and unfair to my constituents who sat in the refugee camps in Kakuma outside Nairobi waiting for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and that system to work and give them a ticket to freedom and opportunity in Australia. It is unfair to those who come to our shores via the system and who are tarred with the same brush of mistrust and disbelief and made to feel unwelcome by many in our community. Integrity of the immigration system is the key to all legislation that this government has brought before parliament over the years. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has maintained the integrity of that system in everything he has done. He has maintained a sense of balance so that those who were born here and who proudly call themselves Australian can be satisfied that everyone who comes through our doors to claim Australian citizenship does so for all the right reasons. It is important that those who come to this country know that they have jumped through all the hoops, climbed all the barricades and survived the hassles, bureaucratic nonsense and obfuscation and the perils of the process. They can hold their heads high as there is absolutely no doubt that they are here for the right reasons. Perhaps people come to Australia with particular skills or in order to mend the fabric of families that have been without caring parents or grandparents. Perhaps they come to this country as refugees with little or no possessions and find welfare, housing, health and a helping hand from their local community. I am privileged to represent in this place many of those who have come to Australia from diverse parts of the world. Some have come from Russia and eastern European countries in recent years. Some have survived all sorts of human tragedies—which I cannot even bear to imagine—in the Horn of Africa, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the Sudan and Kenya. Such people, who are very proud of their noble cultural traditions, have found that they can, slowly but surely, build a life in Australia. The people in the suburbs of Annerley, Moorooka, Fairfield and Yeronga come in contact with them more often than do people from other suburbs in my area. Did I mention Tarragindi? I should have. People in those suburbs, those areas close to the city, are finding a sea of people from the Horn of Africa now living amongst them and have been very generous in the welcome they have afforded—so much so that, when the combined churches of Moorooka held their annual Christmas carol service late last year, appropriately, they took up a collection and made the proceeds available to help African refugees, particularly African refugee women. It was only a few hundred dollars, but on that night the point was made that at a Christian event assistance may be given to those who are of a different faith—of Islamic faith. Just as Jesus Christ's parents found a place in an inn for his birth on the first Christmas, so too have many refugees found a place in parts of my electorate—and in other parts of Australia. This legislation points out that there are those who are willing to prey on in the worst possible way and offer false hope to some who are in the system, which is very slowly and tediously dealing with their claim to stay here. When I find out that some people are trying to turn a dollar by this and advertise in newsletters and in various parts of the ethnic press, it turns my stomach in the extreme. The member for Bowman says that nothing in these measures will stop that from occurring. He claims it will make matters worse. But one of the things that will come out of these measures is a very simple message to the countries of origin of those who seek to go around the well-established system for refugees that is administered by the United Nations. The message is very clear: you cannot expect to stay in Australia for years and years and then get your day in court or to come here without a set of papers in your hand. A lot of dreadful people undertake nefarious activities, human misery activities, by importing people illegally into this country, telling them to dispose of their papers. Why? Because it makes it harder for the system to deal with them—to make an assessment and process them—and decide one way or the other, whether they are in or out of Australia. This legislation will send a very strong signal that Australia is very fair dinkum about giving a fair go to those who are prepared to do the right thing but is equally fair dinkum about ensuring that those who are doing the wrong thing will not be rewarded with something that should be very precious to each and every one of us: citizenship and the right to stay in Australia.There have been suggestions of bringing in some sort of limit to the amount of time for appeals after the process has been gone through, the tribunals have made their assessment and people have been given their chance to appeal. This never-ending appeal process now has an end. There is a 35-day period in which you must appeal to the High Court. This is a very fair measure indeed. At the heart of it is the integrity of the system. This is not just about keeping certain people in certain groups in our community feeling as though they are well serviced. I am talking about the migration agents and the lawyers who are making a dollar or 20 out of this whole process of human misery. It is very much about saying to the broad community that every person who is here as a migrant, every person who is here as a refugee, is here for the right reasons, is here on the same footing as somebody who was born here. Let me paraphrase the words of a great fellow in my electorate, Tom Chow of Sunnybank. When he received a community service award on Australia Day, he thanked the 400 or so people at D.M. Henderson Park at MacGregor and said words to this effect: `As an adopted Australian brother, I want to say to you how proud I am to live in this country, how pleased I am to have enjoyed a great sense of fair go, how optimistic I am about the future of this country and how much I want to continue to contribute to it.'That is what this whole debate about migration should be about. We should not allow people who came to this place in the last parliament to get up and quote Labor's lousy old White Australia aficionado Arthur Calwell in maiden speeches. That is what Pauline Hanson did. She got up and quoted Arthur Calwell. That is why I walked out on her maiden speech. If my memory serves me correctly, she spoke between the member for North Sydney and the then member for Dickson, Tony Smith. I stayed for the first six minutes, heard the outrageous quotes of Arthur Calwell reworked in 1996 and walked out. I was the first member on either side to do so. Those opposite want to start revisiting history, as the member for Rankin did in his very poor performance today. I thought his preselection was over and done with. It sounded like something to keep the Labor Party hacks in Brisbane happy, not something that should be said in a national parliament. If those opposite want to revisit that, let us revisit the White Australia Policy and condemn Labor for its silly old policy in the past. This bill is about something a lot more positive than that. I am pleased to speak to it and I commend it to the House. 18:20:0023925Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am very pleased to have the opportunity to support the shadow minister for immigration in opposing Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. This bill is the latest in a series of changes that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has made to the migration regulations since coming to office four years ago. In essence, this bill seeks to deny justice to visa applicants who believe they have a legitimate case to put before the courts. The bill is so controversial that I am sure it raised the hackles of more than a few government MPs with legal training—so much so that I believe they were probably quite relieved to see it whisked off to a committee last year. Many of them probably wish it would stay there permanently. This bill needs to be viewed in the wider context of the human rights meltdown that is taking place on the government front bench. The Australian government's actions and inaction in the field of human rights over the last 12 months in particular give we Australians cause to hang our heads in shame. This is a government that refuses to put a stop to the mandatory sentencing of young, mainly indigenous people in the Northern Territory over trivial offences. How can any fair-minded person accept that theft of a crayon or a bottle of cordial is anything more than a misdemeanour; yet the Northern Territory deems all property offences to be criminal acts.When this issue came before the House last year, the crocodile tears coming from the moderates on the other side of the House were laughable. We saw members of the government speaking in favour of a bill that they subsequently voted against. Then, hard on the heels of the disgraceful inaction over this, the immigration minister and the foreign minister took on the UN.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs Gallus—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The legislation is about migration and not about mandatory sentencing and a whole lot of other issues.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D. G. H. Adams)—I thank the parliamentary secretary.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—I can understand why a moderate such as the parliamentary secretary is ashamed of the government's position on this and indeed on any issue related to human rights. As Australians, we are proud of our role in setting up treaty committees. The government, however, seems to think that these treaties were not designed to criticise us—just all the other countries that violate human rights. But close scrutiny of the government's treatment of indigenous Australians and onshore asylum seekers is not something it welcomes.The government is also in the business of legitimising the rule of indicted war criminals, much to the chagrin of western European countries and the US. For example, when the rest of the world was condemning Slobodan Milosevic as a war criminal, the government sent Charles Stuart, our new ambassador to Yugoslavia, to meet him within days of him taking up his new post. In September last year the people of Yugoslavia spoke loud and clear when they handed the presidency to Vojislav Kostunica. But wait; there's more. As a final insult to indigenous Australians, the government has tried to deny the stolen generations.The fact is that this bill is yet another example of the government's attempts to restrict the rights of its citizens and of people who believe they have a case for permanent residence. You only have to look at the appalling conditions in immigration detention centres all over Australia to see that this government is doing all it can to act tough over the issue of asylum seekers. In places like Woomera and Port Hedland we had cases of young children being put in conditions about which they said they would rather go back to their country of origin and face potential death than put up with.There are two sections of this bill that I wish to speak on. Schedule 1, part 1, of the bill seeks to introduce a new part to the Migration Act. Under part 8A, section 486A will set a 28-day absolute time limit on applications to the High Court for judicial review. Setting such a time limit is a contentious act. Section 75(v) of the Constitution states that, in all matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth, the High Court shall have original jurisdiction. The 28-day time limit constricts a person's ability to seek leave of the High Court, and as such this bill is contentious and it can be argued that it interferes with the exercise of judicial power. There is something that we Australians hold sacred in our Constitution and that is the separation of powers. The basic premise is that the legislature should not interfere with the judiciary. It is hardly surprising, however, that the government seeks to interfere in this case, given that its inaction has given tacit support to the Northern Territory legislature's interference in its judiciary with the imposition of mandatory sentencing. So, while there is no question that this bill is just another example of a mean-spirited government, there is a big question over the legality of these proposed changes. While the government may have received advice that this provision is valid, the comments of Chief Justice Gleeson and Justice McHugh in the case of Abebe would suggest otherwise. The justices said: But once a question arises as to whether a Commonwealth officer has acted lawfully or within or outside the jurisdiction conferred upon him or her, no law of the Parliament can curtail the jurisdiction of this Court to decide the issue, ...This is why I am pleased to support the shadow minister's amendment. The rationale behind this bill is to discourage a person from taking his or her case to the High Court, thus reducing the workload of the High Court. However, the bill is just as likely to produce the opposite effect. Solicitors may decide to start their cases in the High Court in order to get in before the 28-day cut-off. Matters can always be remitted back down the system, and this may well become the most pragmatic option. So the bill may actually be responsible for clogging up the courts even more.I accept that in the majority of cases the department and the tribunals make accurate and fair decisions. However, it is a fact that officers of the Commonwealth occasionally get things wrong, and this was a point that was not lost on the people who drafted our Constitution. I might add that it is not a point lost on this minister, who has intervened more than any of his predecessors to grant ministerial discretion, and in many of those cases I welcome the minister's decision to do that. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, `I have a right as a minister to intervene because the system gets it wrong,' and then at the same time try to restrict people's legal options. The court system allows people with a genuine case to seek justice. Therefore setting a 28-day limit on accessing the High Court interferes with the pursuit of natural justice.I believe there is another agenda at play here in this bill. This bill is part of the minister's mission to limit the access that non-citizens have to judicial review. It is the minister's belief that all court action is taken purely to stretch out a non-citizen's illegitimate attempt to remain in Australia. Whilst in some cases that might be true, it is certainly not true in all cases, and these are the people who deserve their day in court.Schedule 1, part 2, of the bill is also of great concern to me. Here the minister seeks to prevent representative, grouped or class actions relating to visas and decisions to deport and remove unlawful non-citizens from being heard in the Federal Court and High Court. The rationale behind class actions is to prevent drawn-out legal processes by allowing people in the same circumstances to present one case instead of multiple cases. The minister is very dismissive of such actions. In keeping with his belief that all applications are vexatious, the minister wants to close this right of appeal as well. I concede that some class actions have been frivolous, but many others have not. When introducing this bill to the House last year, the minister stated that of the 14 class actions that have been commenced since October 1997, the 10 that have been decided were dismissed. What the minister conveniently failed to mention was the success of Fazal Din v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in the Federal Court. Clearly not all class actions are vexatious. Even when class actions are unsuccessful, it does not mean they are without merit. In the case of Macabenta v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the justices of the High Court were not unanimous in their ruling, ruling in favour of the minister by two to one. In other words, one justice of the High Court was prepared to grant leave to appeal. David Bennett QC, who represented the applicants, had this to say: The issues raised are novel and important issues arising in the law of racial discrimination and in my view the applicants were well justified in bringing the proceedings.David Bennett is now the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, so I would have thought that even the minister must have some respect for his opinions. There were approximately 3,500 people involved in this particular class action. Clearly there was merit in their case and, as a result, these people would have been justified in pursuing their individual cases—3,500 people clogging up the courts to litigate a common question when only one decision needed to be made. This bill does nothing to rationalise the cost of court action. In reality it may well have the opposite effect. Even the explanatory memorandum concedes this point. The minister is dismissive of the use of the courts by appellants seeking to have their migration cases heard. However, he is not averse to using the judicial process when it suits him. To quote from the department's annual report of 1998-99, the minister sought judicial review of 34 portfolio tribunal decisions, appealed to the full Federal Court in 26 matters, and sought special leave to appeal to the High Court in eight matters. This bill would seem to be a case of `Do as I say, not as I do.' I have no doubt there are many members of the government backbench who are privately very uncomfortable with the changes contained in this bill, just like they are uncomfortable with a government that says it is legitimate to inject people in detention centres, like something out of some bad rerun of World War II.Sitting suspended from 6.31 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Personal Explanations2392720:00:0023927Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—I do, grievously, hurtfully and with malice.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please proceed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, because I saw it on the news on television tonight, was accusing me of duplicity in terms of petrol pricing in that I had one thing to say in my electorate and another thing to say in parliament and in the party room.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member needs to come to the point where he was misrepresented.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—I am coming to it immediately. The point, very simply put, is that he has totally misrepresented me, because I have been entirely consistent in my electorate, in this House and in the party room in that I have supported the government's position on petrol. The Leader of the Opposition is only trying to make cheap political points—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I think the member is now debating the issue.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—In a dishonest manner, and it is despicable.20:01:0023927Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Yes. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please proceed.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Along with those about my colleague the member for Latrobe, the Leader of the Opposition has also made some outrageous remarks about my thoughts on fuel excise today, claiming some form of duplicity. He is absolutely wrong. He has in fact misled not only the Australian public but everyone in this place. I have been absolutely consistent in saying that the February excise increase should proceed because it would just be a stunt not to do so, but that, given the government's sound economic management, where there is a position for future tax cuts—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member is now debating the point.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Fuel taxes should be part of that consideration.Bills23928R102623928Debate resumed.20:02:0023928Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 is an attack on a person's right to seek justice. The government are trying to take away a generally accepted right from a very vulnerable group of people. If they get away with it, who will they target next? People seeking judicial review in the area of social security, perhaps. We have already seen attacks on the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This government attacks legitimate legal rights whenever it is convenient. That is the context in which this bill must be considered. It is a context involving a minister who has, I must say, had a proud history in the past, crossing the floor over the issue of a racist or discriminatory immigration policy. This is a minister who stood up to his own party. Unfortunately, with bill after bill before this House, it is very difficult to distinguish the views of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs from the views of the former member for Oxley in terms of political intent. Let us have a look at some of the things which have been wound back. First of all we had the three-year waiting period, a measure which has seen a number of migrants to this country left in poverty, left homeless and left relying on charity to provide the basic essentials of life. With regard to refugees, we have seen them vilified. We have seen a linking of the onshore applications with offshore applications so that the minister has been able to go around and say, `These people who are applying onshore are illegal,' which is not true and he knows it is not true under the United Nations definition of refugees. We have seen a minister who has said that people should wait in an orderly way in the queue overseas, when he knows that is simply not possible for people from countries such as Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime is abhorrent to any decent democratic person who supports human rights. To suggest that it is possible to wait in orderly queues in some of those countries is simply not feasible. We have seen, with that linking, the minister arguing that these people are taking the places of those people who are applying offshore. That is only the case because the minister has linked those two numbers which previously were not linked. That is consistent with the vilification that has occurred. These people have been branded as illegal. They have been branded as criminals and drug peddlers, when there is no evidence that the refugees themselves are in that situation. The fact is that the Labor Party, and anyone who supports the plight of refugees, does not support the people smugglers, who are prepared to make profit out of people's misery. That is not in question, and action against people smugglers is something that I support. However, the vilification of the refugees themselves that has occurred is entirely inappropriate, and the treatment of these detainees is entirely inappropriate. My colleague the member for Chifley, Roger Price, has pointed out in articles published this week that a three-year-old boy and his father have been held in isolation in a dark, dank hellhole at Port Hedland detention centre. This man was being punished for a hunger strike, and he and his three-year-old son were held for 14 days in Third World conditions in a locked cell in the isolation block. What sort of nation are we that in the year 2001 tolerates that in order to appeal to some rednecks in our society? What sort of society are we when we have a minister who advocates giving people injections and drugging them—a minister of the crown who once stood up for human rights and has the hide to wear an Amnesty International badge on his lapel? Many of these detention centres are run by private enterprise, but the only growth in building and construction announced by this government in three budgets has been the building of detention centres. Other countries do not do that. There are more people going to countries such as Italy in a week than come into Australia and make onshore applications in a year. Yet this minister pretended that there were whole villages packing up and coming to Australia. What happened to them? They did not arrive. We hear very little from this minister about the hundreds of people who have been so desperate that they have drowned, people who have died on their way to Australia. That shows the desperation of these people. It also shows the callousness of the people smugglers who are involved, but let us not blame the victims of oppression in reactionary regimes such as Afghanistan for wanting a better life. The Vietnamese boat people who came in the 1970s have made an outstanding contribution to Australian society. Just as some people objected to that occurring on narrow, bigoted grounds, so this minister is prepared to appeal to the bigots, to the point where he goes overseas and says, `If you come here, you will be the subject of racist attacks. You are not welcome. This is an intolerant society.' That is what the minister said when he toured these countries. But it is not uniform because the minister has also made a decision to grant 200 special applications to members of the SLA, the South Lebanon Army—people who were engaged in militant conduct and violence against the people of south Lebanon on behalf of the Israeli occupation. That occupation had been roundly condemned and, under UN resolution 425, finally Israel has withdrawn. These people can be settled either where they are in Israel or in other parts of Lebanon, but no, we have a special category introduced.Those 200 special applications will result in many more than 200 people coming here. What do they have in common? What they have in common is an extreme right-wing view. They are people who have been involved with the Falangists in Lebanon and have been responsible for violence against the Lebanese people. Yet that is okay, according to the government: `We will open up immigration for them because they may settle in marginal seats and will tend to support the conservative side of politics.' Many of them are right-wing reactionaries, but that is okay, according to the government. This minister has compassion for those people but not for women escaping places where they have enforced clitoridectomies and such barbaric behaviour. It is time that the minister stopped the vilification of refugees. It is time that we Australians reasserted ourselves as a compassionate nation, in recognition of the fact that we are the country we are because, whether people be Irish Catholics or Vietnamese refugees or any other race, wherever they have come from, people have come to Australia and made it the great country that it is today. (Time expired)20:12:0023929Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise tonight to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. The member for Grayndler, Mr Albanese, said earlier that many on the coalition side are uncomfortable. Let me assure him: I am not uncomfortable at all. This bill meets the expectations of my constituents perfectly. I will deal with the comments from the member for Grayndler later.To given an overview of the aims of the bill and the work that the minister is doing, non-citizens or illegal immigrants who may have been unsuccessful asylum seekers have been using the extensive merits review rights enshrined in the migration legislation to allow them to appeal to the Federal Court and the High Court on visa related matters. The view in my electorate is very much: send them home. Labor being soft on illegal immigrants and non-citizens will not get them elected to any seat in North Queensland. There are two matters of concern at present. One is the cost of and the increase in migration litigation. Last year, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs spent $11 million. They are projected to spend $20 million in 2001-02 in litigious actions, and that does not include the operating cost of the court. To remedy this situation, the minister has introduced the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 [2000]. It has a privative clause which reduces non-citizens' and illegal immigrants' recourse to the Federal Court and the High Court on visa related matters. Of course, this prolongs the proceedings. At the same time, they are eligible for Medicare and other benefits. Sixty per cent of the Federal Court's work is involved in court actions brought by non-citizens. Unfortunately, this bill has been languishing in the Senate, thanks to the ALP and the Democrats, since 1998. I have let this fact be known widely to people in my electorate. Everybody knows that the ALP is soft on illegal immigrants. The second matter is that not only is there a great deal of litigious action but there is an alarming trend now to mount court challenges in migration matters through class or group actions. The aim is for large numbers of people to take action obtaining a visa and, again, to prolong their stay in Australia. I want to make it clear that the actions are by people who have no lawful right to stay in Australia. They are not refugees. They are non-citizens. They are illegal immigrants. They are queue jumpers, jumping ahead of those who have adopted a lawful approach to seeking visas or residency in Australia. If it were not for these class actions, these people would be removed.Let me share with the House a history of class actions. Since October 1997, there have been 14 class actions—the aim being of course to get bridging visas to remain in Australia. Although these bridging visas do not allow non-citizens to work, many of them in fact may work illegally. So what number of these class actions have been successful? None. Ten actions, involving 4,000 participants, have been dismissed by the courts.The member for Grayndler mentioned the Fazal Din case in 1997. This was a technical case that allowed litigants to take, again, an English speaking test, which some passed and some did not. He also mentioned the Macabenta outcome. It was only decided two to one, so obviously some of the judges did not agree. The reality is that it was still the outcome. It was an unsuccessful outcome. Another major concern is that these class actions have developed a pattern of people moving from one class action to another in order again to prolong their stay. I would like to share with the House the opening statement made by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. They mentioned this pattern of litigants moving from one class action to another and that in the Macabenta class action `40 per cent or more of its members were identified as moving between class actions'. In other words, if you cannot succeed in one, move to another and prolong your stay. Maria Macabenta is a case in point as she is now a member of the Ly class action. Ms Macabenta originally challenged her protection visa refusal in July 1996 in the Federal Court. The matter was finalised on 11 July 1997. The class action known as Macabenta commenced on 24 October 1997 and was finalised on 18 June 1999.We are now four years down the track for the date of Ms Macabenta's original application for a protection visa and its refusal, and Ms Macabenta is still in Australia on a bridging visa granted to her as a member of the Ly action. The Ly class action commenced on 10 June 1999 and is yet to be finalised. As a member of that class action, Ms Macabenta can remain in Australia until that action is concluded. This is an appalling example of how these class actions are being exploited and abused.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr Nehl—The goldmines for greedy lawyers. FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Exactly. The member for Cowper is absolutely right. The ALP are leading a lawyer driven recovery: they have no sympathy for citizens and those who are legally attempting to come to Australia. I now move to the ALP's concerns and to the concern we have that some of these people, while they do not have a working visa, may in fact be working in Australia. It is interesting that my concern is a concern shared by the member for Batman. Let me refer to question on notice No. 2282 on the Notice Paper from Mr M. J. Ferguson to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The question reads:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an article published in the Orient on 29 November 2000 concerning the law offices Adrian Joel and Co relating to class actions on immigration cases.(2) Does the article advise that class actions represented by Adrian Joel and Co involve so-called asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected by his Department and the Refugee Review Tribunal, irrespective of whether the applicant's visa has expired.(3) Does the article also advise that once the applicant's name is included in a class action, he or she is automatically entitled to a bridging visa and the right to stay in the country until the case is finalised.(4) What sum of taxpayers' money has his Department spent in defending the integrity of Australia's migration system against class actions mounted by Adrian Joel and Co and how many (a) class actions has the company mounted and (b) clients are involved in these class actions.(5) At what stage are the class actions initiated by Adrian Joel and Co and on what are they based?I hardly thought I would ever be praising the member for Batman, but obviously he is the only member of the opposition that is awake to these concerns. He is obviously concerned that law offices such as Adrian Joel and Co. are mounting class actions. He asks: are they automatically entitled to a bridging visa? Has that been advertised? What sum of taxpayers' money is involved? I am pleased that the member for Batman, as the only responsible member of the opposition, has raised these concerns. What sum of taxpayers' money has been spent? How many class actions have been mounted? How many clients are involved and at what stage are the class actions? It is obvious that the member for Batman is as concerned as we are that these class actions will enable non-citizens to stay in Australia and in many cases take work away from Australians.DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—Queuejumpers.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Exactly—queuejumpers. I would like to read some of the advertisements for these. The member for Batman is absolutely right and should be congratulated for his nationalistic approach. It is a pity he has not been able to convince some of the others in the ALP. Let me read out some of the ads that have been put in the papers. This one, I understand, is in the Tribune International. Allow me to read it to the House.Permanent residence - Australia. Refugee class action. If you have been rejected by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) you may be able to join our class actions at a very low cost. Our latest action is very easy to join (over 1,200 people have already joined!) It doesn't matter if you are illegal—I want the ALP to hear this: `It doesn't matter if you are illegal'—or that your Ministerial Review has been rejected. You still may qualify for a Bridging Visa and become Legal. Please Supply Your Refugee & RRT Decisions. FREE CONSULTATION - You have nothing to lose.The Australian people do. The legal firm is the one mentioned in the member for Batman's question about the papers. I will read out the next one. Unfortunately, it does not say which paper it is in:Permanent Residence - Australia. Refugee class actions!It is pretty much the same as the other ad. It continues:Please supply your refugee and RRT decisions. It doesn't matter if you are illegal or that your Ministerial Review has been rejected. FREE CONSULTATION.This is the very thing that people in my electorate are concerned about. I am appalled that the Labor Party is supporting a lawyer-led recovery. None of these class actions has been successful. The only beneficiaries have been the law firms. The Australian people have lost; the litigants have lost; there have been no outcomes from this, other than for the class action lawyers. In the time left to me, I would like to move to a related matter, if I may. It involves apologists for those who are obviously working against the interests of the Australian people. I would like to refer to articles in the Australian. There was quite a little flood of them in December last year. We had one on 12 December:Migrant skills help make a smart society.That is fine. On Saturday, 9 December:Ruddock must dismantle the walls of secrecy.On Tuesday, 5 December:Kiwis toss Ruddock out the back door.But the one that really draws our attention is the one of Wednesday, 6 December:Immigration policy demands flexibility.Allow me to read this to the House. I will quote from the editorial:But Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock and his department have acquired a reputation for the pursuit of rigidity as an end in itself. Quite apart from the inhumanity of it, such rigidity is contrary to any enlightened view of the national interest.Later in this editorial, we will find out what the Australian's view of the national interest is and what they view as the minister's rigidity. I will move on. They go on to say:... criminal aliens, even if they have been lawful residents for many years and no longer have ties with their native land ...are being deported. It goes on to tell of:... one such man, Graham Ernest Taylor, who faces deportation to Britain, which he last saw 33 years ago aged seven.It then goes on to say:He is in detention and faces “removal” from the country. Although Mr Taylor was a permanent resident, and had the vote, he was never naturalised. Mr Ruddock's parliamentary secretary, Senator Kay Patterson, decided to cancel his visa. Mr Taylor had failed a good-character test because of his criminal record.Then, in an extraordinary statement, the editor goes on to say:Leaving the law to one side ...We are talking about a criminal alien, so we are going to leave the law to one side. But, anyway, we will allow the editor that little indulgence. He goes on to say:Mr Ruddock's approach to criminal deportation raises serious questions.We will find out what the Australian sees as `serious questions'. It goes on to criticise the minister by saying:At best, however, Mr Ruddock has been sending mixed messages. And there are political reasons for being—or appearing to be—tough with criminal aliens.I would have thought that there were. In fact, the political reasons, if you like, are law and order. Oddly enough, Australians do not want in their country aliens who are criminals. That is not a political reason; that is a commonsense reason. I hope that the editor of the Australian thinks better of what he said. In the last two paragraphs—and this is the extraordinary thing—the editor says:Most people would support Mr Ruddock were he to refuse a visa to someone suspected of posing a terrorist threat to Australia.Indeed they would.Most would support him were he to cancel the visa of someone who had recently come to Australia to set up a heroin importation scheme.That is exactly right. Australians have no truck with terrorists or heroin importers. Let me share with the House the criminal charges that Mr Taylor was convicted of, because that is earlier in the article. Remember: these are `political reasons'. The minister has been `rigid'.... Mr Taylor pleaded guilty to sexual offences involving minors and was sentenced to a 3½-year minimum prison term.We are very old-fashioned where I come from. People that sexually interfere with minors are called paedophiles. Mr Taylor was a paedophile, and the minister's rigidity was in expelling a non-citizen, a criminal alien convicted of paedophilia. But, according to the Australian, he is not as serious as a terrorist or a heroin importer. I am afraid the cappuccino ghetto in Sydney has somehow blurred the editor of the Australian's moral compass; it is completely rusted. YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—You could represent a cappuccino set.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—Yes, you could be in a cappuccino set.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Oh, the member for Lowe and I have crossed swords. Here we have the Australian newspaper defending a paedophile, because `really terrorists should be deported and, as for heroin importers, we should cancel their visas but not paedophiles' and `the minister is being rigid'. Let me say that I hope the minister continues to be rigid. I hope that the minister continues to have political reasons like law and order and decency at the forefront and I hope that the pseudointellectuals in the cappuccino ghetto remember that the Australian people do not want criminal aliens convicted of paedophilia in this country. The only thing that needs to change in this editorial to make it true is that, instead of having the Australian, we just put at the top `The UnAustralian', because that is what this rubbishing editorial is—un-Australian. So to the minister: I support absolutely—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPFK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—You want to defend paedophiles? Let it be known that the member for Melbourne wants to defend criminal alien paedophiles. That will go down well in your resume. To the minister: I absolutely support this bill on class actions, the lawyer led recovery that the ALP wants. If the ALP continues to frustrate the bills in the Senate that so plainly people want, you are not going to get a leg up in the regions; you are going to get a boot out. So to the minister: congratulations. I hope he continues his rigidity. I hope he continues with his political reasons, because they are exactly what the Australian people want and they are totally supported by my electorate. (Time expired)20:32:0023933Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The member for Dawson is clearly misguided, but I am here to talk about something more—AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr Nehl—You support paedophiles too?83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—No, I do not. Tonight's bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, further amends the Migration Act—AE4Nehl, Garry, MP83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—No, references to the cappuccino club. Tonight's bill further amends the Migration Act and follows amendments contained in the Migration Reform Act 1992 in two key areas: constriction of judicial review appeals to the High Court at first instance and effective elimination of class actions. I wish to address both these proposed legislative amendments, for the jurisprudence in both these decisions are related but separate.It is important that this House focuses on the moral reasoning behind the proposed amendments tonight. Moral reasoning requires an examination of goods, reflection on empathy and application of right reason. I turn first to the bill's constriction of judicial review appeals to the High Court. What `goods' are in issue here? In his second reading speech of 14 March 2000 on this bill, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, explains that the government's stated policy is to restrict access to judicial review in visa related matters in `all but exceptional circumstances'. What is striking about the minister's comment is that it is unclear what `exceptional circumstances' is supposed to mean. In pragmatic terms, we need go no further than read the commentary in Bills Digest No. 140 in order to understand the rationale latent in this bill. The Bills Digest notes the good the government seeks, as the moral end of this bill, to ameliorate against increasing costs and incidence of migration litigation. But what other goods are in issue here? There are many goods that are potentially trammelled or in direct competition to the stated good of amelioration of court costs to the Commonwealth. These competing goods include loss of rights to procedural fairness as embedded in the executive's power under its judicial review jurisdiction; loss of rights of appeal absolute in the hands of the visa applicant, either alone or as a class; and loss of the executive's power absolute, as it is further restricted or eliminated altogether by prohibitive legislative instrument. These three goods are fundamental to our democratic heritage. Tonight I would like to address each of these three competing goods specifically before drawing an analogy to the economic, utilitarian good of cost cutting as expressed by the minister for immigration. The Bills Digest is heavy with discussion on the possible constitutional impacts of this bill, especially with respect to section 75(v) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The Bills Digest notes that, by virtue of this provision, judicial review of migration decisions comes within the original jurisdiction of the High Court. The question put by the Bills Digest is therefore most prudent:Does the imposition of absolute time limits on applications to the High Court for judicial review impermissibly interfere with the exercise of federal judicial power?I would clarify this question slightly, in that there is a slight error in the question. That is, the power in question is not judicial but executive in nature. For the exercise of judicial review, jurisdiction is akin to the judiciary as agent for the executive in the exercise of its judicial review jurisdiction. What is the relevance of this point to the question at hand about which good must prevail? The answer is that it is the executive power that is the good in competition with this government's so-called policy of costs and court access minimisation. It is the application of the government's so-called policy of jurisdictional denial and cost cutting that trammels the executive's right to review the administrative processes that are a creature of the legislature.This raises one fundamental question: what perspective does the government have in respect of the original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth and its courts? When one reads section 75(v) again, one realises that we are expressly talking about two powers of law that the executive may wield. They are the prerogative writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the inherent right of the Crown to order interlocutory relief through injunction. The question of perspective of original power used to be a question of that very thing called `prerogative'. `Prerogative' in the specific constitutional context is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as:The right of the Sovereign, theoretically subject to no restriction, exercised in Australia by the Governor-General and governors.The word `prerogative' comes from the Latin, prerogativa, meaning to be `asked first'. This is an important definition because this reminds us that the sovereign's prerogative is theoretically subject to no restriction at all. This is as true today as it was before the enactment of the Constitution. Therefore, it is submitted that, even if a law may attempt to restrict the prerogative of the executive, it may be constitutionally precluded from doing so. In my view, this is why the author of the Bills Digest correctly notes:While the Government clearly does not consider that the Bill interferes with the judicial power of the Commonwealth, this question is perhaps one over which constitutional lawyers may be divided.What is `original jurisdiction' anyway? There is section 75, but original jurisdiction transcends mere statutory interpretation. To understand our constitutional law, it is necessary to go to the doctrine of positive law in order to gain a fuller understanding of the powers that are being spoken of here tonight. It is like the Olympic torch: it never goes out. You can move the torch, you can pass it on from one to another, you can increase or decrease the intensity of the torch, but you can never extinguish the torch. So it is with constitutional law and the Governor-General's prerogative. The government—and, I must confess, the amendments of 1992—make the fatal mistake of believing that they can legislate out the positive law that is inherent in the original jurisdiction of the executive. That is, notwithstanding the existence of section 75 and the existence of this bill, there will always remain the residual, theoretically limitless powers of the executive, the Governor-General, by his agent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in holding all powers bestowed, contracted or expanded, modified or retained by the legislature. However, whatever the legislature may pass by bill in this parliament, we are still left with the executive's prerogative, which resides as a residual power. It is an indestructible, immutable thing. It would take an entirely different jurisprudence to eliminate it, and, quite frankly, that just will not happen because reason demands that it cannot ever happen. For the prerogative jurisdiction of the High Court acting as the executive's agent in the application of its judicial review jurisdiction remains just that—an agent which administers a very small part of the executive's total and theoretically limitless power. It is for this reason that it is entirely incorrect for any person, whether they be a member of this House or a member of the public generally, to form the opinion that original jurisdiction flows directly from the statute as if the legislature alone were the ultimate source of the authority of positive law.For what is the authority under which the Governor-General holds his prerogative power? He represents the Crown; he does not represent the people. We do. That does not mean that the legislature should immediately hold that same power even though the Governor--General acts on the advice of the Executive Council, which is in turn composed of the Governor-General as Chairman of the Executive Council along with his ministers. Even if the Executive Council were to cease to exist and the Constitution and all its enabling provisions of Australian and Imperial law were repealed, the Crown's prerogative would remain. Like an elastic band that was stretched, the elastic band would simply snap back to its original length. So it is with prerogative power.I say this tonight in the context of this bill. The bill intends to further delimit the powers of the executive by further limiting the ability of a person to have access to that power. With great respect, the polarity or direction of this entire line of reasoning is wrong. It is wrong because this reasoning seeks to focus on delimiting the natural rights of a person to justice, rather than on addressing the justice that is latent in the hands of the person. Put clearly, the string of legislative amendments to the Migration Act has consistently sought to delimit and ultimately deny a visa applicant, sponsor or other designated person their natural rights to appeal to, first, the Federal Court in 1992 and, now, the High Court in the year 2001. This progressive delimiting of access to judicial review is, as we have noted, simply a cost-cutting exercise designed to delimit a perceived string of actions known as `abuse' cases. The word `abuse' is not my word but the word used in inverted commas in the Bills Digest. It connotes a system whereby vexatious litigants, or litigants seeking to stretch their visas to the limit, seek to remain in Australia as long as they possibly can. Unfortunately, the legitimate cases are thrown out with the illegitimate ones. Is it not the better solution to look at legislative means which address the natural rights and natural obligations of would-be litigants rather than attempt to statutorily prohibit appeals to either the Federal or the High Court?In terms of goods, then, there are conspicuous winners and losers in this bill. The winner is the government and the judiciary: the government saves money and the judiciary can limit a growing courts list of immigration cases. The losers are the individual applicants, sponsors, et cetera. So, too, the executive loses more power at the hands of the judiciary and the legislature. Australia's three-tiered separation of powers of legislature, judicature and executive relies on finely balancing these powers. To limit one of these tiers in favour of another or others is to seriously imbalance these powers.We are empathetic to the cries of the courts; they are overburdened. Civil society is not as a whole very empathetic to the amount of work that is undertaken in our courts. I have a great deal of respect for the pressures and workloads of our judiciary. A prudent and functional judiciary should not be overtaxed with work and should have a workload that is appropriate to the needs of dispensing justice. However, this bill is not the way to go about reducing litigation. The bill seeks to reduce litigation in the High Court by simply locking the gates of justice and throwing away the key. It is a statutory lock-out of potential litigants by creating prohibitive changes to the Migration Act. In particular, the bill seeks to amend a number of elements of the said act. It proposes amendments in line with Justice Weinberg's interpretation of subsection 485(3) of the Migration Act in the case A v. Pelekanakis, 1999, FCA 236. The proposed part 8A of the Migration Act restricts court proceedings in time to lodge with the insertion of a new section 486A, which limits days to appeal to 28 days for a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari—another prerogative writ—or equitable reliefs of declaration or injunction. A new subsection 486A(2) denies the High Court from extending the new 28-day deadline. New section 486C introduces locus standi provisions by defining which people have authority to commence proceedings. Finally, new subsection 486C(2)(c) also introduces locus standi provisions for judicial review of migration decisions not falling within part 8 of the act, including decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and matters commenced pursuant to section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903.The government action of further restricting judicial review appeals to the High Court follows an earlier restriction of judicial review applications to the Federal Court. The Migration Reform Act 1992 dealt with restrictions on judicial review proceedings in the Federal Court. All this achieved was that prospective litigants took their matters to the High Court instead. As a result, the High Court was subjected to an increase in appeals once the Federal Court doors were closed on them.We are witnessing in this House the devolution of executive power to the legislature. It is this legislature which is claiming for itself a power that it does not have, a power to determine the limits of prerogative power and the original jurisdiction of the executive itself. This is nothing new. The legislature has a long history of telling the Crown what to think and what to do. It is the traditional power play between money and votes. However, the result is the same. Those goods which constitute the basis for individual democracy are one and the same powers that rest with the executive—that is, the very purpose of executive power is to oversee the antics of the legislature and the powers bestowed through the legislature to the judicature. That is why this jurisdiction is called judicial review.What is judicial review? Judicial review means literally to review the administrative powers itself. It is the executive taking a bird's-eye view of the operation of law and asking the fundamental questions that distinguish democracy from tyranny: is natural justice being served by the logical consequence of the law as it operates in this case; is procedural fairness maintained by the probative and predictable application of law as it presently stands—that is, with indifference to the outcome and hence without bias; is the rule of law being administered in the manner intended by the legislative draftspeople; is the law being applied in a way that has not resulted in an error of law—that is, the administrator has not misconstrued his or her powers when making a decision such as making a choice whether to grant a visa or not to grant a visa; is the decision manifestly unreasonable under the circumstances—that is, would the reasonable decision maker, in the position of the actual decision maker, have made the same decision as that actually made on the facts before him or her?It is upon these criteria and many others that the foundations of natural justice are based. This is the law of natural justice, procedural fairness and concepts such as legitimate expectations. It is a fundamental law because it is based upon right reason and not upon the edicts of a statute. Statutes come and go, rights are trammelled by misapplication of utilitarian principles, but the rule of law based on the natural law is paramount because the natural law is based upon right reason. It is this authority that surpasses lower authority such as statutory reason or mere precedent of superior courts. I say this because it is inconsistent with right reason to simply shut the doors on applicants to their redress to natural justice through the prerogative writs. Mandamus is an ancient writ which compels a public servant to perform a duty. It asks the question: why did you not perform that duty which you were duty-bound to perform? The mandamus writ therefore compels a lower court or person to perform a task that he or she was duty-bound to perform. Certiorari is a writ from a higher court requesting that records of a case tried in a lower court be referred to a higher court. By comparison, the writ of prohibition from a superior court forbids that a thing be done. These writs are of right. They transcend the immediate interests as espoused by this government. To deny access to these writs is to deny the free flow of natural justice and the system that exists from our cultural legacy. This bill means that a vacuum is created. If these writs are not available as of right, then how is natural justice served? The answer is that natural justice is not served. This is a devastating precedent for both immigration law and the broader body of Commonwealth law. It means that capricious, arbitrary and unjust decision making may be permitted by Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs officers who know that ultimately their decisions may never be subject to judicial review except under the vague notion of `exceptional circumstances,' a term with no legal definition and a term to be tried laboriously through the courts in the future. It will be very interesting to see how the courts interpret this law and how the legal profession responds to this new law.The alternative is a system based on the natural rights of the applicant and rights in the public interest. This is a trend that is not seen in this bill before us tonight. The opposition opposes schedule 1 of this bill for precisely these reasons. This bill is an affront to the public interest. This bill is an insult to private rights. It is no solution to deny the operation of the public on the one hand because of expedient financial and utilitarian interests of attempting a quick fix of court waiting lists simply because the government will not make the necessary funding to the courts to facilitate an administrative system of its own making. This is an attempt to bury the victims and deny responsibility. If Australia is to remain being known as a country of true justice and freedom it must resist the temptation of being drawn to draft legislation such as this legislation before the House tonight which denies the good operation of natural justice in this way.I would now in conclusion like to address the issue of class actions. This is much the same issue but the theme is slightly different. My only concern with class action is that if they are capricious then remedies ought to be found to make the parties accountable if they are indeed found to be acting in some process of `abuse,' as the Bills Digest so aptly notes. This may involve expansion of the law of malicious prosecution or some other civil remedy against such persons seeking to extend their stay beyond their reasonable time limit. I conclude with the position consistent with the opposition that, for the reasons I have mentioned, I oppose schedule 1 of this bill. We are establishing a most dangerous precedent which transcends the immediacy of immigration law, a precedent that seeks to consume all law making in Australia.It is imperative that we do the following when drafting laws: maintain the position of the executive; restore balance in the balance of powers; maintain the rule of law; maintain the principles of procedural fairness that must be made available to all persons within the jurisdiction of Australia; punish those who would seek to profit from vexatious litigation through punitive measures, rather than seeking to undermine the laws of natural justice; preserve the judicial review jurisdiction of the courts acting as agents for the executive; deny restrictive statutory amendments such as those proposed in the new part 8A of the Migration Act contained in this bill, which seeks to fundamentally undermine the autonomy of the executive by legal fiction that executive power is exclusively the domain of legislative instruments such as acts of parliament, which it is not; and ensure that the Constitution itself is not fundamentally compromised by the application of such powers as those proposed in this bill. For these reasons I have outlined here in the House this evening I oppose schedule 1 and call on this House to review schedule 1 and particularly for the government to come to its senses before this legislation leaves the House and goes to the other chamber. 20:52:0023938Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I am pleased to support the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 and I commend the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for bringing forward this legislation. It adds considerably in improving the way in which we process illegal migrants and asylum seekers in this country. I am on two parliamentary committees that have been looking actively at this whole question of asylum seekers and illegal migrants in this country: the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, headed up by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Chris Gallus—who has provided excellent leadership in this area—and the Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights, which has been looking at detention centres in Port Hedland, Perth, Woomera and Villawood. Having interchange with a lot of the recent arrivals to Australia who are in these detention centres—having seen them first-hand—gives you an appreciation of the problems that have been addressed by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and of the difficulties in this area. There is no simple solution. The minister is not trying to claim that there are no problems—there are obviously difficulties associated with this area—but this particular bill is addressing one aspect of this area.It is important to recognise how quickly most of the migrants and asylum seekers who come to this country are processed. There is a view that it is an interminable process. I commend the minister for the speed with which people are now processed. It is not an easy task, especially when people arrive in the country with no papers. Doing assessments on an individual—what country they come from, their medical condition, their security risk to the country, whether they have had any criminal conviction at all—obviously takes some time. In fact I notice that the minister's press release issued on the 4 February says that since mid-1999 the number of trained staff allocated to process asylum claims has more than doubled. Further, while 80 per cent of protection claims made by boat arrivals in late 1999 received a decision within 7½ months, this has been reduced to less than 15 weeks for applications made in late 2000. So 80 per cent of all those who arrive illegally in this country are processed within 15 weeks. The human rights committee had discussions with detainees and determined that a whole lot of people had been in these detention centres for 1½ years and others for two and, in some cases, three years. Obviously that is not something we would necessarily support. But, as checks are made and as these people have failed to meet certain criteria, they are kept in longer, especially if there are difficulties in returning them to their country of origin.The minister is addressing a significant problem in this country. Firstly, I think it is important to recognise that we in Australia believe in a fair go. A fair go constitutes looking at the migrants coming into this country, and most people do so in terms of the legal process. Migrants accumulate a certain number of points and then they qualify because of the points that are registered. But of course there are those who come as refugees and asylum seekers to this country. I think members of this House would certainly support the whole process of recognition of refugees, given our signature to human rights conventions and the UN charter on these provisions. Each year an allocation of 10,000 people come in under this category. We are showing consideration and concern for people who say they are escaping from oppression in their own country or who believe that in the future they would be oppressed if they stayed in that country and who want to start a new life in Australia. We support and applaud that desire for freedom in a new country. If these people are unsuccessful in the first process—in the primary decision—as was said in the minister's press release, 80 per cent are processed in less than 15 weeks in places like Port Hedland and Woomera. A lot of those people are out of there by way of a bridging visa in 10 to 12 weeks. If they fail that primary decision, they go forward to the Refugee Review Tribunal. That can take a varying amount of time. The minister has indicated that, where a case has gone to the RRP, processing time has consistently averaged less than 70 days. I think that is a considerable improvement as well—that is, where you have a group that is independent from the immigration department and from any other source assessing the claim of an individual to be classified as a refugee. So they are reviewed. If they fail that test, quite often moves are made to have them repatriated to their country of origin. There are some difficulties in repatriating such people to countries where we do not have formal agreements—where countries do not want to take people who are being involuntarily repatriated—but for the most part the process begins at that point. Of course these people can take action in the High Court on legal aspects of their case or they can simply agree to be repatriated. So what we are dealing with is that category of people who have failed to be classified as refugees—they have failed to convince the independent Refugee Review Tribunal that they are genuine refugees. They have decided to look at other alternatives, and so then look at this question of class action. It is this area of class action which is of concern in this legislation.It is not that we do not recognise the claims of genuine refugees in this country. This is directed at those who want to stay on beyond the period of time where they have been given a fair chance to prove their credentials, and who are now looking at various avenues to try to get a claim up. I know that there are various members who are sympathetic to the situation of claimants who find themselves in detention centres. Class action sounds good to people: a group joining together in a claim against the minister. But it is basically just another way of staying longer in the country. As one who was on a recent human rights committee, I see no great benefit in people trying to prolong their stay in the country. But, if they do want to avoid the legal process, class action is one of their ways of doing that. To date, 10 migrant class actions have been taken out, involving 9,000 non-residents seeking the right to remain in Australia, despite a determination by DIMA, the MRT, the RRT and, in some cases, the minister as well, that they should leave. So they are looking at this further review process as a means of staying in the country. The track record of these class action cases, however, shows that they have all failed. These people have seen that they have something in common—they have all been refused on the basis of our established criteria for genuine refugees—and they have sued the minister. The question here is whether this is the appropriate way to go. I can see other members in this House who would have genuine sympathy for the case of refugees coming to this country. But, if there are problems, let us try to address them in other ways. If there are problems in terms of the length of time or delays, let us put more resources into it. If there are questions of definition of the people coming here and how they can be reviewed, let us look at that. If there are questions about accommodation, let us also review some aspects of the detention program. If we do not support this legislation, what we are saying to illegal migrants or those who have failed the refugee test is that anything is possible, anything goes, as a way of staying in this country. If people had had genuine claims, I believe they would have been found in the first place. Bear in mind—as was stated by the minister in his press release of 4 February—that in 80 per cent of claims the decision is made within 7½ months. After a decision has been made, they then have the opportunity for the RRT. So this is simply another way of prolonging the process. It is enormously costly and it is causing unexpected delays in the whole process. If they are unsuccessful with one class action, some of them—20 per cent of them—simply move to another class action. Some people might say, `You are lacking compassion. You don't understand the problems of these particular cases.' I have got to say that in a lot of the cases there is a genuine need for compassion and understanding of people who are genuinely leaving difficult situations in their own country and are wanting to start a new life. Of course, Australia is made up of many such people—people who have left their own countries and have come here to make this country great. We support that. People can miss out for various reasons. They may be found not to be genuine refugees; they may have made out that they were oppressed in a country where oppression has occurred simply to come in, or they may have actually been involved in some criminal activity in their country. For whatever reason, they have been denied access to this country and this is another way of entry. That is my concern. By all means let us have a genuine debate in this House about the way we address this significant problem of refugees. There is no doubt that this is something confronting us which our parents' generation did not have to confront, which those 20 years ago did not have to confront but which is now a significant issue with boat arrivals being almost a weekly, if not almost a daily, occurrence—where the number of illegal migrants arriving by air continues to increase.So how do we address this? If we just simply say, `Look, this is fine. Let's go on. Let's allow class action because this is the natural right of individuals,' we are not coming to grips with the basic problem that we have, which is to establish a program where people have got the right to claim asylum in this country—and that is fair and right. We have established an independent body—83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—But not to put them into jail—behind barbed wire!MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—Well, there are varying views about the way they should be detained, and it might be appropriate to debate that whole question in this House: whether we follow the Swedish model or follow other models. I am sure that this is going to be on the agenda and I have noticed that the Australian has taken up the issue as well. Having been on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I have got to say that the minister has significantly improved the processing of the applications and the way that people are moved through, so the problems the member for Fowler raises may not be as significant as they would otherwise have been. Of course, if people are detained for some years, it is an issue that is worth addressing. But to allow people to go into these class actions, simply using lawyers in this way as another ruse to avoid the legitimate rights of Australians to protect their borders and to decide on what basis they want to let people into the country, is a different matter. We have those who go through the normal process and we have those who have decided for whatever reason to avoid the normal process—and we accept many of them into this country. But this is simply saying that, beyond all that, beyond the normal process—the Refugee Review Tribunal made up of independent people—we do not want to allow this sort of class action.Class actions for those people are clearly in conflict with other laws of this country. While class actions can be used in various ways, in this case they are contrary to the Migration Act. Each individual is different and must be assessed in terms of his or her application—including background and professional expertise—and any claim to be a genuine refugee. What is a person's history in terms of oppression in his or her country of origin and what is the likelihood of that person being oppressed in the future? To say that 9,000 people in a class action are all equal is nonsensical in the context of a migration application. There is also the question of where test cases can be run. The department has considered that matter but the lawyers have opposed it because it is simply a way of maximising employers' revenue in this context.The abuse of class actions continues under this system and this bill is attempting to end that abuse and the misuse of our legal system. Our laws are exploited and our conventions flouted in order to extend stays in this country. Many unscrupulous practitioners are operating in this area and exploiting people. If people are not to be allowed to remain in this country, they should know why. Their hopes should not be raised falsely. People often think, `Well, there's a chance; all of the lawyers are telling me that this is the way to go.' However, all these actions have been unsuccessful. Is this approach fair and humane? That is another point that we must consider. Successive governments—Labor and coalition—have addressed this significant issue, and I know that this minister has considered it seriously. The increasing workload in the Federal Court in migration litigation cost DIMA approximately $11 million in 1998-99 and an estimated cost of more than $20 million in 2001-02. I would like to see that money spent on upgrading facilities in some detention centres. More resources should be devoted to speeding up the review process rather than wasting our funds on the joint action program, which has a low success rate.The Joint Standing Committee on Migration—I see other members of that committee in the chamber—has a harmonious view of life on most occasions. Committee members work together very well and are genuinely interested in and concerned about the welfare and wellbeing of those who wish to come to this country. I think this House should send a message that this is not the appropriate way to proceed. By all means, let us look at aspects of the detention program, but it will not solve our perceived problems. I think the minister is right to bring forward this legislation. It is a significant step forward to eliminate this ruse used by lawyers that does not provide a sensible solution for those seeking genuine refuge in this country. This country stands for freedom and for the welfare of those from overseas who are genuinely oppressed, and we want that to continue. However, those who illegitimately exploit the legal system through joint or class action programs should not be encouraged. That is what this legislation is about. I commend it to the House and I commend the minister for his actions.21:11:0023941Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—When this government sets about reducing the rights of people, when it sets itself apart from those nations that pride themselves on their human rights and when it attacks the few rights that some people have, we must question this government's motives. We must ask why it is so determined to restrict people's rights. In this case, the government is seeking to restrict access to class actions in the migration jurisdiction in the High Court and the Federal Court. If we ask why the government is seeking to make these changes, it is hard to find a reasonable answer. In this debate, and throughout the inquiry conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, coalition members have failed to explain why this legislation is needed—or at least why it is in the best interests of Australia. But it is not about the national interest; it is about self-interest: the narrow self-interest of coalition members. You see, a certain redhead is back in town and all the boys on the coalition benches are trying to catch her eye. They have put on the Old Spice and the Californian Poppy, they have polished the old FJ Holden, they are flexing their anti-migration muscles and now they are trying to outdo each other to show how much like One Nation they can be. We can smell the political hormones—or perhaps it is the Old Spice—in the air. When we speak of the coalition, we can now refer to the grand coalition: the coalition between the Liberal Party and the National Party and, as we can now see in Queensland and in Western Australia, the coalition between the National Party and Pauline Hanson's One Nation. It is a cosy little triangle and this legislation is a result of the policy direction that the coalition, with Pauline Hanson's One Nation, has brought about. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!We can imagine just how much further the Liberal and National parties will go to keep their new coalition partner happy. Where are the small `l' Liberals who championed the cause of human rights? Where are those who worked to establish Australia's reputation as a leader in human rights? They are at home studying the opinion polls: they have one eye on the poll data and the other on their wafer-thin margins. They think One Nation preferences will save them, but they will not. This legislation is a result of the sort of polling that looks at narrow interests concentrated in individual seats, legislation which aims to please the most narrow-minded and prejudiced in the electorate, which is not in the best interests of our nation as a whole, and which throws out of the window our hard-earned reputation as a leader in human rights. But this legislation ignores the opinions of the great majority of Australians. We should never lose sight of the fact that we are a nation of immigrants. Many of those arrivals would have experienced immigration officers like the one described in Harry Martin's book Angels and Arrogant Gods. He quotes a former immigration officer's view of his colleagues:Some of our officers in the early days felt like God and behaved that way.It seems that spirit is alive and well in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs today. When you look at DIMA's approach to this bill, it becomes clear that DIMA regards class actions as a nuisance. Court action extends the time taken to determine a case, and it uses up departmental resources. It costs money; it is not efficient. If DIMA looks at its performance in terms of the quantity of its output rather than its quality, it creates an even greater need for judicial review. And a department that is keen to make the cost savings contained in this legislation may also cut corners at other levels. In short, the more DIMA looks at its efficiency the greater the need for judicial review. When individuals challenge the might of DIMA, that is a fair fight. But if individuals band together to take on DIMA, that is unfair and an abuse of the system. Never mind the fact that those who have taken part in class actions have little in the way of financial resources. Never mind the fact that they are among the most disadvantaged people to come before the courts. They are just a nuisance. They cost money. They make the bottom line look bad. `Well,' says the minister, `we'll fix them. Let's take away their right to join a class action. We know they cannot fight alone because they do not have the money to take us on. They do not have that sort of money.' The department will save money and will earn some brownie points with the One Nation crowd at the same time. As DIMA stated in its submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration:These changes might bring substantial savings to the Commonwealth ... Litigation in class actions was lengthy, complex and therefore expensive ... There would be a reduction in costs currently incurred to establish the migration status details of those who were parties to class actions.DIMA added:Cost was not a significant motivating factor. Despite its protest, what it comes down to is the bottom line. But this view forgets one important thing: we are, after all, dealing with people's lives. The issues involved in this legislation were, as I have mentioned, examined in detail by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, of which I am a member. The legislation was referred to the committee in April of last year and the report was tabled last October. The conclusions and recommendations of the report regarding access to class actions were not approved by all members of the committee and a dissenting report was issued by Labor and Democrat members. The committee received a total of 31 submissions, from organisations and individuals. The great majority of submissions expressed concern about restricting access to class actions. Many submissions raised the issue of human rights and Australia's international obligations, making a strong case for opposing the restrictions. The committee therefore spent considerable time on this part of its inquiry. The points made in the submission stress Australia's international obligations; as these are summarised in the report, I will briefly run through them. The International Commission of Jurists referred to article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal ...The commission further referred to paragraph 27 of the Vienna declaration as a recent statement of the principles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which says:Every state should provide an effective framework of remedies to redress human rights grievances or violations. The Law Council of Australia argued that Australia, to avoid breaching its international obligations, must have an effective procedure to determine the validity of an asylum seeker's claim. Whether these requirements were met by the Refugee Review Tribunal or the Immigration Review Tribunal was questioned by a number of submissions which drew the committee's attention to article 14 of the ICCPR. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission claimed the tribunals did not satisfy the requirements of article 14, which, it said, requires `a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, impartial tribunal'. The Law Council of Australia and Amnesty International also referred to article 14, saying that it provides that `all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals'. This point was also taken up by the National Council of Churches in Australia, whose view was that the bill would seek `to treat asylum seekers in a manner different to all other persons, in contravention of article 14'.In its examination of the bill, the Refugee Council of Australia implied that the bill went against the obligation set out in the ICCPR, articles 2, 14 and 26, `to give non-citizens access to the courts on the same terms as nationals'. The question of whether the bill contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights turns on how you see Australia's obligations under the ICCPR. The government seems to think it is sufficient to have `full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal'. But is the obligation a broader one which extends to giving non-citizens access to the courts on the same terms as nationals? The difference here is not just a matter of splitting legal hairs. It is not a matter for legal interpretation at all. It is a question for this parliament to decide—whether we should interpret our international obligations in a narrow sense or in a broader fashion. In preparing a dissenting report, Labor and Democrat members have taken the broader definition of our international obligations. This is the real point of difference between the coalition and Labor, between a coalition government seeking to shirk our international obligations and Labor, which sees Australia as a leading advocate of human rights. If the cost of that leadership is to inconvenience DIMA, it is a very, very small price to pay.What was the DIMA response? They accepted that article 14 indicates that judicial review should be available but advised that according to the Attorney-General's Department the bill's provisions relating to class actions did not break any conventions. Here again is the point of difference. Do we want to set an example as a responsible nation, a leader in human rights, or merely do the minimum required of us? Do we look for legal loopholes to avoid our obligations? The difference between Labor and the government on this is very clear. One would expect that the changes contained in this bill were warranted so as to prevent serious abuse of the system. Yet DIMA were not able to convince the Labor and Democrat members of the committee that this was the case. As the dissenting report states, while there was a potential for exploitation, DIMA did not prove that there was such widespread abuse as to require the legislative action proposed in the bill. This is a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The alternative proposed by DIMA to replace access to class actions included the increased use of test cases. As these would be in a sense sponsored by DIMA, they would hardly be seen as independent and impartial as required under article 14 of the ICCPR.But the issues here go beyond the question of the cost and inconvenience to the department and in a way they go beyond the principles of human rights obligations. In the end, each case that is considered is a real person. Always remember that: each case is a real person. When preparing this speech, I looked through the immigration files in my electorate office to see the circumstances of people involved in class action cases. I will not mention their names, but these are the sorts of issues that come before the courts in these cases. I think some of these stories have got to be told. These do come before the courts. These are real people. We have always got to remember that: these are real people. They deserve the same rights as all Australian citizens. The first case involves an applicant for permanent resident status who claims that his application was not properly processed when it was lodged with the department. While the department has denied that it received the application, independent sources have suggested that there were problems—and there were problems—at the office where the application was lodged at the time that the claimed lodgment was made. What would an Australian citizen do in such circumstances? Surely they would expect to be able to take the matter as far as possible. But, under this bill that we are debating in the House tonight, we would deny similar rights to a non-citizen. The second case is one which concerns me greatly, and this is indeed a genuine case; a woman I have the privilege to know. A woman who has been an outspoken campaigner against female genital mutilation in her homeland was denied a protection visa. She holds grave fears for the safety of her daughter and herself if she is forced to return. Faced with such prospects, would not any Australian citizen use all legal avenues available to protect their daughter? I have a beautiful daughter and I would protect her in any way possible. But, contrary to article 14 of the ICCPR, she would be denied that right. These are real people. How our system deals with them should be the same as it would apply to us. We should not have one rule for us and another for the rest. You can take the Hansonite approach, which the Liberal and National parties seem to be taking in Queensland and Western Australia, and deny access to class actions. You may even attempt to justify this by narrowly defining Australia's international obligations. But, in the end, we as a nation will be judged not just by how we treat our own citizens but by how we treat others as well. Those parts of the bill dealing with section 486B of the Migration Act must be opposed.21:28:0023944Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I am very pleased to speak on this Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, as I welcome the opportunity to highlight the very real concerns that some members of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration have with the proposals being put forward by the government today. Like so much of the migration related legislation that is discussed and debated in this chamber, Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 reinforces the tireless attitude of this government of punishing immigrants by disenfranchising them from the Australian justice system.I have spoken numerous times on the hardship and humiliation people undergo throughout the Australian migration process. It does not matter what category of entry to Australia a person may choose to apply under, he or she will be subjected to a migration process of relentless suspicion and speculation. Their personal relationships will be questioned, their morality will be examined and their integrity will be undermined. Migration to Australia is pretty much considered a criminal offence by this government, and the amendment bill we are debating tonight further entrenches in our justice system the notion that migrants and refugees are not entitled to Australia's fundamental judicial practice of innocent until proven guilty.There are two elements of this bill that I find quite alarming. The first relates to the methodology used by the government to examine the utility of class and/or representative actions being used in the system of judicial review. The second concern I have is the implication that the changes to the review jurisdiction of the Federal and Supreme Courts are unconstitutional. Many other things have been said about this bill, but I might just focus on these two particular points. The opposition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration tabled a dissenting report on the inquiry into the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. The dissenting report primarily discussed the inquiry's considerations to restrict access of class actions for judicial review of migration decisions by the Federal Court and the High Court. As is indicated in our report, the inquiry failed to conclude that the use of class and/or representative actions was being abused and being used to simply delay a person's departure from Australia. The inquiry simply did not receive compelling arguments that the abuse of class actions exists at all. The government members of the committee were also forced to accept that the evidence provided to the inquiry was not sufficient to pinpoint class actions as a particular problem. The government members concluded that class actions were not an abuse of the system, that the process could be abused and that the level of abuse was not quantified. Yet the government did not provided a sufficient alternative to allay their fears of class action abuse. The key rationale for the class action provisions of this bill could not be and is not sustained. There was no firm evidence of any kind of the claimed abuse of this process, which is the rationale for restricting the access in the first place. But there was no indication that alternatives to the proposed legislative solution had even been considered by the government at all. So the government has a perception that class actions can be abused, and the only solution offered is the removal of the judicial review process. Like so many of the migration decisions made by this government, the outcome is to punish the many in order to catch the few.The inquiry also considered submissions and testimony from numerous interest groups which indicated that the courts already have mechanisms for filtering and dismissing frivolous or illegitimate applications. Contrary to the government's reasoning, the National Council of Churches of Australia, the NCCA, argued that the failure of a class action case could not be taken as proof of abuse. The Law Council of Australia commented further that the courts have not described any of the unsuccessful class actions as abusive action or behaviour. The inquiry heard further evidence that the success rate of class action reviews in the High Court could be remedied if the government showed a commitment to real solutions to migration problems. The government proposal to restrict access to class actions is aimed squarely at the applicants, that is, the ones most likely to be seeking redress through the courts. I do not consider the restriction of class action as an appropriate solution to the alleged abuses. The NCCA pointed out that the lack of merit in some actions may reflect an abuse of legal advice rather than a decision to exploit the review process itself. Alternative remedies to this were discussed at the public hearings conducted by the committee, with an understanding that better access to lawyers and ethical migration agents would enable applicants for judicial review to obtain professional advice to clients on the avenues of appeal and the prospects of their particular case. It was evident to the committee that individual migration agents were well placed to use the class action appeal process to their professional advantage. The Migration Agents Registration Authority, MARA, had failed to address DIMA concerns of this practice being undertaken. The dissenting report concluded:The performance of MARA, the body that is responsible for monitoring the conduct of registered agents, should be of grave concern to the Government and the migration advice industry in general.It was clear to the opposition members, and I am sure also to the government members, of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration that alternative action was a viable solution to the government's claims of class action abuse. It was also evident to the opposition members of the committee that the government had not intended to remedy the real problems with the judicial review process in the first instance. Rather, the government has clung to a notion of class action abuse, regardless of an overwhelming lack of evidence, and intends to punish the innocent based on this false premise. I have already touched on the notion that migration applicants are subject to an assessment and judicial process unknown to others in Australia. It would appear that the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 will now institutionalise the inequity of Australian migration regardless of the impact on the Federal and High Courts and potential illegality of judicial review process. An element of the government's explanation for the restriction of class action on migration review decisions has focused on the cost and time class actions take in the court system itself. Despite the government's desire to eliminate review applications in the courts by making the process financially harder on an individual, there is significant potential that restriction of access to class actions would have a negative impact on the court system. Individuals will now be required to commence separate proceedings, which will increase the workload of the courts. Some of those proceedings may also serve as test cases. The success of one proceeding may encourage others of a similar nature. Again, this would mean a greater volume of litigation for the court system, and the justices of the High Court have made very clear their opposition to this prospect.So what is the government's solution to the potential of litigation increasing? Restrict the rights of the applicant even further. Yes, deny the applicant the opportunity of full and equal judicial review. What an innovative idea from a government against immigration! So, rather than allowing an individual the opportunity to access the full judicial review process of Australia, this bill will introduce a time limit on the making of applications to the High Court for review of migration decisions. The time limits, 28 days from decision, are to be absolute and not able to be varied by the court.There seems to be a problem with this restriction. There appears to be a debate on whether an absolute time limit for appeal to the High Court is constitutional. This brings me to the second point which I feel has a great impact on this bill. The question which arises is whether the imposition of absolute time limits on applications to the High Court for judicial review impermissibly interfere with the exercise of federal judicial power. As suggested in the research on this specific threat to the separation of powers in Australia's political executive, I am going to leave that debate to the constitutional lawyers. I want specifically to touch on the point that what we have today is a government which is prepared to introduce legislation that could—I stress `could'—undermine the Australian Constitution and tie up the High Court and the Federal Court in further litigation, all because approximately 3,500 people have sought class action judicial review. You might think that 3,500 is a lot of people; it is, but over 10 years it is a reasonable figure.The astounding part of this debate is that the government has failed to provide sufficient evidence in support of these amendments, it has not considered any viable alternatives to allay its fears of class action abuse and, finally, it has refused to address substantial problems in its own migration process and how these problems are monitored. In light of any evidence of practical gain from these legislative changes, I would recommend that the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for further consideration. I would reserve my right to move, amend or oppose relevant parts of the bill following the committee's report.Finally, I touch on a couple of issues which are relevant to this debate and poignant. This government is spending disproportionate amounts of taxpayers' money in what it is beating up to be a bigger problem than actually exists. It is spending millions of dollars in places like Woomera, out in the middle of nowhere. If you stand on a building at Woomera and turn 360 degrees, you will not see a tree. If you turn 360 degrees again, you will not see another building. If you keep looking on the horizon for any landmark, you will see that there really are not any. If someone were to leave this detention centre, there would be nowhere to go, as has been seen. That is the reality. Yet to ensure that people are not going to escape from these centres, we build more security, higher walls and bigger fences when they are not needed. It reinforces the mentality and attitude in these centres that these people are not going through a traditional process of migration to Australia and are more than just detainees. They are being made out to be criminals. In effect, after very lengthy periods of waiting—up to two years and I have heard of some which are longer—detainees lose patience with what would be reasonable attitudes towards the government and not knowing. It is more the fact that they are there sometimes for up to 12 or 24 months and do not know what is happening to them. Either they do not have language skills or they do not have any support. They are kept in what are inhospitable conditions. Being on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I have visited these places. Our report was entitled `Not the Hilton'. I assure you that Woomera is not the Hilton. We are seeing disproportionate amounts of money being spent on a problem which does not exist in the first place. But if you repeat the lie enough and seem to be doing something about something which is not happening in the first place, then people say, `Look, they're doing something about a problem.' But, of course, the problem never existed to start with. The problem manifested itself out of nothing. That concerns me. Regardless of how you classify people, whether they are immigrants through the traditional process of migration, refugees, asylum seekers or others, then sometimes there are no other choices but to come to this country to seek asylum through other than normal channels. The government must be understanding of that.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—They don't have the heart.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—That is right; they do not have the heart. Government members in this debate have used emotional tactics. Why would these people come to this country and destroy their papers, their identification? They say that it is to prolong the process here of trying to identify who they are. Why would you do that? Sooner or later you are identified and, if your claims are not bona fide, then you are deported. What would be the bonus of sitting for 12 months or two years in a detention centre, for example in Woomera in the middle of the desert, when eventually you have to go back? The conditions there are probably harsher than where they have come from.As I have said in previous debates, I think the hardship which some people go through to leave the persecution and potential death which they face in their own country is sometimes exacerbated by the conditions and the criminality which we impose on these people when they come to our shores. The government has made it very clear from the outset with pamphlets and brochures trying to scare off people. You do not scare off people with lies and with, `If you land on our shore, you are going to be eaten by a crocodile or a shark or you are going to be killed by someone.' These are lies. This is a fraudulent reflection on the Australian nation. This is not what our country is about. This is not who we are as Australians. This is not the identity we built up. We do not do that. Yet it was attempted. It was only through great pressure brought by ordinary Australians here in Australia that we saw the government and the minister take a second look and say, `Hang on, we might be on the wrong track here. We've missed the boat on this politically.'This is a political issue. This is not really about the migrants, the refugees, the asylum seekers. This is a difficult subject for all governments of any persuasion. It is always difficult to manage migration, but you can do it effectively and responsibly. We are seeing this government not being responsible. It is saying, `If you come here, you will be eaten by a crocodile.' That is not responsible. `If you come here, we will stick you in a detention centre indefinitely and we will not tell you what is happening to you. We will break all of the laws of natural justice. We will break all of the laws of what happens in this country to every other person, regardless of whether or not they are a citizen. We will do that and we will do it irresponsibly.' That is what they are doing. Immigration should not be a political topic. It should be about dealing with these issues. If people come here who are not bona fide, then they will have to leave. On both sides, I think we agree with that. I am talking about the process here, the process which this government says will make things better. When DIMA was before us at the public hearings, we asked the supposed experts, the heads of department, some very simple questions—you can check the Hansard for this. I asked, `Will this save the government money?' `Óh, yes, Minister, of course it will, lots of money.' `How much money?' `Just lots.' I said, `Really. That is funny; that is not what the minister says. The minister says that this could cost the Commonwealth money.' They say, “Oh, well, then it might cost money.' So I am saying, `Which one is it? Will it save a lot of money—buckets, big loads—or will it cost us potentially some money?' `We'll get back to you on that.' That was one premise: we have to have this because we have to save money. So that is that one out the door. `Is it constitutional?' `We have advice which says it is.' `Can we have a look at this advice?' `Sure, eventually.' So we get the advice. I can read legalese just a bit. I clearly read that it says you could deduce that it might be constitutional if it were not unconstitutional, if you know what I mean.The advice basically says, `Look, call it whatever you like, but don't come back to us and blame us and say that we told you it was constitutional because what we are saying is that we are not giving you an opinion.' So it was very good legal advice. When I looked at all of the reasons the government demanded to have these changes, I could not find one bona fide reason based in fact. I could find plenty of reasons based on innuendo and speculation—a whole range of irresponsible reasons—but not one real reason based in fact. If the committee charged with reviewing these bits of legislation had been shown any skerrick of evidence or fact we would have accepted it. We did not accept it because the evidence pointed the other way. It said, `There is no abuse that we can point to in fact.' What we saw was the government saying, `Those facts are not the facts; these are the facts on which we will be basing our decision.' The opposition members were left to ponder what we were to do so we wrote a dissenting report. It was the only option we, and the Democrats, had. We do not want to frustrate the process; we simply want the facts to come forward. Who would not want the facts to come forward? But when you have a committee that absolutely refuses to accept the hard cold facts from everyone who comes before it in evidence, what are you to do? You have to write a dissenting report—not to frustrate the system, as I said, but merely to present the facts as they stand, unaltered. This bill will not make any changes that will benefit the public, the government, the taxpayer or, more importantly, anyone who is currently sitting in a detention centre. It will not make any difference. If the government were serious about addressing this problem—because there is a problem out of there—it would tackle the problems where they exist. Let us look at migration agents, at their ethics and at how they operate. Let us look at how advertising takes place in the industry. It does not just encourage people to take class-actions, it almost guarantees them a win. Let us look at a whole range of things but let us not point all of the blame to those people who take part in a class action, which they are so entitled to choose, because they are seeking redress. They are seeking the full availability of the law as any other person in their right mind would do. Why wouldn't you? If you have come here and you are bona fide, and you believe you are bona fide, why wouldn't you take any option available to you? Why shouldn't Australia and the government allow that to take place, unless there are other motives, and I am yet to find out what those other motives are? Finally, I think this bill is absolutely wrong. It is incorrect, it is misguided, it is irresponsible and it will cost the taxpayer more money rather than less and, in the end, it will make no difference. It will increase the workload of the courts. It will make the work of the courts harder and it will threaten the Constitution. I think these are serious issues, serious concerns, and the government should just take another look. 21:48:0023949Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I think the useful point to start is to join with the member for Oxley in conceding at the start that the area of immigration, and particularly that relating to refugees, is not unproblematic. It is certainly true that amongst those many deserving people who come to this country there are some who misuse and abuse the system. That said, it is no different from any other walk of life, from any other circumstance, from any other citizen or any other noncitizen. But there is no other area of our legal administration where we assume the infallibility of bureaucrats. There is no reason why we should as a nation, which is not beset with evidence that these systems are being abused to a degree which would warrant this legislation, pursue a course which really is only being pursued in this instance, I believe, because of political considerations. The member for Fowler, who made a very strong and useful contribution regarding the work that has been done by the parliamentary committee, and the very incisive minority report which went through the evidence that was presented made that point very clearly.I think it is useful firstly, though, to avoid some of the pejorative language that has been used in this House. It is not right to find ourselves gathering in the parliament of Australia and describing people who come to this country and seek refuge here as all—and I use the words that have been used—criminal aliens. This is not language appropriate to such people. Some, of course, will be seeking to abuse the system, some will be lying, some will be creating false stories and fictions in order that they can make their claims but others will be deserving; others will require protection. It is certainly not the case that those who assess matters relating to these claims always get it right. If it were the case that they always got it right, we would not have a review process in place. This parliament would not have established it. We would have simply left it to the first decision of an assessing official of the department of immigration. To be fair to those officers, I believe they do their best. But they are under great pressure and I suspect that, in many instances, they err towards scepticism, knowing that there are other review options available. Then, a person who is refused has the opportunity of having their matter assessed by the Immigration Review Tribunal processes. Again, those involved in those processes do their best, and I have many good friends and associations with people who are doing a very good job in Australia's interests to sift out those who are deserving applicants, not only in the refugee stream but in the general stream, and to make correct and proper decisions. But nor do they always get it right.The suggestion that we should exclude from our minds the possibility that errors at that stage cannot be reached is wrong. There are a number of instances where the Federal Court and other courts—the High Court of Australia—have upheld appeals. It is important first to nail the perception that no successful cases have been brought against those determinations. The report of the parliament assessing these matters drew our attention to two successful matters where class actions were undertaken which resulted in an overturning of the prior decision—the decisions in Fazal Din and Lay Kon Tji.But whether or not we have a perfect system—and no-one would ever assess that we are capable of creating a perfect system—and whether or not it is wrong for anyone in this House to pursue a course which demonises all those people who come here seeking our protection or seeking to reside in this country, this country has been built on diversity. It has been built on the willingness of millions of people from all walks of life and from many different countries to put aside their first commitments to other countries to make a new life in this one. I find the idea of `baby criminal aliens', `infant criminal aliens' and `nursing mother criminal aliens' quite offensive. It reminds me of the kind of narrow, dog-whistling populist politics that sometimes comes up in the lead-up to elections, where we are hearing the kinds of appeals that the member for Fowler so correctly identified as associated more with trying to ingratiate oneself with those who support the odious views of Pauline Hanson. I do not believe the minister is seeking to associate himself with the odious views of Pauline Hanson, but, unfortunately, the wraithlike spirits from some of the back benches, who came down to support his legislation, did use language which I think could properly be characterised in that way. Grammar is a very important thing. I believe that we need a system which is just, quick and cheap. But if you leave the comma out, you have a very different outcome. What we will get with the minister is a system which is just quick and cheap. It will not be just, quick and cheap; it will be just quick and cheap. We will be the losers. Certainly there will be many people who would otherwise have had the opportunity to have their cases heard and determined according to law who will find themselves disadvantaged. But, ultimately, if we withdraw the opportunity for judicial review from those who would seek it, it falls back on us. Once you admit these large exceptions to the general rule—that no bureaucrat is infallible—where do you stop? Why not exclude the possibility of judicial review in a whole range of other areas which might be awkward, embarrassing or difficult to a government.Most of the debate so far in this House has focussed on the issue of grouped actions or class actions. I do not really wish to repeat all of the ground, because I think it is covered very compendiously and very well in the minority report which sets out reasons why the department failed to establish even a prima facie case for this legislation. Those matters have also been well canvassed in this House by the member for Fowler and the member for Oxley. So, I will cast aside much of my compendious preparation for this debate. Instead, I will talk about the other aspect of this legislation, which is the attempt to narrow the time frame, whereby decisions can be appealed to the High Court of Australia, to 28 days. It has not had much focus but it is a very serious matter, because what is being attempted is to place a bar between the original jurisdiction of the High Court and the opportunity of those who may have a legal right to seek access to that court and who seek to do so.Why does this matter so much? Why are we concerned about the High Court? The reason we are concerned about access to the High Court is that the minister, through a number of other pieces of legislation, is also seeking to curtail all rights of legal review through the Federal Court, not just through grouped actions or class actions, as in this instance, but more generally. The minister is aware, through his legal advice, that he cannot remove appeal to the High Court of Australia for constitutional reasons. The Constitution provides an original jurisdiction in the High Court of Australia which cannot be removed by legislation. So the minister is seeking to say, `You must exercise that right within 28 days.' The problem with that is that it does not distinguish between the meritorious and the unmeritorious. In fact, it is most likely to be the unmeritorious who go to the so-called shonky legal advisers—the people who are fast and loose—who get through that gate. Then where do they go once they get past the gate? We have heard much about this automatic issue of visas—that you get it automatically. That is not the court's fault; it is the minister's decision. The minister need not follow that course. I understand there are perfectly good reasons why the minister may, as a general procedure, grant a visa to cover those periods, because, were he not to do so, in some instances the court would so order. But not always, and certainly not in unmeritorious matters. But the minister has pursued a policy of granting blanket visas. It is not this parliament. Nothing is being addressed by this legislation. It is the minister.What will happen when a matter gets before the High Court in its original jurisdiction? The truth is that the High Court is composed of seven justices. It is already massively overburdened in terms of its workload by matters that arise under its original jurisdiction. It cannot now remit most of those matters back to the Federal Court, because it has been told that it is not allowed to do so. So we find the absurd situation where justices of the High Court are sitting determining primary facts, wasting their time and ours, undertaking a task which should not ever be undertaken at that level. The truth is that the High Court will sometimes have to undertake those tasks in priority over other responsibilities it has as our first and highest constitutional court. But, in the main, it will simply allow those matters to backlog. So, in practice, this will create an unreviewable, open entry visa, indefinite in its nature because the High Court simply does not have the means, capacity or resources to hear and determine, according to law, those issues that come before it. We are building up a huge long-term deluge of problems far greater than those which are sought to be addressed. Add to it the fact now that, were this legislation about grouped actions to pass, we would not be able to have the case of a number of people joining together to have an issue which concerns a number of different people—under a similar visa class or arising from the same issue—heard and determined at the same time. No, those lawyers who presently advertise and tout for work will do the same but they will have to initiate original proceedings individually before the High Court of Australia, and they will have to do it at a very early stage without the opportunity of proper advice or proper assessment. They will know they will have plenty of time to do that afterwards, because the court will not possibly hear and determine the matters for years. So you get your matter in and guarantee—as I think the language was—your `illegal criminal alien' an indefinite free pass to Australia. This is an absurd outcome. It is where the remedy is worse than the evil.We are positioning ourselves as a parliament of absurdity, and the minister, I am afraid, is fully aware of the conundrum in which he is placing us. There is no excuse in this instance to say that these consequences have been unforeseen. The High Court of Australia itself has drawn the minister's attention to them in very forceful terms. Mr Justice McHugh, in a case Re the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ex parte Durairajasingham, decided by the High Court last year, said that:... the effect of restricting the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to hear applications by persons claiming refugee status will often be to produce two hearings instead of one ... to lengthen the time taken to dispose of those applications and to use the time of the Federal judiciary inefficiently.He makes much more savage criticisms than that. Other judges have made similar remarks. Were these restrictions on grouped actions to take place, I think the circumstance would be tenfold enhanced in terms of its consequence. What it will certainly mean is that anyone who is a smarty will move straight to that queue and get the free pass for years. It will mean that some people will lose their place. There will be more people deported without the opportunity of judicial review. That will certainly happen, but those who get in the queue will get the free pass and there will be no distinction between those who go there because of merit and those who go there because they are seeking to abuse the system. We actually need responses that go to the merits.There are a couple of other things that the minister could have done which he did not do. This is because of a mindset that is going towards closing down every opportunity for independent, external, impartial judicial review. But what about the areas in the minister's own control? What about, for example, the area of the control of the licensing and regulation of migration agents? We have heard a number of instances where it is asserted that unethical and unprofessional conduct has been taking place on the part of those who are licensed in that regard. What steps have been taken against them? The evidence before the committee suggests that the licensing authority was not even made aware by the minister of those concerns; it did not know of those matters. So the answer is the minister was asleep at his wheel. Certainly, nobody made a complaint to the licensing board; no action was attempted in relation to unethical practice. What complaints have been made to law societies? The minister may respond—and I have seen a legal opinion which has been prepared at his instance and signed by a former high official of the Attorney-General's Department, Mr Dale Boucher, now a partner of Minter Ellison—that there may be some limits in terms of the federal parliament's capacity to license and administer the conduct of lawyers as practitioners in this field. That avoids two points. Firstly, it avoids the point that, in order to practise in the migration area, one must be a licensed migration agent, and there is no doubt of the reach of this parliament's power to license, control and regulate migration agents. The second point it ignores is the paragraph in Minter Ellison's advice that the reach of this parliament's power could go further than the minister would have us believe. As paragraph 17 of the advice says:This is not to say that some further form of regulation of barristers, solicitors or migration agents may not be advised or contemplated: but it is to say that any proposal needs to be most carefully framed and, we believe, continuously and carefully considered.So it should be. But, instead of those carefully considered and carefully framed proposals that actually go to the evil that has been described by the minister, we have this blunderbuss scattergun approach which does not go to any solution that will actually have an impact on the problem that the minister is seeking to eradicate. In fact, it will consolidate that problem. If I were a lawyer who was unscrupulous, I would be advertising like mad. I would be advertising free passes—long-term passes—because you would know that the queue before the High Court was going to be so slow that you could essentially guarantee a person permanent residence in this country.I do not believe that that is a consequence the minister would wish, but I believe that it is a consequence that will follow quite logically from the way in which this legislation has been constructed and from the fact that the Constitution prohibits the High Court of Australia from refusing its jurisdiction in these areas. But, through the acts of this minister and this parliament, the opportunity for the court to refer the matters to other courts which could deal with the matters—the Federal Court of Australia and the new Magistrates Court—has been excluded. So we have essentially created a Gordian knot, and it needs to be cut. This legislation is not a solution; this is simply adding one more knot to an already knotty problem. It does not cut the Gordian knot. It simply gives those who want to abuse the system a further opportunity whilst encouraging those wraiths of Hanson, the pale ghosts that we sometimes see in this House. I do not accuse the minister, in any regard, of this; I think that the minister is simply wrong in the measures that he proposes. I think he may be somewhat hopeful that if he is seen to be doing something that in itself is its own reward. But he has not pursued avenues which are more directly open to him. The measures that he is seeking to persuade us to undertake are ones which will be counter-productive. I regret very much the tone of some of the contributions in this debate. The tone of these contributions goes far beyond that which is appropriate or warranted in their description of fellow human beings who are seeking the courtesy of residence in this country.22:09:0023952Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—We have before us a very serious bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, which raises a very large number of issues: humanitarian, legal and constitutional. I think the debate on this bill that we have had so far, especially in regard to the contributions of the opposition members, has been a very good one. It has raised a number of issues, and I am surprised that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is still persisting with his proposals despite the fact that it is clear that the Labor Party, the Democrats, the Greens and the Independents are all going to oppose this legislation in the Senate and that it is not going to proceed. It also raises questions about what the intention is of putting this legislation forward under those circumstances. The contributions of the government members seemed to me to be lacking in arguments because they appeared to fail to understand the complexities of the immigration system. For example, the member for Dawson spent nearly half of her contribution talking about the individual case of a criminal alien which had nothing to do with the legislation before us. It had nothing to do with it, but it was pretty good emotional stuff to try to arouse people about the need for such legislation. I think we need to be very careful in immigration matters to differentiate between those cases that are relevant and those cases that are not relevant when we are dealing with an issue. The member for Moreton also talked to a great extent about the recent arrivals of `boat people' and the `queue jumpers' and used other similar terms. I agree with the shadow minister about the need for us to be careful with our language. Leaving that aside, under the new regulations these people are only entitled to a TPV visa—the three-year temporary protection visa. Of course, one of the facts that the government keeps from the community when it goes out abusing these people is that more than 90 per cent of them pass through Australia's very tough determination system when the determination is finally made—more than 90 per cent. But, after that, they are not granted permanent residence; they are granted this three-year temporary visa, and, I might say, the minister has not indicated what is going to happen to these people after three years. Having said that, let us go to the relevant issues before us in relation to this bill. Let us go directly to a quote from the minister himself as to whether the problems that he identifies are going to be solved by these particular provisions. I read from his second reading speech:As I indicated earlier, while access to bridging visas acts as a pull factor, encouraging persons to take part in court actions merely to prolong their stay in Australia, denying access to bridging visas to litigants is not the Commonwealth's preferred option. Many such persons would, I believe, still take court action even if access to bridging visas were denied. That is a very important point. The minister made this point in his own statement, and yet he failed to take into account the evidence before the parliamentary committee on this issue. I will come back to this. Let us look at the minister's own reasoning on this. One consequence of the minister's reasoning is that there is going to be a dramatic increase in individual cases. The minister said that about 4,000 people have gone through in these combined cases. Let us imagine that one quarter of the people who went in for these class actions decided to go for an individual action before the High Court. Instead of having 10 cases before the High Court, we would have a thousand cases. Imagine! Justice McHugh has spoken on this issue. If we restrict access to the Federal Court and if we take other actions of this kind, what is going to happen? Let me read a quote from him:The effect of restricting the jurisdiction of the Federal Court must inevitably impose on the Justices of this Court—he is referring to the High Court—the dilemma of choosing between two unpalatable alternatives. The first alternative is to give preference to the applications of persons held in custody and claiming refugee status to the detriment of the Court's general constitutional and appellate jurisdiction. The second alternative is to continue to give preference to the constitutional and appellate jurisdiction of the Court with the result that claimants for refugee status are detained in custody for longer periods than is likely to have been the case if the Federal Court had retained all of its jurisdiction to deal with refugee cases.I think that Justice McHugh's view would be shared by most justices of the High Court, and indeed even of the Federal Court. But that does not seem to have affected the government. What we have got to do now is ask ourselves what really is the net loss from continuing to allow the Australian tradition of natural justice to apply in relation to class actions. After all, class actions were brought in with the unanimous endorsement of this parliament in recognition of the fact that most people who go in for class actions cannot afford individually to go to the High Court. Many of these people are very poor. Many of the people we are talking about are held in detention centres. Let me just go to another furphy here. It is very interesting. The minister says that they use this as a way of prolonging their stay in Australia. But who are we talking about when we talk about `they'? We are talking about two groups of people. We are talking about people who are held in detention centres and will continue to be held in detention centres while this High Court determination processes takes place. I ask you: if it is going to take two years before your class action comes up and you are going to have the generosity of two more years in the detention centre, is this the reason why you are making an application? What is the answer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to that? And the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, as was mentioned many times, found no evidence that these people were trying to abuse the system. Why would a person who is facing two more years in a detention centre be trying to abuse the system? What is the net benefit for that person and his family?You might say, `Okay, that is one group; what about the other group, the people who are already in the community but who have been rejected for refugee status and want to stay in Australia for an extra period of time, according to the minister, by making such an application?' First of all, if these people are not in detention that means the minister does not consider them to be a threat, because everyone who he considers to be a threat or who he considers to have the potentiality of absconding or of committing criminal offences is already in detention. Therefore, these people are considered relatively safe for the community. We are saying that we are going to take away these people's rights to natural justice simply to prevent them from staying another year or two in Australia—without any rights, I might say—when there are no reasons to believe that they are going to commit any criminal offence or abscond.But, you see, when analysis takes place in immigration matters, when we really get to the nitty-gritty of the issues, different outcomes come out, as the member for Denison has shown very strongly, in relation to the legal questions. It is very interesting. We have had the government today continuously accuse the opposition of being lazy on policy issues. I can tell you this: this is a lazy policy, because it does not work, it does not deal with the issues, it does not deal with the problems.Let us look at the three reasons the minister gives in his speech. Firstly, it appears that the government is primarily worried about the increased cost, projected at $20 million in 2001-02, of the increased litigation. This is rich coming from a minister who is prepared to spend $150 million on detention centres and the detention of people. His solution to the crisis, as he sees it, of a few extra people coming to Australia on boats, et cetera, is to build more detention centres, when we have a situation where, as I have already mentioned, more than 90 per cent are being approved by the tribunal as genuine refugees.If the minister is interested in really saving money in this area why doesn't he look at the alternatives to detention? We are told that he is going to look at the Swedish model. I do not think he is looking at the Swedish model, because he went to Sweden and made all sorts of comments that appeared to be prejudging the issue. Anyway, I will be interested to see whether the minister is going to look at the Swedish model, for humanitarian reasons. So let us put that furphy aside about the cost issue. And remember this about the cost issue: as the member for Denison and others have said, if even a proportion of these people are forced to go in individual cases the cost will blow out enormously. If the minister thinks $20 million in these sorts of cases is a lot, what is it going to be if there are 500 or 1,000 people in individual cases? What is going to be the cost then? What an absurdity!I have already addressed the issue about the so-called abuses in the class actions. I will come back to this issue, because there may be certain instances where there are abuses. But the minister's proposals do not deal with the abuses. The minister's proposals are like putting everybody in detention because there might be five per cent of people who we consider might abscond or who might not be genuine refugees—as if that is a sensible or just solution to a problem—or, as in this case, punishing everybody because some people may be guilty of abuses, instead of trying to target ways and means of overcoming the abuses. The minority report of the parliamentary committee from the Democrats and the Labor Party dealt with this issue and said: let us have a look at possible positive ways of dealing with abuses, if they exist, rather than trying to make a huge mountain of this matter when there is insufficient evidence and then trying to deal with it by taking away natural rights from people. The other argument presented by the minister is an interesting one. He says that the government believes judicial review is less necessary `in light of the extensive merits review rights enshrined in the migration legislation'. In other words, the system of review, which is only one tier now—that is, the tribunal; somebody makes a determination and then they can go to the tribunal—is supposed to be so much better. But consistency is a good thing when you are getting articles written about you in the newspapers. Here is an article with the headline `Merciful Ruddock gives more rejected migrants a lifeline'. It talks about how the minister has made more determinations in favour of cases than his predecessors. I applaud that. But, if there is a need for 605 visas to be granted in one year by the minister, overriding the tribunal, does that mean that the extensive merits review is really positive in doing its job and that there is no need for further consideration? How can you have it both ways, Minister? How can you say, `I have determined so many cases where the tribunal has got it wrong, I should be complimented,' and at the same time say that the review system is adequate and that you will not allow people access to the court? You cannot have it both ways. The minister should know that that argument does not stand up.But, even if the merits review system were a positive one and even if the number of cases that were actually unjust were small, you would still need to be able to access the courts. That is part of the Australian system. However, the fact is that the system is unjust to thousands of people. That is why the minister has had such a massive increase in representations. People do not put representations to the minister for flippant reasons. They make representations to him because they feel that, despite compassionate reasons, they have not been given a hearing. If these cases exist, why shouldn't there be the possibility of review through the courts and through class actions? I do not know, but I think the minister seems to think that, if you get tough and show that you are tough about something and have a comprehensive single-minded approach to a problem rather than a focused approach to a problem, you might be able to get away with it—and anyway you give the impression to the community that you are doing something about what seems to be an issue. But that is not good enough. When we are dealing with these sorts of issues we need complex ways of approaching the problem.The shadow minister said something which, respectfully, I disagree with. He said that it was not up to him to put forward the solutions; he said that the minister has all these people—the department, et cetera—and these are the people who can give him answers. The problem is that, if the department is the body that we are going to rely on for giving him answers, the answers and the advice that they have been giving the minister recently in relation to the issue which many members have spoken about—I refer to the detention issue—are totally unacceptable and mistaken. All I have to do here is read from an editorial. This is not my view; this is the view of the Australian. Their editorial reads `Ruddock must see beyond his own rhetoric'. Many members have raised this issue, but let me just read a bit of this editorial. It says:What about the thousands of illegal immigrants languishing in our detention centres? What sort of Australia Day have they had? It's a question worth asking given that after being treated like criminals, most of them will become Australians—something our Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock would prefer we forget. We do not condone people-smuggling, but there is something very wrong with our immigration detention policy. After two riots at Woomera and last week's unrest at Port Hedland, it is time to look at community-based alternatives, not increasing capacities, arming guards with sedative-filled syringes and putting up more barbed wire. But you won't hear much about alternatives from Mr Ruddock. Rather, it seems that every time there is a riot or a boatload of Iraqis reaches Ashmore Reef, Mr Ruddock's basest instincts come to the fore. To use the actions of a disruptive minority to clamp down on an innocent majority is cheap political point scoring. Will threatening rioters with deportation quell their anger and frustration? We doubt it. Will pamphlets warning would-be asylum seekers they will be racially vilified by us stop the problem of people-smuggling? You're kidding. Yet Mr Ruddock's rhetoric is limited to such knee-jerk responses.The editorial goes on, but the central point is this: why isn't the department of immigration working out alternativeswhy isn't the minister being presented with alternatives in this matter of detention? Other cases have been referred to by a number of honourable members here with respect to the minister's actions and determinations. So I am afraid that the shadow minister is wrong when he says, `It is up to the minister and the department to determine the alternatives.' The minister and the department have not been capable of putting forward alternatives in these matters; otherwise they would not have put forward this rubbish legislation. Can there be solutions to these matters? The parliamentary committee suggested a number of solutions. It talked, for example, about trying to get rid of abuses by tightening up on immigration agents, trying to explain to people what their legal rights are and providing more access to legal aid, and it put forward many other solutions to this matter that the department and the minister have not considered. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Danby) adjourned.Adjournment2395610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being almost 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2395622:29:0023956Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Royal Dutch Shell's bid for Woodside—the operator of Australia's largest resource project—is in a league above other foreign investment applications and is a test of whether Australia has an effective foreign investment policy based on a national interest test. It is very infrequent that a major foreign investment proposal carries with it adverse economic implications that are particular to it being foreign owned. Is it in Australia's interest to entrust the development of the North West Shelf to the national oil company of another country? This world-scale project produced exports of $3.6 billion in 1999, generating government revenue—excise, royalties and company tax—of $1.6 billion. It accounts for 1.1 per cent of Australia's GDP and directly and indirectly employs 80,000 people. The development of the fourth LNG train—including a second trunkline and offshore facilities—will have a capital cost of $3 billion and will employ 2,000 people during development. Where is the precedent for a country allowing strategic control of the development of its resources to be subordinated to the other commercial interests of a foreign company?Shell has a substantial stake in similar projects in Malaysia, Brunei and Oman, and a new one in Russia—Sakhalin Island, north of Japan—that are competitors with Australia for its Asia-Pacific liquid natural gas market. These countries will not hesitate to intervene to protect their own national interests at the expense of Australia. To maintain shareholder value, Shell must apply high hurdle rates of return across the company when considering new investments. Among world-scale LNG projects, the North West Shelf is probably one of the higher cost operations. If Shell controls alternative resources and has any reluctance to develop the North West Shelf, then we can assume that it will be much less enthusiastic about committing capital to Australian exploration than would an independent Woodside. Australia's level of self-sufficiency in the production of petroleum is declining, so any reduction in exploration effort over our most prospective acreage is going to impact heavily on the balance of trade in a few years. Shell may argue that taking over Woodside would only give it a 33.4 per cent share of the North West Shelf and other participants could still outvote it on questions of investment. However, the position of operator it would acquire would put Shell in the driver's seat controlling the process with double its current weight in negotiations. The primary responsibility of the directors of Woodside is to advise the shareholders if the price on offer represents full value or better for the asset; it is not to determine the national interest. They could seek a white knight—Australian or foreign—who does not have the conflicting interests that Shell has and who is prepared to give the shareholders full value. At the end of the day, the Foreign Investment Review Board is there to advise the government of the day. It does not determine the national interest. Under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, it is the Treasurer who ultimately has the responsibility for determining the national interest.In the case of this application, the national interest is that exploration and development of the North West Shelf not be impeded by the conflicting interests of Shell. The Treasurer must first consider whether the non-Shell joint venture partners have both the information base and the influence over joint venture processes to ensure the optimum development of the resource when that is at the expense of Shell's other interests.Recent newspaper reports indicate that at least one of the non-Shell joint venture partners has serious concerns that they would not have that control if Shell were the operator. If the Treasurer cannot satisfy himself and publicly demonstrate that this national interest test is met by the current application, he can consider whether there are enforceable conditions that he could impose that would protect the national interest. If the Treasurer is unable to develop an effective set of conditions that are acceptable to Shell or if the company is unable or unwilling to amend its application to satisfy the national interest test, then it should withdraw its application to avoid rejection. If the Treasurer fails to ensure that the development of the North West Shelf cannot be impeded by Shell, he must admit that Australia no longer has foreign investment controls based on an effective national interest test.2395722:33:0023957Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I bring to the attention of the House the great benefits and injection of confidence that this morning's announcement of funding for a rural clinical school will have in my electorate of Kalgoorlie. As you will be aware, my electorate is primarily rural and many of the areas are remote beyond normal comprehension and the region often finds it difficult to attract and retain medical staff. We also have the age old problem of our youth having to move to the cities to obtain the high level of training necessary for careers in such fields as health and medicine. Unfortunately, often they do not return and we lose this talent permanently to other metropolitan areas. This is about to change. My colleague the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Michael Wooldridge, has today announced that Kalgoorlie will receive a new rural clinical school as part of this government's `More doctors, better services' package. This is a major and exciting boost for my electorate which will reap tremendous benefits from new employment, infrastructure and health care services resulting directly and indirectly from this $3 million per annum commitment from the federal government.This school will provide practical and clinical experience for medical students in the latter part of their degree. This alone is likely to result in immense long-term benefits, with evidence being that health professionals who have a rural background and those educated in rural areas are much more likely to work in a rural environment after graduation. We want to be able to keep our country doctors in the country. This initiative will encourage more rural students to study medicine and will increase the opportunities for nursing and related health workers to gain experience working in rural communities. There is, of course, the benefits that will flow on from the recruitment of high level academics and the provision of much needed clinical services to the local communities. The sustained advantages to our rural communities will also be enhanced with the provision of additional resources, benefits by way of increased clinical support, research capacity and increased educational opportunities to existing health professionals. This is a commitment to establish a high quality rural network of educational and academic facilities that will not only enable but encourage medical and health science students to undertake significant periods of their training in the country. I congratulate the government for making this commitment to the future of health services in country Australia generally but, most specifically, I congratulate the minister for including Kalgoorlie in that funding and for recognising the extremely hard work that enabled this to be the case with the contribution from the University of Western Australia.This contribution will see, in stage one, a base central facility created in Kalgoorlie and later in Geraldton. The second stage will include campuses in Albany, Bunbury and Busselton. This will, for the first time, create a network of health professionals in the Kalgoorlie area and will address the problem of lack of peer group interaction that is currently suffered by medical staff in that region. We hope that it will ease the plight of so many rural towns throughout my electorate that suffer from a shortage of nursing staff and doctors. Great agony ensues from not having doctors in those communities. I have said it before and I will say it again: if we do not train medical students in the country hospitals, when they are qualified there is almost no chance of their practising in the country. I congratulate the minister once again on honouring Kalgoorlie in such a way and providing an opportunity to expand rural medical facilities in my electorate.2395822:38:0023958McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—Mr Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to bring to the House concerns raised by my constituents about aged care facilities in Stirling—particularly the need for more nursing home beds. I have spoken about this issue previously and I am saddened that the government has not addressed the bed and funding shortfall by allocating some of the budget windfall surplus to create more beds across Australia—particularly in Western Australia where there is so much needed.The Productivity Commission's Report on Government Services 2001 shows that waiting times for aged care beds in Western Australia have increased again and that the state has 699 fewer beds than are needed. I support the statement of the shadow minister for family services and the aged, Senator Chris Evans, who, in response to the report, said:Western Australia now has a shortage of 699 residential aged care beds against the Government's target of 90 beds per 1000 persons aged 70 and over. In 1996, when the Howard Government came to office, Western Australia was 124 beds above the target.The Productivity Commission confirms that across Western Australia people are waiting longer to get into nursing homes. Currently, 17% of people assessed as needing a nursing home bed wait more than 3 months to find one, compared to just 3% three years ago.I agree with Senator Evans's view that the Howard government's failure to manage the aged care system means that the frail aged and their families in Western Australia are being forced to wait months and months to access the beds and the care they need. Senator Evans also points out:... the Report to be released tomorrow confirms what people in Western Australia already know. The Howard Government is failing to treat the frail aged and their families with the care and respect they deserve.In my electorate of Stirling families still come to my office seeking help in getting an elderly family member—usually a parent—off a waiting list and into a bed. I feel frustrated that my efforts have rarely been successful because there are not enough nursing home or aged care beds available. I will give an example of a recent crisis. After Christmas, a deplorable situation occurred in Stirling with ward 5 in Osborne Park Hospital. The situation upset the patients, their families, the hospital staff and the local community. Patients were cleared out of ward 5—a medical ward—so that it could be used as a respite care facility for elderly people. Why was a hospital ward used for this purpose? It is because of a gap in aged care facilities. What were the concerns of the people involved? The families of the elderly people would have preferred that their family members received respite care in an aged care facility rather than in a medical facility. The nurses and other staff were afraid that their jobs would go and that the hospital would be turned into an aged care facility. The local community were concerned that they would lose their medical facility. These concerns have not been laid to rest as the Court state government and the Howard federal government have not been able to assure the community that funding will be given to meet the immediate need for more aged care beds.I would like to point out to the House the basic principles of Labor's aged care policy as a path to follow. Labor recognises the vital contribution of older Australians to our community and will encourage and support them to live full, active and independent lives. Labor believes a secure, adequate income and access to good quality, appropriate health and aged care services when they are needed are essential to older Australians' peace of mind. Labor believes Australians' access to aged care services should be on the basis of their need for that care and not on their ability to pay or where they live. Labor will continue to honour Australia's debt to veterans through programs of compensation, commemoration, income support, health care, aged care and housing assistance. In line with our principles of opportunity for older Australians, Labor recognises that most Australians remain healthy and continue to lead full, active and independent lives well into their 70s and 80s. Older Australians make a crucial contribution to the Australian community. I have brought this issue before the House in the hope that some of the budget windfall will be used to meet this critical need across Australia.2395922:43:0023959St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I take this opportunity, early in the new millennium, to raise an issue that is close to my heart. Council roads affect everyone around Australia, particularly those in New South Wales where rural authorities have been hit harder by rate pegging than urban councils in that state. It is a credit to the resourcefulness of country people and country councils that they have managed to keep the local road networks serviceable. The Leader of the Opposition revealed his understanding of the problem when he described the roads to recovery package as `boondoggle'. Of course he would say that: he was a member of the Labor government that made deep cuts to funding for local roads in the early 1980s. Roads can survive for many years with minimal maintenance, but they will slowly degrade. That is what has happened to the local road networks: they have hit a wall because of Labor funding cuts 15 years ago.Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition was also the Minister for Finance when the Keating Labor government blew out the biggest budget deficit in the nation's history and left a legacy of almost $100 billion in federal government debt. The repayment of the debt has meant that we are able to provide additional funds for local roads, and at the moment we are able to deliver through the Roads to Recovery program.But, Mr Speaker, do not take my word about these times when we are able to deliver in my electorate of New England. I would like to raise a couple of things that have been said about this government's funding of the Roads to Recovery project. The Northern Daily Leader is the major regional newspaper out of Tamworth. In its editorial of 28 November, it talked about the importance to the north of the windfall—of the increase in funding—for our local roads. It said: We don't believe it's a coincidence that Gwydir's case—Gwydir, of course, is the seat of the honourable Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party, my colleague and neighbour—was given a sympathetic hearing because our local Member is also our Deputy Prime Minister. Rather, it is a measure of the influence of having a member of parliament in government and in that regard Mr Anderson is seen to be doing an extremely good job.... ... ...Often in politics, it's a case of taking the good with the bad and on this occasion the news is very good.Yes, we are pleased and we say that without qualification. Mr Anderson and Mr St Clair have delivered the goods.It is quite unusual to get such strong support in an editorial. I also refer to a letter in November last year from Barraba Shire Council to me. It said:The amount of monies available for reconstruction and improvement of our local road network has been shrinking in real terms over many years and the Prime Minister's indication of additional funding especially for local roads is most welcome. You can therefore appreciate the concern being expressed with the overnight bids by the NSW Minister for Transport, Hon C Scully, for some $100 million of those funds to be used on State and Regional highways. It is precisely this sort of siphoning off of road funding to road and transport options other than local roads which has our roads in such a parlous state. We therefore applaud your efforts and those of the Deputy Prime Minister and Member for Gwydir, John Anderson, to ensure the `continuing advocacy, publicly and within the Government, for a federal local roads funding programme.'I now refer to the Severn Shire Council. These are big shire councils. A letter to me in November last year said:Council, at its meeting on 16th November 2000, as a whole welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement that the Federal Government needed help to upgrade Australia's crumbling Local Road network and his recognition that Local Roads throughout Australia need upgrading. ... ... ...On behalf of the residents of Severn Shire Council congratulations to your Government on this move and looks forward [to] receiving details of the funding package.Tenterfield Shire Council looks after a huge shire some 8,000 square kilometres. It said:Council as such looks forward to the opportunity to work with yourself to obtain the most benefit ...(Time expired)2396022:48:0023960Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00— Parliament rose for the Christmas recess in the early daylight hours of Friday, 8 December 2000. Five days later, on 13 December 2000, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister proudly announced what everyone affected by aircraft noise in Sydney was dreading—the expansion of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and Bankstown airport and the consignment of Badgerys Creek as a second airport for Sydney to the backburner. Five days after the parliament rose for the Christmas recess, the Howard government visited the most cynical and monumentally dishonest decision on the residents of Sydney, in particular my constituents in Lowe, from Drummoyne to Homebush West. The government did not have the guts to tell the parliament what it was proposing. That decision means the Howard government intends to promote the expansion of air traffic over Sydney and, at the same time, dishonour all its previous pledges to give people relief from aircraft noise and to ensure an equal and fair distribution of noise. During question time on the last sitting day before Christmas, I asked the Prime Minister a question about Kurnell as a possible site for a second airport for Sydney. He restated his government's commitment to the fair sharing of the noise burden among the people who live in Sydney. There was not a word from his lips about what he must surely have known at that time when he answered my question—that his government was going to put the boot into Sydney residents living close to the airport. What this government has shown is that all it has been interested in over the past five years is the need to fatten the calf—Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport—for the kill. The government's only agenda has been to make Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport a more valuable asset to flog to the private sector. The dishonesty of the government over Sydney's aircraft noise problems is breathtaking! The government's shocking decision means only one thing: more aircraft over homes and schools in my electorate of Lowe when the planes should be flying over water and cow paddocks. At the end of question time today, I asked you, Mr Speaker, to follow up my question on notice No. 2046 to the Prime Minister, which I asked on 11 October 2000 and which has still not been answered by the Prime Minister. The question was as to whether he believes Sydney needs a second airport. Quite obviously, while he is Prime Minister, he does not think we need another airport in Sydney. However, he is quite happy to get into bed with the airline companies, the tourism industry, the shopkeepers at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, the operators of the airport car park and the rail and road consortium who service the airport—all at the expense of those who suffer the horrendous effects of aircraft noise from Sydney airport. As I have said before in this House, as an airport Sydney operates very well as a shopping centre and a car park. Today I put a stack of questions on notice to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Minister for Finance and Administration. The questions were associated with the government's Christmas present of more aircraft noise for the people of Sydney. They expose the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the government on this issue. The first question on notice I asked of the Prime Minister was whether he said that Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport would not be sold until the noise problems at the airport had been sold. Obviously, I have asked a rhetorical question. The agenda of the government is clear. Obviously, it now proposes to flog off Sydney airport, with no commitment to a second airport and with a scandalous abandonment of its promises to provide Sydney residents with relief from aircraft noise. The government is interested only in rewarding its mates who have a vested interest in the prosperity of the airport. The government's record on Sydney airport is appalling. The long-term operating plan is still to be fully implemented. My constituents in Lowe are still receiving 50 per cent more noise than the Howard government promised. With the latest decision to expand Sydney (Kingsford Smith) and Bankstown airports, all that the people of Sydney can look forward to under the Howard-Anderson government is greater environmental health and safety risks associated with even more large planes flying over a densely populated city. The government's record is just a litany of broken promises. The residents of Sydney who live close to the airport have been betrayed. The government are only interested in collecting another $4 billion of revenue for the sale of the airport and they are only interested in saving the hides of the members for Macquarie, Lindsay and Parramatta who would be affected by Badgerys Creek. We need a second airport. We need a second airport as soon as possible. We need a second major airport to service the needs of Sydney, and while ever this government proposes to expand Sydney airport it is only promoting the disaster waiting to happen.2396122:53:0023961Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10— Thank you, Mr Speaker, for an opportunity to talk about the training of rural doctors, which is an issue that has confronted members of parliament representing rural Australia in this place for some time. Today I would like to put on the record appreciation to the government, particularly the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge, for an initiative today which is the second stage of rolling out a national rural health education and training network right across Australia. This initiative came in a welcome announcement in last year's budget in May, when the coalition government committed $562 million to improving rural and regional health, through a package called More Doctors, Better Services. Mr Speaker, you would understand even in Wakefield that the issue of attracting doctors to rural areas is much enhanced if the doctors concerned have an affinity with rural areas. What better way to develop that affinity than to ensure they do elements of their training out there amongst those wonderful communities that we represent and get a feel for the lifestyle and the people? From that comes a commitment to want to stay. Today the minister announced the location of nine new rural clinical schools and two new university departments of rural health extending across much of rural and remote Australia. I am very grateful that included in these initiatives is a training facility that extends right along the River Murray, through the member for Murray's constituency, extending all the way from north-western Victoria where my constituents live to the east of Gippsland, and initiatives throughout Wakefield, south-west Victoria, extending right up through remote New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland. This is welcome news to the constituents of Mallee. There are many young people out there who would like to do medicine, quite happy to go to the big metropolis for the initial few years of their training but quite anxious to get back home and train amongst the people to whom they will be required to deliver services. This program has the flexibility to be able to deliver that. Funding of $117.6 million over the next four years has been committed today to deliver specifically this form of training. Dr Wooldridge today announced the hosting of new rural clinical school facilities for Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Rockhampton and Toowoomba in Queensland, Kalgoorlie in Western Australia, Bairnsdale, Mildura and Shepparton in Victoria, Burnie in Tasmania, Whyalla in South Australia, and your heartland, Mr Speaker, the Riverland in South Australia—all welcome news. The doctors in the Mildura district today were applauding the minister for hearing this very needy concern. I am looking forward to the day when there will be no more letters requesting my support in attracting foreign doctors, because we will have well-trained, specifically rural trained, Aussie doctors willing and wanting to practise in rural Australia. Many rural doctors in fact earn quite generous incomes. A sole practitioner in a small country community can do quite well, but he just needs a little bit of support to have some time of respite for himself rather than work seven days a week. Many of those rural doctors have an enormous commitment but are burning out from trying to deliver a service. They do not want to see the rural communities that they have come to respect enough to want to live there short-changed of the quality of services provided.I am looking forward to the rolling out of this program. I am extremely grateful to Dr Wooldridge, who has responded magnificently to the representations that have been made to him in the last five years since the coalition have been in government. He is to be commended for making these responses. I am sure he will be very pleased at the very constructive and positive way in which rural Australia will pick up these initiatives. I am grateful for the support provided by the universities, who have leapt to the challenge the government has provided. As I say, this provides an opportunity to focus on other important issues and to have our rural doctor access and quality problems resolved.Question resolved in the affirmative.22:59:0023962House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.Bills23962R112823962On 7 December 2000, at page 23642, the incorrect Senate amendments were inserted into Hansard for the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000. The correct text should read as follows:Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate, having considered message No. 605 of the House of Representatives, does not further press its request for amendments which the House has not made and has agreed to the bill with amendments. Senate's amendments—(1) Page 2 (after line 3), after clause 2, insert:2A Object of Act The object of this Act is to provide for financial assistance to States to enable States: (a) to provide high quality, free, compulsory and secular public education; and (b) recognising the importance of public funding for non-government schools—to fund non-government schools on the basis of need and ensure their provision of education to an acceptable standard.(2) Clause 4, page 7 (after line 1), after the definition of level of education, insert:listed school means a non-government school listed in Part 5 of Schedule 4.(3) Clause 15, page 20 (after line 6), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) provide to the Minister, for inclusion in the report mentioned in paragraph (a), information about school and teacher registration criteria;(4) Clause 22, page 24 (after line 14), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) to give the Secretary of the Department a response to a Financial Questionnaire required by the guidelines made for the purposes of administering this Act; and(5) Clause 22, page 24 (line 15), omit “the certificate”, substitute “the documents required by paragraphs (a) and (aa)”.(6)Clause 28, page 28 (lines 14 to 16), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Subject to subsection (2A), the Minister may make a determination reducing an amount that is authorised to be paid to a State under any provision of this Act in a program year by an amount not more than the amount repayable. (2A) The Minister may not make a determination reducing an amount calculated under section 53 in respect of a State unless the State has failed to comply with a requirement of Division 2 of this Part.(7) Page 28 (after line 24), after clause 28, insert:28A Recognition of Commonwealth assistance for capital projects If financial assistance granted to a State for the purpose of capital grants under a provision of this Act is: (a) withheld; or (b) the subject of a determination made under subsection 28(2);because a State has failed to comply with any guidelines for the recognition of Commonwealth assistance for capital projects, the Minister must, within 30 days after the decision to withhold financial assistance or make a determination, cause to be published on the Internet a statement containing the following information: (c) details of the failure by a State to comply with any such guidelines; and (d) details of the amounts of funds, or the percentage reduction of funds, involved.(8) Clause 36, page 35 (line 22), omit “may”, substitute “must”.(9) Clause 53, page 50 (line 9), omit “not more than”, substitute “equal to”.(10) Page 51 (after line 10), at the end of Part 5, add:Division 3—Grants of transitional emergency assistance54A Grants of transitional emergency assistance (1) The Minister may make a determination authorising payment of financial assistance to a State to provide transitional emergency assistance for a government school in the State for one or more program years if the Minister is satisfied that, because of any unexpected circumstance, the school: (a) is in severe financial difficulty; and (b) has a special need of that assistance in the program year or years. (2) However, the sum of the amounts paid to the States under subsection (1) for a program year must not be more than the amount in the table in Schedule 6 for the program year. Division 4—Grants to provide establishment assistance54B Grants to provide establishment assistance (1) The Minister may make a determination authorising payment of financial assistance to a State to provide establishment assistance for a government school in the State for one or more program years. (2) The total amount authorised to be paid to the States under subsection (1) for a program year must not be more than the amount in the table in Schedule 7 for the program year. (11) Clause 56, page 53 (lines 6 to 9), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Funding for general recurrent expenditure of non-government schools with SES funding levels is worked out on a school by school basis (whether or not the school is in an approved school system or not), unless the school is a listed school. (12) Page 54 (after line 2), after clause 56, insert:56A ApplicationThis Subdivision does not apply to a listed school.(13) Clause 64, page 65 (after line 19), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) All listed schools are to be funded as schools with year 2000 funding levels.(14) Page 65 (after line 21), after clause 64, insert:64A Authorising payments for listed schoolsThe Minister may make a determination authorising payment of financial assistance to a State for recurrent expenditure for a program year of an amount for each listed school not more than the amount worked out for the school by adding up: (a) the amount worked out under section 67 for the school's primary students (if any) for the program year; and (b) the amount worked out under section 68 for the school's secondary students (if any) for the program year; and (c) the amount worked out under section 69 for the school's primary distance education students (if any) for the program year; and (d) the amount worked out under section 70 for the school's secondary distance education students (if any) for the program year.(15) Clause 74, page 73 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add: (3) The Minister must cause the following information about grants made under this section to be published on the Internet within 30 days after making a determination: (a) the name of the new school; (b) the amount of the grant; (c) the reasons for the grant; (d) the duration of the assistance provided under the grant.(16) Clause 75, page 74 (after line 22), at the end of the clause, add: (5) The Minister must not make a determination under this section unless the proposed grant of assistance meets the requirements of subsection (6). (6) The requirements to be met for the purposes of subsection (5) are as follows: (a) the proposed grant meets the criteria prescribed in the regulations; (b) the Minister is satisfied that the expected enrolments of the school will be sufficient to make it educationally and financially viable. (7) The Minister must cause the following information about grants made under this section to be published on the Internet within 30 days after making a determination: (a) the name of the new school; (b) the amount of the grant; (c) the reasons for the grant; (d) the duration of the assistance provided under the grant.(17) Clause 107, page 94 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add: (3) A determination made under subsection (1) must not reduce, or provide for the reduction of, financial assistance payable to a particular State or States on the basis of the proportion of student enrolments in the government and non-government school sectors in that State or those States. (18) Clause 116, page 101 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (3) Without limiting paragraph (2)(a) or (b), the report must include information about the distribution between government and non-government schools of grants made under Parts 7 to 13.(19) Clause 119, page 104 (line 5), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) This Part has effect despite any other provision in this Act except to the extent mentioned in subsection (1A). (1A) Sections 125 and 126 do not apply to a listed school.(20) Schedule 4, page 118 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 5—Listed schoolsNote: See section 64A. Listed schoolsColumn 1Column 2Column 3Name of schoolStateAddress of schoolBethel Learning CentreNSWFourth Avenue, Macquarie Fields NSW 2564St Josephs SchoolNSW161b Koloona Drive, Cambewarra NSW 2540Frensham SchoolNSWRange Road, Mittagong NSW 2575Gib Gate SchoolNSWOld Bowral Road, Mittagong NSW 2575Trinity Grammar SchoolNSW119 Prospect Road, Summer Hill NSW 2130Tudor HouseNSWIllawarra Highway, Moss Vale NSW 2577The King's SchoolNSWPennant Hills Road, North Parramatta NSW 2151The International Grammar School (Primary)NSW4-8 Kelly Street, Ultimo NSW 2007Newington CollegeNSW200 Stanmore Road, Stanmore NSW 2048The French School of SydneyNSW88 Cooper Street, Maroubra NSW 2035Pittwater House Grammar SchoolNSWWestmoreland Avenue, Collaroy NSW 2097St Andrew's Cathedral SchoolNSWLevel 8, 474 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000The Scots CollegeNSWVictoria Road, Bellevue Hill NSW 2023German School Johannes GutenbergNSW74 Belmore Street, Ryde NSW 2112SCEGGS Sydney Church of England Girls' Grammar SchoolNSW215 Forbes Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010Kambala Church of England Girls' SchoolNSW794 New South Head Road, Rose Bay NSW 2029Sydney Grammar Edgecliff Preparatory SchoolNSW7 Alma Street, Paddington NSW 2021Sydney Grammar SchoolNSWCollege Street, Sydney NSW 2010AbbotsleighNSW1666 Pacific Highway, Wahroonga NSW 2076Ascham School LtdNSW188 New South Head Road, Edgecliff NSW 2027Cranbrook SchoolNSWVictoria Road, Bellevue Hill NSW 2023Knox Grammar SchoolNSWPacific Highway, Wahroonga NSW 2076Sydney Church of England Grammar School NSWBlue Street, North Sydney NSW 2060Sydney Grammar School St Ives PreparatoryNSW11-21 Ayers Road, St Ives NSW 2075Ravenswood School for GirlsNSW1B Cecil Street, Gordon NSW 2072Sydney Church of England Co-Educational Grammar School, RedlandsNSW272 Military Road, Cremorne NSW 2090Church of England Preparatory School Mosman LtdNSW75 Shadforth Street, Mosman NSW 2088The School of Total EducationQLD2 Freestone Road, Warwick QLD 4370Wilderness SchoolSA30 Hawkers Road, Medindie SA 5081Prince Alfred CollegeSADequetteville Terrace, Kent Town SA 5067The Church of England Collegiate School of St PeterSAHackney Road, St Peters SA 5069Seymour CollegeSA546 Portrush Road, Glen Osmond SA 5064Scotch CollegeSACarruth Road, Torrens Park SA 5062Haileybury CollegeVICSpringvale Road, Keysborough VIC 3173Geelong CollegeVICTalbot Street, Newtown VIC 3220Mentone Girls' GrammarVIC11 Mentone Parade, Mentone VIC 3194 Mentone Grammar SchoolVIC63 Venice Street, Mentone VIC 3194Geelong Grammar School “Corio”VICSchool Road, Corio VIC 3214The Peninsula SchoolVICWooralla Drive, Mount Eliza VIC 3930Toorak CollegeVICOld Mornington Road, Mount Eliza VIC 3930Woodleigh School (Junior Campus-Minimbah)VICMinimbah Court, South Frankston VIC 3199Ivanhoe Grammar SchoolVICThe Ridgeway, Ivanhoe VIC 3079Ivanhoe Girls' Grammar SchoolVIC123 Marshall Street, Ivanhoe VIC 3079Presbyterian Ladies' CollegeVIC141 Burwood Highway, Burwood VIC 3125Caulfield Grammar SchoolVIC217 Glen Eira Road, East St Kilda VIC 3183Eltham CollegeVIC1660 Main Road, Research VIC 3095St Leonard's CollegeVIC163 South Road, Brighton East VIC 3187Wesley CollegeVIC577 St Kilda Road, Prahran VIC 3181Melbourne Girls' Grammar-An Anglican SchoolVIC82 Anderson Street, South Yarra VIC 3141Brighton Grammar SchoolVIC90 Outer Crescent, Brighton VIC 3186Melbourne Grammar SchoolVICDomain Road, South Yarra VIC 3141Trinity Grammar School VIC60 Wellington Street, Kew VIC 3101Carey Baptist Grammar SchoolVIC349 Barkers Road, Kew VIC 3101Firbank Grammar SchoolVIC51 Outer Crescent, Brighton VIC 3186Christ Church Grammar SchoolVIC677 Punt Road, South Yarra VIC 3141Geelong Grammar School “Glamorgan”VIC20 Wallace Avenue, Toorak VIC 3142Lauriston Girls' SchoolVIC38 Huntingtower Road, Armadale VIC 3143Scotch CollegeVICMorrison Street, Hawthorn VIC 3122Melbourne Grammar School-Grimwade HouseVIC67 Balaclava Road, Caulfield VIC 3161St Catherine's SchoolVIC17 Heyington Place, Toorak VIC 3142The Japanese School in PerthWA157 Deanmore Road, Scarborough WA 6019(21) Heading to Schedule 6, page 120 (lines 3 and 4), omit “for non-government schools”. (22) Schedule 6, page 120 (line 5), omit “section 74”, substitute “sections 54A and 74”.(23) Schedule 7, page 121 (line 4), omit “section 75”, substitute “sections 54B and 75”.Notices23968The following notices were given:MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr Baird—to move:That this House welcomes the recent moves made by the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea towards achieving reconciliation and eventual reunification, and in particular:(1) commends the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his great interest and personal effort with regard to the Korean Peninsula, culminating in his recent visit to North Korea;(2) congratulates President Kim Dae-jung on being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the Year 2000;(3) notes the positive impact of the two Koreas marching as one at the Opening Ceremony of the Sydney Olympic Games; and(4) notes the importance of these factors in improving the security environment of the Korean Peninsula.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—to move:That the House, noting that the people of Australia:(1) are entitled to expect that Members of the House will approach their work in the House in a straightforward and business-like manner such as would be seen in many other workplaces; and(2) will judge Members by the quality of their contributions to the work of the House rather than by the nature of their dress; is of the view that it should be left to the good sense of Members to judge what clothing they should wear in the Chamber (although it considers that male Members should wear a shirt and tie), and refers to the Procedure Committee the task of formulating a suitable short statement to cover dress standards for Members and those who use the galleries of the House so that the statement can be put to the House for its consideration.IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd—to move:That this House:(1) records its dismay and sorrow at the horrific Christmas/New Year death toll on our nation's roads, particularly in New South Wales and records its sympathy to the family and friends of those people who have died or been seriously injured;(2) recognises the importance of maintaining an efficient and safe road transport network in both city and rural areas, as a vital component of lowering the road toll;(3) calls on all State and Territory governments to match the Commonwealth's significant increase in road funding;(4) acknowledges the Federal Government's increasing commitment to the national road network via its $1.2 billion Roads to Recovery funding package; and(5) recognises the importance of on-going funding commitments to further improve the national highway system.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—To present a Bill for an Act to amend the CustomsTariffAct1995 to provide relief from the 1 February 2001 indexation of rates of customs duty applying to petroleum.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—To present a bill for an act to amend the Excise Tariff Act1921 to provide relief from the 1 February 2001 indexation of rates of excise duty applying to petroleum.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—to move:That the following amendments to the standing orders be made: [Amendment to implement It's your House recommendation 4](1) At the end of standing order 119 add: (d) Unless a motion is moved under subparagraph (c)(i) the petition shall stand referred to the relevant standing committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make. [Amendment to implement It's your House recommendation 9](2) New standing order 148A be inserted:Questions from citizens148A A Member may give notice of a question in terms proposed by a person who resides in the Member's electoral division. The following conditions shall apply to notices of questions given under this sessional order: (a) A Member shall satisfy himself or herself that the person proposing the question resides within the Member's electoral division. (b) The question shall show the name of the person who proposed the question. (c) A Member may not give notice of more than 25 questions in a calendar year. (d) Questions shall conform with the standing orders. (e) Provided the foregoing provisions are met a Member must give notice of every question proposed to him or her up to the limit of 25 per year. [Amendments to implement It's your House recommendation 21](3) Standing order 40 be amended by omitting `12.30 p.m.' (twice occurring) and substituting `10 a.m.'.(4) Standing order 101 Omit the routine of business for Monday, substitute: 1. Presentation of, and statements on, reports from parliamentary committees and delegations. 2. Orders of the day for the resumption of debate on motions moved in connection with committee and delegation reports. 3. Private Members' business (debate to be interrupted at 12.15 p.m.). 4. Grievance debate (debate to continue for 1 hour and 20 minutes). 5. Presentation of petitions. 6. Members' statements. 7. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 8. Notices and orders of the day.(5) Standing order 106A Omit `At 1.45 p.m. on each sitting Monday the Speaker shall interrupt private Members' business in order that statements by Members can be called on.', substitute `Following presentation of petitions on each sitting Monday the Speaker shall call on statements by Members.'. [Amendment to implement It's your House recommendation 22](6) Omit standing order 353, substitute the following:Report and minutes presented353 The report of a committee, together with the minutes of the proceedings, shall be presented to the House by a member of the committee. Provided that a committee may resolve to do either or both of the following: (a) if the House is not sitting when a committee has completed a report of an inquiry, the committee may send the report to the Speaker, or in the absence or unavailability of the Speaker, to the Deputy Speaker. Upon receipt of the report by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker: (i) the publication of the report is authorised by this standing order; and (ii) the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be, is authorised to give directions for the printing and circulation of the report. The report shall be presented to the House in accordance with this standing order as soon as possible. (b) to seek the approval of the Speaker, or in the absence or unavailability of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, to publish a summary version of its findings on a day prior to the report being presented to the House. If the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker approves the request: (i) the publication of the summary version of the committee's findings is authorised by this standing order; and (ii) Members of the House shall be advised of the publication and given access to the text of the document. [Amendments to implement It's your House recommendation 26](7) At the end of standing order 102B add `The order of the day for resumption of debate on a motion to take note of a report moved pursuant to this standing order shall be deemed to have been referred to the Main Committee for consideration.'.(8) At the end of standing order 354 add `An order of the day for resumption of debate on a motion to take note of a report moved pursuant to this standing order shall be deemed to have been referred to the Main Committee for consideration.' [Amendment to implement It's your House recommendation 27](9) New standing order 354A be inserted:Government responses to committee reports354A (a) The Government shall prepare and present to the House no later than four months after the presentation of a report from a House of Representatives or joint committee, a response to the recommendations contained in the report. This provision does not apply to reports from the following committees: House, Library, Members' Interests, Privileges, Publications (except for reports on inquiries), Selection and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. If the Government does not consider it appropriate to respond to a particular report, it shall inform the House giving reasons for its decision. (b) The Speaker shall prepare and present to the House a schedule listing government responses to committee reports which have been presented and reports presented to which responses have not been presented. The schedule shall be presented by the Speaker twice in each calendar year or as often as the Speaker deems appropriate. [Amendment to implement It's your House recommendation 29](10) New paragraph (ba) be inserted in standing order 324: (ba) A standing committee appointed pursuant to paragraph (a) may carry out such activities as it sees fit to inform itself of issues within its portfolio area. The committee may report to the House on these activities. Standing order 340 does not apply to activities conducted pursuant to this paragraph.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—to move:That the following amendments to the standing orders be made:(1) That, in their dealings with witnesses, committees of the House shall observe the following procedures: (a) A witness shall be invited to attend a committee meeting to give evidence. Whether or not a witness was previously invited to appear, a witness shall be summoned to appear only when the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant the issue of a summons. (b) When a committee desires that a witness produce documents or records relevant to the committee's inquiry, the witness shall be invited to do so. Whether or not an invitation to produce documents or records has previously been made, an order that documents or records be produced shall be made only when the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant such an order. (c) A witness shall be given notice of a meeting at which he or she is to appear, and shall be supplied with a copy of the committee's terms of reference, an indication of the matters expected to be dealt with during the appearance and a copy of this resolution or a summary of its provisions. Where appropriate, a witness may be supplied with a transcript of relevant evidence already taken in public. (d) A witness may be given the opportunity to make a submission in writing before appearing to give oral evidence. (e) A witness shall be given reasonable access to any documents or records that the witness has provided to a committee. (f) A witness shall be offered, before giving evidence, the opportunity to make application, before or during the hearing of the witness's evidence, for any or all of the witness's evidence to be heard in camera, and shall be invited to give reasons for any such application. The witness may give reasons in camera. If the application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision. (g) Before giving any evidence in camera a witness shall be informed that it is within the power of the committee to publish or present to the House all or part of that evidence, and that the House has the authority to order the production and publication of undisclosed evidence. Should the committee decide to publish or present to the House all or part of the evidence taken in camera, the witness shall be advised in advance of the publication. A member, in a protest or dissent added to a report, shall not disclose evidence taken in camera unless so authorised by the committee. (h) The Chair of a committee shall take care to ensure that all questions put to witnesses are relevant to the committee's inquiry and that the information sought by those questions is necessary for the purpose of that inquiry. (i) When a witness objects to answering any question put to him or her on any ground, including the grounds that it is not relevant, or that it may tend to incriminate him or her, he or she shall be invited to state the ground upon which he or she objects to answering the question. The committee may then consider, in camera, whether it will insist upon an answer to the question. The committee shall have regard to the relevance of the question to the committee's inquiry and the importance to the inquiry of the information sought by the question. If the committee determines that it requires an answer to the question, the witness shall be informed of that determination, and of the reasons for it, and shall be required to answer the question in camera, unless the committee resolves that it is essential that it be answered in public. When a witness declines to answer a question to which a committee has required an answer, the committee may report the facts to the House. (j) When a committee has reason to believe that evidence about to be given may reflect on a person, the committee shall give consideration to hearing that evidence in camera. (k) When a witness gives evidence which reflects upon a person, the committee may provide a reasonable opportunity for the person reflected upon to have access to that evidence and to respond to that evidence by written submission or appearance before the committee. (l) A witness may make application to be accompanied by counsel or an adviser or advisers and to consult counsel or the adviser(s) in the course of the meeting at which he or she appears. If such an application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision. A witness accompanied by counsel or an adviser or advisers shall be given reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel or the adviser(s) during a meeting at which he or she appears. (m) An employee of a department or executive agency shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy, and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of him or her to a higher level manager or to the appropriate Minister. (n) Witnesses shall be treated with respect and dignity at all times. (o) Reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to witnesses to request corrections in the transcript of their evidence and to put before a committee additional written material supplementary to their evidence. Witnesses may also request the opportunity to give further oral evidence. (p) Where a committee has any reason to believe that any person has been improperly influenced in respect of evidence which has been or may be given before the committee, or has been subjected to or threatened with any penalty or injury in respect of any evidence given or in respect of prospective evidence, the committee shall take all reasonable steps to ascertain the facts of the matter. Where the committee considers that the facts disclose that a person may have been improperly influenced or subjected to or threatened with penalty or injury in respect of evidence which may be or has been given before the committee, the committee shall report the facts and its conclusions to the House.(2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.(3) That this resolution continue in force unless and until amended or rescinded by the House in this or a subsequent Parliament.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—To present a bill for an act to provide for the establishment and administration of a scheme to guarantee the payment of wages and certain other liabilities owed to employees in the event of company insolvency, and for related purposes.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr Andren—To present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to superannuation for parliamentarians, and for related purposes.Answers to Questions in Writing23972The following answers to questions were circulated:23972(Question No. 1431)143123972Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 12 April 2000: (1) Under the package agreed to with the NT Government to address concerns about the Territory's mandatory sentencing laws (a) what will constitute a minor offence and (b) will the stealing of pens, textas and liquid paper from a school after hours be a minor offence. (2) Did the 10 April 2000 Joint Communique issued with the NT's Chief Minister state among other things that the General Orders of the NT police will be changed to require police to divert at the pre-charge stage in the case of minor offences and, in more serious cases, to provide discretion for police to divert offenders and on successful completion of a programme not to pursue charges; if so, (a) why will the General Orders of the NT police be used as the means to make these changes rather than legislation passed after proper parliamentary scrutiny and (b) on what grounds is the Federal Government satisfied that internal police orders are a sufficiently open mechanism by which to make the proposed changes. (3) With regard to the agreement to require police to divert at the pre-charge stage in the case of minor offences, but at the same time to maintain the mandatory sentencing provisions, is there a risk that people accused of an offence will be forced to admit guilt to avoid going to court and being sentenced mandatorily; if not, why not; if so, why has the Government agreed to a proposal that prima facie threatens the presumption of innocence fundamental to any fair criminal justice system. (4) What does “divert for minor offences mean” and does it include police cautions. (5) How many times will an accused who admits guilt be able to be mandatorily referred to diversionary programmes before being mandatorily sentenced to detention. (6) If “divert” does include police cautions, (a) to what offences will such cautions apply and (b) will the Northern Territory legislate to specify where cautions will be permitted or will this also be covered by the General Orders of the NT police. (7) Is the Government aware of allegations that the NT police force has a poor record in complying with several aspects of the current General Orders, in particular, the requirement to notify the Aboriginal Legal Service when a young Aboriginal person is taken into custody; if so, what guarantees has the Federal Government been given that police will comply with the proposed changes to the General Orders. (8) With regard to the proposal to closely monitor the agreed initiatives and review them after 12 months, (a) what will this monitoring and review involve, (b) what body or bodies will conduct it, (c) why has no monitoring or review of the Territory's mandatory sentencing laws also been proposed and (d) if the monitoring or review will be conducted by a departmental agency or agencies, in the interest of openness and accountability, will the Government support review of the initiatives by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee; if not, why not. (9) When will full details of the proposed juvenile justice package be made publicly available.23972Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Under the agreement signed between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory on 27 July 2000, a minor offence is defined as a property offence where the value of the property involved does not exceed $100, excluding offences against section 213 of the Criminal Code (unlawful entry). (b) The stealing of items such as textas, pens and liquid paper could constitute a minor offence if the value does not exceed $100. However, an offence involving unlawful entry would not be a minor offence. (2) (a) (b) Legislative amendments to the Police Administration Act to enable the pre-charge diversion of juveniles by police have been passed in the Northern Territory Parliament, and as at 23 November 2000 was awaiting assent. An interim policy on pre-court diversion was gazetted on 24 August 2000 by the Northern Territory Police Commissioner. The policy will be superseded by General Orders, once the legislative amendments come into effect. (3) Under the agreement admission to the offence is not a prerequisite for a juvenile to undergo diversion but may be taken into account in the diversion process. When apprehended by police, juveniles will have diversion explained to them. If a juvenile consents to being diverted, the juvenile will avoid going to court. If the juvenile does opt to go to court, the court will determine guilt or innocence. If the juvenile is found guilty, the court can refer the juvenile to a diversionary programme for a second conviction for a specified offence. While detention can occur when the court does not choose to divert for a second conviction, detention is only mandatory for a third conviction of a specified offence. With pre-charge diversion, it is open to a juvenile to follow the normal judicial procedure and attend court. Participation in a pre-charge diversionary programme is not tantamount to conviction and is intended to be a beneficial option for a young person. (4) Under the agreement, “divert for minor offences” means that police are required to offer diversion to juveniles apprehended for minor offences (as defined by the agreement) by way of warnings, cautions, or referral to conference or a community-based programme, except in circumstances where the juvenile is considered unsuitable because the juvenile continues to commit many minor offences within a short period of time. (5) A juvenile does not have to admit guilt prior to being offered diversion under the pre-charge diversion scheme. There is no set limit on how many times a juvenile can be diverted but juveniles who continue to commit minor offences (for example offences on five different occasions within six months for which they have been diverted) may not be suitable for further diversion. Taking into account all the circumstances, the police may continue to provide diversion to such juveniles. (6) (a) (b) Under the agreement, cautions can be used where juveniles are apprehended for minor offences (as defined under the agreement) and for other offences. The interim diversion policy issued by the Northern Territory Police Commissioner indicates that very serious offences such as rape and murder will not be subject to diversion. Such `excluded offences' will be defined in the General Orders. (7) The Government is not aware of such allegations. Failure to comply with General Orders is a breach of discipline under s.79 of the Police Administration Act and renders the officer liable to penalty including possible dismissal. The Northern Territory Ombudsman is also empowered to investigate any action taken, or refusal or failure to take action, by a member of the Northern Territory Police where the action is related to the performance of the member's powers, duties or functions as a member of the Northern Territory Police. (8) (a) To enable on-going monitoring and to assist with reviews, the Northern Territory Government will be providing to the Commonwealth performance information in relation to the operation of the juvenile diversion scheme and the Aboriginal Interpreter Service at six monthly intervals for the duration of the agreement. Further performance information will be provided specifically for the twelve month review and the Commonwealth will be consulting stakeholders as part of that review. (b) Monitoring and review will be by officers of relevant Commonwealth departments and the federal Attorney-General's office. It has not yet been determined how a further full review in the fourth year is to be conducted. (c) The agreement is not about the mandatory detention laws themselves. The Commonwealth recognises that the Northern Territory Government has considered it appropriate to introduce mandatory detention laws. However, the Commonwealth is concerned about the potential impact of mandatory detention laws on young people under the age of 18, which is why the agreement is designed to divert juveniles away from the criminal justice system. (d) A review by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Commonwealth's review may be an unnecessary duplication of effort. (9) The agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory, which has been made public, is the package for the juvenile pre-charge diversion scheme.23974(Question No. 1758)175823974Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) What is the design capacity of the declared road reservation for land on the eastern side of the Murrumbateman by-pass, NSW, including the (a) size of the reserve, (b) vehicle speed and (c) number of carriageway of the road used as the basis of determining that reserve. (2) When was this reservation made, and by whom was it made. (3) Are other reserves declared in the vicinity of Murrumbateman.23974Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows. (1) (a), (b) & (c)I presume this question relates to a letter, copies of which appear to have been circulated in the Murrumbateman community, in which there was a reference to a reservation for a bypass on the eastern side of Murrumbateman intended for a two lane 60km/h road. As a result of feedback from residents, my Department has further investigated the nature and status of the provisions for a future Murrumbateman bypass.There is no “declared road reservation” as described by the honourable member. Yass Council has advised my Department that the “proposed road” zone located East of the village (zoned “9(b)” in the Local Environmental Plan (LEP)) was intended to flag the possibility of a by-pass at some point in the future, and to restrict certain types of development that may interfere with the possible future construction of a road. The Council understands that the “proposed road” zone was included during the 1987 review of the Yass Shire LEP at the request of the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA). Apart from a small section of Council-owned land the entire route remains in private ownership.The Council is not aware that any detailed road design or geometric calculations were undertaken at that time. My Department has asked the RTA whether any road design work has been done in relation to the “proposed road” zone. The RTA has advised that it had not found any detailed design of the “LEP” route. Some interchange layouts had been found but these were concept plans only.The width of the 9(b) zone corridor is 100 metres. Community consultations in recent months considered that the “Eastern Outer” route was a better route for an eastern bypass and this route would use around half the length of the “proposed road” zone.(2) The Council has advised that the current LEP dates from 1990.(3) The Council has advised that there are no other areas zoned 9(b) under the provisions of Yass Local Environmental Plan 1990.23974(Question No. 1791)179123974McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 August 2000:(1) Are there plans to change the nature or the processes of the Attorney-General's NGO Forum on Domestic Human Rights; if so, what are they.(2) If changes are planned, has consultation taken place with forum members about the nature of those changes; if not, why not.(3) Will he recommend ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; if not, why not.(4) Will he recommend recognition of rape in armed conflict as grounds for refugee status on the basis of social exclusion as an ongoing form of persecution; if not, why not.(5) Has the National Action Plan for Human Rights been completed and has the chapter on human rights education been included. (6) Is there any provision in the 2000-2001 court administrative budget for an increase in the number of interpreters; if not, why not.(7) What is he doing to ensure that international human rights obligations are not breached in relation to (a) waiting periods for access to social services and benefits for disabled and spousal immigrants and (b) the Government's policy on refugees and detention, the issuing of temporary visas and refoulement of refugees.(8) What are the measures which his Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Defence are currently considering which need to be implemented before Australia can ratify the International Criminal Court Statute.(9) What position has he put to the Minister for Foreign Affairs regarding the minimum age for recruitment and participation in hostilities.(10) What is he doing to ensure that non government agencies are consulted during the Government's review of Australia's relationship with the United Nations human rights treaty system.(11) Has his Department had any information from the Federal Court about cost orders in its human rights jurisdiction.(12) Are mandatory sentencing laws contrary to Australia's human rights obligations; if not, why not.(13) When will the Government's response to the Pregnancy and Work Inquiry be ready.23975Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) At the last NGO Forum on 7 April 2000, I raised the issue of whether the current arrangements for the meeting were working effectively. No decision was made to alter those arrangements.(2) Changes to the nature or the processes of the Forum are not currently planned.(3) The Government considered the issue of signature or ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in the context of the review of Australia's interactions with the United Nations treaty committee system. The Government decided not to sign or ratify this instrument due to the Government's concerns with the operations of the treaty committees.(4) The honourable member's question does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities. Australia's protection visa system refers to the Refugee Convention and therefore relates to matters within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP.(5) The National Action Plan for Human Rights is currently being prepared. It is intended at this stage that the plan will contain a chapter on human rights education.(6) Although there has been no specific increase for interpreters, the Federal Court has advised that it will continue to provide interpreter services for persons using Court services where the Court considers that the person(s) would be disadvantaged because they do not speak or understand English or they are hearing impaired. The Court provides such services for unrepresented litigants, for litigants who do not have the financial means to purchase the services, and for litigants who have been granted a waiver of fees under the Federal Court regulations.(7) I am advised that the Department of Family and Community Services and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs are aware of relevant international obligations and seek advice when necessary from the Office of International Law in the Attorney-General's Department and from the Australian Government Solicitor. House of Representatives Standing Order 144 advises that legal opinion should not be sought in parliamentary questions.(8) The Government announced on 12 December 1999 that it had decided to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court. The key measures which are under consideration relate to the form, content and timing of legislation designed to give effect to Australia's obligations under the Statute. The Government's decision on that legislation will be announced in due course.(9) The issue of the minimum age for recruitment and participation in hostilities was canvassed during the negotiations for the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. The Government supported the view that 17 years should be the minimum age for voluntary recruitment into the armed forces and 18 years the minimum age for participation in hostilities. (10) A number of non-Government organisations wrote to me expressing their views in relation to the review of Australia's interactions with the United Nations treaty committee system. I also met with representatives from a range of Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) while the review was taking place. The views expressed by NGOs were taken into account in the conduct of the review.(11) Measures are currently being put in place to enable my Department to obtain and monitor information about costs orders made in human rights proceedings in the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Service.(12) The honourable member's question seeks a legal opinion. House of Representatives Standing Order 144 advises that legal opinion should not be sought in parliamentary questions.(13) The report of the National Inquiry into Pregnancy and Work, titled Pregnant and Productive: It's a right not a privilege to work while pregnant was tabled by me on 25 August 1999. The Report makes a broad range of recommendations as to how the Government and others can address this important issue. On 1 November 2000, the Government announced its response to the Report, in which it accepted a majority of the recommendations made.23976(Question No. 1942)194223976Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 6 September 2000: (1) How many persons registered with the Centrelink office in Fairfield, NSW,(a) applied for and (b) received the Aged Persons Savings Bonus. (2) How many pensioners registered with the Fairfield Centrelink office received a payment between $1 and $50. (3) How many persons registered with the Fairfield Centrelink office received an Aged Persons Savings Bonus of less than $1. (4) How many pensioners registered with the Fairfield Centrelink office received the maximum Aged Persons Savings Bonus of $1000 for pensioners and $2000 for self funded retirees. (5) What was the average Aged Persons Savings Bonus paid to (a) pensioners and (b) self funded retirees registered with the Fairfield Centrelink office. (6) How many persons living in the electoral division of Prospect (a) applied for and (b) received the Aged Persons Savings Bonus. (7) How many pensioners in the electoral division of Prospect received an Aged Persons Saving Bonus payment between $1 and $50. (8) How many persons in the electoral division of Prospect received an Aged Persons Saving Bonus of less than $1. (9) How many persons in the electoral division of Prospect received the maximum Aged Persons Savings Bonus of $1000 for pensioners and $2,000 for self funded retirees. (10) How many persons living in the electoral division of Prospect appealed to have their Aged Persons Savings Bonus payment adjusted. (11) What was the average Aged Persons Savings Bonus paid to (a) pensioners and (b) self funded retirees in the electoral division of Prospect.23976Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) 6,494 persons living in the area serviced by Centrelink Fairfield applied for and received the Aged Persons Savings Bonus, through a claim made with Centrelink. (2) 2,026 persons living in the area serviced by Centrelink Fairfield, who claimed their bonus with Centrelink, received between $1 and $50. (3) No bonuses of less than $1 have been paid, as that is the minimum amount payable to anyone who qualifies for a bonus. (4) Of persons living in the area serviced by Centrelink Fairfield, who claimed their bonus with Centrelink: - 2,351 received the maximum $1,000 of Aged Persons Savings Bonus; and - 29 received the maximum $2,000 of Self Funded Retirees Supplementary Bonus. (5) Of persons living in the area serviced by Centrelink Fairfield, who claimed their bonus with Centrelink, the average: - Aged Persons Savings Bonus was $497; and - Self Funded Retirees Supplementary Bonus was $1,908. (6) An estimated 10,520 persons living in the electoral division of Prospect applied for and received the Aged Persons Savings Bonus, through a claim made with Centrelink. (7) An estimated 2,261 persons living in the electoral division of Prospect, who claimed their bonus with Centrelink, received between $1 and $50. (8) No bonuses of less than $1 have been paid, as that is the minimum amount payable to anyone who qualifies for a bonus. (9) Of persons living in the electoral division of Prospect, who claimed their bonus with Centrelink: - an estimated 4,588 received the maximum $1,000 of Aged Persons Savings Bonus; and - an estimated 358 received the maximum $2,000 of Self Funded Retirees Supplementary Bonus. (10) This information is not available. (11) Of persons living in the electoral division of Prospect, who claimed their bonus with Centrelink, the average: - Aged Persons Savings Bonus was $597; and - Self Funded Retirees Supplementary Bonus was $1,726.Note: Data provided for questions 6,7,9 and 11 are estimates only. Data is not available by electorate so information is drawn from postcodes data. Where postcodes cover more than one electorate the data for the postcode is proportionalised.23977(Question No. 1953)195323977O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 September 2000:(1) How many applicants have applied for the position of Federal Magistrate in Launceston.(2) How many of those applicants were deemed to meet the selection criteria for the position of Federal Magistrate.(3) When did the interviews of the applicants take place.(4) How many applicants have been recommended for the position by the selection panel.(5) What is the process for acceptance of any applicant recommended by the selection panel.(6) What was the initial time frame for announcing the successful applicant for the 1 July 2000 starting date.(7) What is the Government's current time frame for announcing the successful applicant.(8) When will the position of Federal Magistrate in Launceston be operational.23977Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am advised that of the 572 applicants for appointment as a federal magistrate, 39 applicants applied specifically for appointment in Launceston, another 4 candidates indicated they were interested in appointment in `Tasmania' and a further 53 applicants indicated that they were prepared to accept appointment anywhere. (2) Except for the statutory requirement that a person must have been enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory for at least 5 years, there are no formal selection criteria for appointment as a federal magistrate. A selection advisory panel considered the claims of all 572 applicants and shortlisted 71 for interview. Of those selected for interview, 5 expressed interest in appointment in Launceston and 1 candidate was prepared to accept appointment anywhere.(3) The selection advisory panel conducted interviews between late February and June 2000.(4) The number of candidates recommended for appointment as a federal magistrate forms part of the Government's consideration of appointments and it would be inappropriate to disclose these details.(5) The selection advisory panel provided me with a shortlist of candidates in each location for consideration of who should be recommended to the Government for appointment.(6) 1 July 2000 was not the Government's proposed start-date. The target was for the Federal Magistrates Service to commence in most locations by mid-2000. Since July, the Federal Magistrates Service has held hearings in Tasmania on circuit.(7) The Government has no set timeframe for announcing successful candidates for appointment as federal magistrates.(8) The appointment of Mr Stuart Roberts as a federal magistrate in Launceston was announced on 16 November 2000. He took up his position on 4 December 2000.23978(Question No. 1960)196023978McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 September 2000:(1) Did Australia accede on 20 March 1973 to the Statute of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT).(2) On what occasions, in what circumstances and with what results did his Department last consider ratification of, or accession to, each of the conventions drawn up by the Institute.23978Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The consideration of the UNIDROIT conventions, like all other international agreements in which Australia has an interest, is constantly under review.23978(Question No. 1966)196623978McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 3 October 2000:(1) In respect of the most recent judicial appointment to the High Court, (a) what was the process by which the Government made the appointment, (b) according to what criteria did the Government select the most suitable person to be appointed, (c) at what stage of the process, if any, did consultation with the legal profession on the proposed person to be appointed occur, (d) at what stage of the process, if any, did consultation with governments of the States and Territories on the proposed person to be appointed occur and (e) what was the outcome of that process.(2) What are the barriers to increased consultation with the legal profession and governments of the States and Territories on proposed appointments to the High Court.(3) In respect of the most recent judicial appointment to the (a) Federal Court, (b) Family Court and (c) Federal Magistrates Service, (i) what was the process by which the Government made the appointment, (ii) according to what criteria did the Government select the most suitable person to be appointed, (iii) at what stage of the process, if any, did consultation with the legal profession on the proposed person to be appointed occur and (iv) what was the outcome of that process. (4) What are the barriers to increased consultation with the legal profession on proposed appointments to the (a) Federal Court, (b) Family Court and (c) Federal Magistrates Service.23979Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) The steps in the process were as follows:(i) In accordance with the requirement in section 6 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979, I wrote to each State Attorney-General inviting nominations for appointment. At the same time, I also wrote inviting nominations from Territory Attorneys-General, the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Bar Association, State and Territory Bar Associations and Law Societies, and the Law Institute of Victoria.(ii) I consulted personally with State and Territory Attorneys-General, members and former members of the judiciary, and others in relation to the proposed appointment.(iii) When nominations were to hand, I wrote again to State and Territory Attorneys-General providing a list of those nominated and inviting comments on any person on the list.(iv) The appointment was considered by Cabinet.(v) The formal appointment was made by the Governor-General.(b) Under section 7 of the High Court Act, only a person who is a judge of another federal court, a State or a Territory court, or who is a legal practitioner of at least 5 years standing, can be appointed as a Justice of the High Court. The best available of all such candidates was selected for appointment.(c) See (a) above.(d) See (a) above.(e) The appointment of the Hon Anthony Murray Gleeson AC as Chief Justice of the High Court.(2) There are no barriers to consultation with the legal profession and State and Territory governments on appointments to the High Court. Given the extensive consultations already carried out with these parties, it is difficult to see how increased consultation could be usefully undertaken.(3) (a) Federal Court of Australia(i) The steps in the process were as follows:(A) I consulted personally with the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, other members and former members of the judiciary, members of the legal profession and others in relation to the proposed appointments.(B) The appointments were considered by Cabinet.(C) The formal appointments were made by the Governor-General.(ii) Under section 6 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, only a person who is a judge of another federal court, a State or a Territory court, or who is a legal practitioner of at least 5 years standing, can be appointed as a Judge of the Federal Court. The best available of all such candidates were selected for appointment.(iii) See (i) above.(iv) The appointment of Mr Richard Conti QC and Ms Margaret Stone as Judges of the Federal Court based in Sydney.(b) Family Court of Australia(i) The steps in the process were as follows:(A) In early June 2000, an advertisement appeared in the national and Queensland regional press calling for expressions of interest in appointment as a Judge of the Family Court located in Townsville.(B) I consulted personally with the Chief Justice of the Family Court, other members and former members of the judiciary, members of the legal profession and others in relation to the proposed appointment. (C) The appointment was considered by Cabinet. (D) The formal appointment was made by the Governor-General. (ii) Under section 22 of the Family Law Act 1975, only a person who is a judge of another federal or a State court, or who is a legal practitioner of at least 5 years standing, can be appointed as a Judge of the Family Court. This provision also requires that the person must, by reason of training, experience and personality be suitable to deal with family law matters. The best available of all such candidates was selected for appointment. (iii) See (i) above.(iv) The appointment of Mr Robert Monteith SC as a Judge of the Family Court based in Townsville.(c) Federal Magistrates Service(i) The steps in the process were as follows:(A) Advertisements were placed in national and certain metropolitan daily newspapers in February 2000 calling for expressions of interest in appointment as a full-time Federal Magistrate in various locations.(B) A selection committee was established, comprising the Chief Federal Magistrate designate, as she then was, a senior member of my Department and a member of my staff, to short-list applicants and interview those short-listed.(C) I personally interviewed applicants on a short-list recommended by the committee.(D) I consulted personally with members of the judiciary and members of the legal profession in relation to the proposed appointments.(E) The appointments were considered by Cabinet.(F) The formal appointments were made by the Governor-General.(ii) Under clause 1 of Schedule 1 to the Federal Magistrates Act 1999, only a person who is a legal practitioner of at least 5 years standing can be appointed as a Federal Magistrate. The best available applicants who met this criterion were selected for appointment.(iii) See (i) above.(iv) The most recent appointment from this process was that of Ms Jennifer Rimmer as a full- time Federal Magistrate based in Brisbane.(4) There are no barriers to consultation with the legal profession. Given the extensive consultations already carried out with the profession in relation to appointments to the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Service, it is difficult to see how increased consultation could be usefully undertaken in such cases. 23980(Question No. 1994)199423980Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 October 2000:(1) Did his electorate office request his Department to supply it with a list of all projects, grants and funding programs in the electoral division of Gwydir since March 1996; if so, who authorised the request.(2) Was it requested that where possible the information be provided by specific localities in the electorate, including Wellington, Mudgee, Gulgong, Gilgandra, Coonamble, Baradine, Coonabarabran, Binnaway, Coolah, Mendooran, Gunnedah, Boggabri, Narrabri, Warialda, Moree, Wee Waa, Walgett, Collarenebri, Lightning Ridge and Mungindi.(3) Was the material prepared by noon Wednesday, 20 September 2000 in accordance with a memo of 13 September 2000 from the Acting Director of the Policy Development and Coordination.(4) What was the cost incurred by his Department to prepare the material.(5) Has his Department produced similar reports for other electoral divisions; if so, (a) which divisions and (b) who authorised the preparation of the reports. (6) What are the details of the response prepared by his Department to the request from his electorate office, of the projects, grants and funding programs in the electoral division of Gwydir since March 1996.23981Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes; Mr Stephen Oxley, my Principal Adviser.(2) Yes.(3) No. The preparation of the material was finalised on 22 September 2000.(4) $1045.56(5) Yes.(a) Bass; Eden-Monaro; Gippsland; Hindmarsh; Kalgoorlie; Makin and Warringah. It is the standard practice to provide detailed information by electoral division to Members of Parliament when this is requested so as to assist them in raising awareness of the type and extent of Commonwealth support in the areas concerned. These requests are made by both Members of the House of Representatives and Senators and by elected representatives of both government and non-government parties.(b) My Principal Adviser, Mr Stephen Oxley.(6)Commonwealth Road FundingThe Commonwealth is responsible for funding the development and maintenance of Australia's National Highwaynetwork through tied grants. The Commonwealth also funds upgrading of certain Roads of National Importance (RONI)jointly with the States. Other roads are the responsibility of State and local governments. The Newell Highway is part of the National Highway and passes through the electorate of Gwydir, between Gilgandra and the Queensland border. Part of the Kidman Way passes through Bourke Shire, which is now in the electorate of Gwydir. The Commonwealth declared the Kidman Way a RONI in 1996 to fund the sealing of the Kidman Way. Since 1996/97 the Commonwealth has spent around $70.9million on roads in the electorate of Gwydir. This is comprised mainly of:Newell Highway Project LocationDescription of WorksStatusExpenditure since 1996/97Major Works Moree bypassFeasibility study, awaiting releaseEIS in progress$0.8mCoonabarabran bypassFeasibility Study Route selection in progress$0.4mCoonabarabran BridgeReplacement of old timber bridgeCompleted February 1997$2.1mAsset PreservationRoutine MaintenanceGilgandra to Qld border:1996/971997/981998/991999/2000 (including flood repairs)2000/01 (est.)Ongoing$14.951m$12.569m$18.661m $11.794m $9.373mSafety and Urgent Minor Works (SUMW) Gilgandra to Qld border:1996/971997/981998/991999/20002000/01 (est.)Ongoing$1.485m$1.714m$1.249m$1.716mn.a. Total Newell Highway Expenditure in Gwydir * 1996/97-1999/2000$67.439m* Does not include estimated expenditures for asset preservation in 2000/01.The Safety and Urgent Minor Works program includes a variety of smaller scale works such as truck parking and rest area construction, upgrading of signposting, linemarking and intersection improvements at a variety of locations. It is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of much of this expenditure by locality, as it is not reported to the Commonwealth except in aggregated form.However, more significant projects undertaken since 1996/97 that can be identified are:Project Description CostIntersection improvements/roundabouts at Coonabarabran$1.4mRailway level crossing signalisation at Camurra$0.4mOvertaking lanes 120-121km north of Moree$0.7mKidman Way The Commonwealth made a commitment to seal the remaining 150km of the Kidman Way between Hillston and Bourke as a RONI and agreed to provide $20.7m for this purpose. Work within Bourke Shire was completed in 1997/98 and entailed:Project LocationDescription of WorksStatusExpenditure since 1996/97Bourke ShireSealing 98-112km north of CobarComplete $1.725mBourke Shire Sealing 81-94km north of CobarCompleted $1.723mTotal Expenditure (Bourke Shire only) $3.448mWork on the Kidman Way project is now approaching completion. Only the bridge and approaches at Sandy Creek (within Cobar Shire) are yet to be finished. The final project cost is expected to be around $21.3m, with the Commonwealth contributing $21m toward this work. The NSW Government will pay for the residual costs and is responsible for ongoing funding and maintenance of the route.Federal Road Safety Black Spot ProgramCouncil NameEstimated Cost ($)1997/1998Mudgee Shire Council100,0001999/2000Mudgee Shire Council100,0002000/2001Mudgee Shire Council 75,000Council NameEstimated Cost ($)1997/1998Yallaroi Shire Council230,000Council NameEstimated Cost ($)1997/1998Bingara Shire Council140, 000Council NameEstimated Cost ($)1997/1998Moree Plains Shire Council 1998/199953,000Moree Plains Shire Council 2000/200150,000Moree Plains Shire Council24,800Federal Black Spot Safety Program funding of $28,130 for analysis of road fatality risk factors amongst Australian farmers and farm workers to the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety (NSW Department of Health) located at Moree.Regional Communities ProgramsLocation:Baradine NSWApplicant:Baradine Multipurpose Health ServiceProgramme:Rural Communities ProgramFunding:1998-99$3,000Description of project:conduct a community planning project.Location:Coolah NSWApplicant:Coolah District Development Group Inc.Programme:Rural Communities ProgramFunding:2000-01$81,000Description of project:employ three part-time Coordinators to undertake development activities for the townships of Coolah, Mendooran and Duneedoo.Location:Coonabarabran NSWApplicant:Coonabarabran Shire CouncilProgramme:Rural Communities ProgramFunding:1998-991999-20002000-01$39087$19,543$39,086Description of project:provide up-to-date information on all government services and programs as well as provide a focus for community development activities.Location:Coonabarabran NSWApplicant:Warrumbungle Rural Community ProgramProgramme:Rural Communities ProgramFunding:1998-991999-20002000-01$53,000$54,000$42,000Description of project:provide financial counselling and information services to the rural and small business sectors of Coonabarabran Shire. The project will also be involved with a proposal for a telecentre facility currently being developed by the community.Location:Coonamble NSWApplicant:Castlereagh Advisory Service IncProgramme:Rural Communities ProgramFunding:1998-991999-20002000-01$104,925$100,000$100,000Description of project:provide a financial counselling service to the communities of Coonamble Shire and Gilgandra Shire. The project will extend counselling services to rural businesses and individuals. Location:Gunnedah NSWApplicant:Gunnedah & District Rural Counselling ServiceProgramme:Rural Communities ProgramFunding:1998-991999-20002000-01$57,500$54,700$57,000Description of project:provide a rural counselling service to farming families in the region surrounding Gunnedah.Location:Gunnedah NSWApplicant:Gunnedah Shire CouncilProgramme:Rural PlanFunding:1999-20002000-01$127,390$72,610Description of project:develop a strategic development plan for the Gunnedah Shire and the extensive Liverpool Plains District with a special focus on rebuilding the economic base. Location:Moree NSWApplicant:Farmsafe Australia IncProgramme:Rural Communities ProgramFunding:1998-991999-20002000-01$100,000$100,000$100,000Description of project:provide up to date health and safety information to farmers, their families and to the wider rural community. Funding will be used to support the maintenance of a Farmsafe Australia secretariat over the next three years. Location:Moree NSWApplicant:Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust(NSW)Programme:Rural Communities ProgramFunding:1998-991999-20002000-01$75,687$75,687$75,687Description of project:provide ongoing advice and support to clients experiencing difficulties in order to reduce financial hardship.Location:Moree NSWApplicant:Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association IncProgramme:Rural PlanFunding:1998-991999-2000$100,000$50,000Description of project:develop a strategic planning study and a risk management strategy for the Gwydir Valley, and to identify and analyse alternative ventures, complementary enterprises and value adding opportunities.Location:Walgett NSWApplicant:Walgett Advisory GroupProgramme:Rural Communities ProgramFunding:1998-991999-20002000-01$61,300$50,000$50,000Description of project:provide financial counselling services to farming families and small businesses in the Walgett Shire.Financial Assistance GrantsLocal Government Financial Assistance Grants payable under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 to Local Government Authorities in the Federal electorate of Gwydir:Council NameFinancial YearActual General PurposeActual Local RoadsActual Total GrantBourke Shire1995/1996$1,309,344$861,248$2,170,5921996/1997$1,336,604$893,852$2,230,4561997/1998$1,340,796$964,548$2,305,3441998/1999$1,423,624$985,128$2,408,7521999/2000$1,526,244$1,013,176$2,539,4202000/2001 (e)$1,603,364$1,051,136$2,654,500Brewarrina Shire1995/1996$842,856$536,664$1,379,5201996/1997$864,856$556,496$1,421,3521997/1998$900,704$649,236$1,549,9401998/1999$953,608$665,952$1,619,5601999/2000$1,010,148$685,240$1,695,3882000/2001 (e)$1,054,156$712,944$1,767,100Coolah Shire1995/1996$786,552$521,800$1,308,3521996/1997$848,152$545,512$1,393,6641997/1998$858,092$526,164$1,384,2561998/1999$877,168$538,340$1,415,5081999/2000$920,896$556,396$1,477,2922000/2001 (e)$949,196$577,488$1,526,684Coonabarabran Shire1995/1996$1,169,092$662,616$1,831,7081996/1997$1,258,584$692,428$1,951,0121997/1998$1,289,676$688,756$1,978,4321998/1999$1,322,504$711,280$2,033,7841999/2000$1,367,648$731,584$2,099,2322000/2001 (e)$1,390,736$758,944$2,149,680Coonamble Shire1995/1996$1,118,220$717,624$1,835,8441996/1997$1,160,580$740,244$1,900,8241997/1998$1,154,416$740,060$1,894,4761998/1999$1,171,244$757,512$1,928,7561999/2000$1,207,884$778,696$1,986,5802000/2001 (e)$1,234,000$807,936$2,041,936Gilgandra Shire1995/1996$916,264$612,292$1,528,5561996/1997$968,196$628,740$1,596,9361997/1998$981,532$657,356$1,638,8881998/1999$1,003,464$683,580$1,687,0441999/2000$1,041,456$703,132$1,744,5882000/2001 (e)$1,051,148$729,576$1,780,724Gunnedah Shire (p)1995/1996$1,211,016$803,504$2,014,5201996/1997$1,264,752$831,680$2,096,4321997/1998$1,281,208$929,384$2,210,5921998/1999$1,348,028$963,928$2,311,9561999/2000$1,435,468$990,136$2,425,6042000/2001 (e)$1,476,872$875,784$2,352,656Merriwa Shire1995/1996$405,988$290,936$696,9241996/1997$437,784$295,448$733,2321997/1998$444,404$292,404$736,8081998/1999$437,156$299,804$736,9601999/2000$442,388$306,940$749,3282000/2001 (e)$432,292$317,788$750,080Moree Plains Shire1995/1996$1,916,524$1,526,900$3,443,4241996/1997$1,938,660$1,486,504$3,425,1641997/1998$1,919,784$1,480,284$3,400,0681998/1999$1,965,152$1,501,108$3,466,2601999/2000$2,041,924$1,546,336$3,588,2602000/2001 (e)$2,042,516$1,603,160$3,645,676Mudgee Shire1995/1996$1,549,116$900,232$2,449,3481996/1997$1,602,160$897,020$2,499,1801997/1998$1,541,440$866,256$2,407,6961998/1999$1,534,352$886,912$2,421,2641999/2000$1,551,392$916,820$2,468,2122000/2001 (e)$1,571,316$956,368$2,527,684Murrurundi Shire1995/1996$327,872$280,128$608,0001996/1997$347,360$290,556$637,9161997/1998$354,480$289,044$643,5241998/1999$344,188$294,980$639,1681999/2000$350,192$304,128$654,3202000/2001 (e)$344,548$315,076$659,624Narrabri Shire (p)1995/1996$2,063,700$1,179,456$3,243,1561996/1997$2,115,392$1,225,940$3,341,3321997/1998$2,039,904$1,170,704$3,210,6081998/1999$2,080,800$1,202,900$3,283,7001999/2000$2,133,508$1,237,796$3,371,3042000/2001 (e)$2,156,240$1,283,236$3,439,476Quirindi Shire1995/1996$731,816$435,676$1,167,4921996/1997$761,584$453,680$1,215,2641997/1998$770,968$447,476$1,218,4441998/1999$772,628$456,692$1,229,3201999/2000$787,040$469,204$1,256,2442000/2001 (e)$796,900$486,580$1,283,480Rylstone Shire1995/1996$642,728$335,836$978,5641996/1997$693,020$347,132$1,040,1521997/1998$699,696$345,388$1,045,0841998/1999$700,708$352,860$1,053,5681999/2000$705,720$364,232$1,069,9522000/2001 (e)$699,124$376,428$1,075,552Scone Shire1995/1996$948,216$480,844$1,429,0601996/1997$990,992$500,516$1,491,5081997/1998$999,740$581,348$1,581,0881998/1999$991,076$592,524$1,583,6001999/2000$993,744$573,952$1,567,6962000/2001 (e)$992,032$599,028$1,591,060Walgett Shire1995/1996$1,598,652$1,043,324$2,641,9761996/1997$1,657,124$1,070,220$2,727,3441997/1998$1,660,468$1,059,564$2,720,0321998/1999$1,716,772$1,088,008$2,804,7801999/2000$1,755,332$1,122,936$2,878,2682000/2001 (e)$1,804,512$1,166,008$2,970,520Warren Shire (p)1995/1996$840,864$548,768$1,389,6321996/1997$873,528$569,604$1,443,1321997/1998$865,848$566,284$1,432,1321998/1999$835,476$531,996$1,367,4721999/2000$838,752$549,332$1,388,0842000/2001 (e)$828,528$569,800$1,398,328Wellington1995/1996$1,365,404$644,804$2,010,2081996/1997$1,465,528$671,724$2,137,2521997/1998$1,462,816$703,868$2,166,6841998/1999$1,466,420$719,908$2,186,3281999/2000$1,490,052$741,912$2,231,9642000/2001 (e)$1,492,668$767,224$2,259,892Yallaroi Shire1995/1996$725,444$653,624$1,379,0681996/1997$741,984$677,464$1,419,4481997/1998$736,852$673,044$1,409,8961998/1999$758,284$682,460$1,440,7441999/2000$790,380$702,056$1,492,4362000/2001 (e)$801,944$728,016$1,529,960 (e) Estimated entitlement (p) Implies Council boundary with multiple electoratesLocal Government Incentive ProgrammeIn 1999-2000 $626,000 was provided under the Local Government Incentive Programme to the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW to assist councils, including those in the Gwydir electorate, to prepare for the Goods and Services Tax.Rural Transaction Centre ProgrammeProjects funded under the Rural Transaction Centre Programme in the electorate of Gwydir:TownType of ProjectAmountBinnawayBusiness Plan$10,250CollarenebriBusiness Plan$12,635MendooranBusiness Plan$9,121MendooranProject Assistance$122,600AshfordProject Assistance$140,000TooraweenahBusiness Plan$4,950GulargamboneBusiness Plan$10,000GulargamboneProject Assistance$215,050ParryBusiness Plan$10,000Regional Adjustment Team1996-971997-98Northern Inland Regional Development Organisation (RDO)$203,000Central West RDO $56,000$24,000Orana RDO$182,000$78,000Northern Inland RDO includes Moree and TamworthCentral West RDO covers 15 councils: Bathurst, Blayney, Cabonne, Cowra, Evans, Forbes, Lachlan, Lithgow, Mudgee, Oberon, Orange, Parkes, Rylstone, Weddin and Wellington.Orana RDO covers 14 councils: Bourke, Cobar, Brewarrina, Walgett, Coonamble, Coonabarabran, Gilgandra, Warren, Bogan, Narromine, Dubbo, Coolah, Mudgee, Wellington.The RDOs listed contain some overlaps and some towns are within the Gwydir electorate and some are not. The figures are unable to be broken up to reflect only the towns within the Gwydir electorate.23989(Question No. 1995)199523989Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on October 30 2000:(1) For each month since the stevedoring levy was introduced by the Government to facilitate the funding by the Maritime Industry Finance Company (MIFCO) of redundancy obligations by stevedoring companies as a result of the 1998 maritime dispute, what sum has been paid by each company liable to pay the levy.(2) For each month since the levy was introduced, (a) what sum has been paid by MIFCO to each company eligible to receive payments and (b) how many employees has each company made redundant.(3) Will some companies receive far less in payments from MIFCO than the levy they have paid; if so, what is the reason for the inequity.(4) For each month since stevedoring companies were required to pay the levy, what has been the performance of companies receiving payments from MIFCO against the Government's productivity benchmarks compared to productivity levels at the time of the 1998 maritime dispute.(5) Were any companies exceeding or equaling the Government's benchmarks in advance of the 1998 Maritime dispute; if so, (a) who were they, (b) are they required to pay the levy to assist non-performing stevedoring companies and (c) what payments have they made to MIFCO.(6) Has the Government received complaints that some companies receiving MIFCO payments are using payments to offer artificial incentives to assist them in competition with other stevedoring companies.(7) Has the Government been advised that Sea-Land believes Patricks has been able to use the levy payments to offer artificial incentives to South Australian exporters and importers to ship via Melbourne to have the disadvantage of South Australian operators; if so, does the accusation have any foundation.23989Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The information on levy collected is considered `commercial-in-confidence', as the data would provide an accurate estimate of the market share of each stevedore. (2) The following table shows the payments made by MIFCO in relation to each company. Number of Redundant Employees and Amounts Paid to 30 June 2000Name of StevedoreCost of redundancies Number of redundanciesPatrick group of companies$102,192,291.40821P&O group of companies$62,975,723.02552Sea-Land (Australia) Terminals Pty Ltd$1,777,374.8311Freport Maintenance & Engineering Services Pty Ltd$576,146.839TJ Prest & Sons Pty Ltd$712,953.107Marine Porters Association former members$1,243,525.4517Northern Shipping & Stevedoring Pty Ltd$2,056,718.6918Newcastle Stevedores Pty Ltd$1,009,398.307Strang Stevedores Australia Pty Ltd$2,249,158.1418Holyman Ltd$3,495,784.8825Keon Cargo Stevedoring Pty Ltd (in liquidation) trading as Total Stevedores$105,398.932(3) The total levy to be paid by most stevedoring companies and all of the major stevedores will exceed their payments from MIFCO. There is no inequity under the provision of the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Act 1998 as the levy is applied on a universal basis until all costs have been recovered. These costs cover not only the cost of redundancies, but also the interest on MIFCO loans.(4) Performance benchmarking is undertaken on a port by port basis. The productivity benchmark of 25 lifts per hour is close to being achieved as a national five port average. The five port crane rate average for the September quarter was 24.9 as recorded in the Bureau of Transport Economics Waterline. This is in contrast to the five port crane rate average for the June 1998 quarter of 18.7. (5) See answer to (1), (3) and (4). (6) Yes. (7) The use of `artificial incentives' is a matter for the ACCC to determine and Sea-Land have been advised to pursue that avenue. 23990(Question No. 2026)202623990Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 October 2000: (1) In light of statements made in the Australian Financial Review of 3 October 2000 in respect of the Western Sydney Orbital Link, what is the Government's estimate of the cost of the Western Sydney Orbital Link. (2) What route is envisaged for the Western Sydney Orbital Link. (3) Is he able to say whether the Western Sydney Orbital Link funding is predicated on a second Sydney airport being located at Badgery's Creek. (4) Is he able to say whether assumptions about the rate of return on investment in the Western Sydney Orbital Link depend on estimated traffic flow arising from the location of a second Sydney airport at Badgery's Creek.23990Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The current estimated cost, provided by NSW RTA, of the Western Sydney Orbital Link is $1.25 billion. (2) The 39 km proposed corridor for the Western Sydney Orbital Link, from the M5 Motorway at Prestons near Liverpool to the M2 Motorway/Pennant Hills Road at West Baulkham Hills, was identified in the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW brochure “The Western Sydney Orbital Overview Report - Starting the environmental assessment”. The corridor would be located between existing and proposed suburbs, utilising open space and services corridors extending from Hoxton Park in the south to Eastern Creek (or the M4) in the north. North of the M4 it would largely be accommodated in the Phillip Parkway and Castlereagh Expressway road reservations (NSW Roads and Traffic Authority 1998). The route will not be finalised until the EIS process is completed. (3) and (4) The Western Sydney Orbital link is not predicated on a second Sydney airport being located at Badgery's Creek. 23990(Question No. 2052)205223990Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 October 2000:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 472 (Hansard, 10 September 1996, page 3919), what communications have occurred between the Government and the New Zealand Government regarding monetary and currency union.(2) On what terms and conditions does the Government support monetary and currency union.23990Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There has been significant public debate in New Zealand over the past year or so on the issue of currency union with the US or Australia. Reflecting this debate, discussion of the issue has occurred between the Government and the New Zealand Government as part of more general discussions.For example, during the Prime Minister and Prime Minister of New Zealand's joint press conference on 28 September 2000, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard noted that the issue had been raised in their discussions. The Prime Minister went on to say that, “it's not something that Australia will be seeking to make the running on.”(2) The Australian Government is not in favour of a new or third currency. Current monetary and macroeconomic policy arrangements in Australia have proven effective in providing the economic environment for the strong, low inflation growth and declining unemployment that we have seen in recent years. Were we to receive a request to adopt our currency arrangements, the Government would have a look at such a request. No such request has been received. 23991(Question No. 2057)205723991Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 October 2000:(1) Further to his answer to questions No. 578 (Hansard, 18 November 1996, page 7035) and No. 3058 (Hansard, 15 July 1998, page 6263), does the Government plan to produce budget estimates on an expenditure tax basis.(2) Would this allow the Government to publish figures regarding the net budget contribution to national savings.(3) Does the Government's Charter of Budget Honesty or other budget guidelines currently require the publication of figures showing the net budget contribution to national savings.23991Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) The net budget contribution to national savings is determined by both the level of public savings directly contributed towards national savings, and the effect that budgetary policies have on private savings' contribution towards national savings. The fiscal budget balance represents the Commonwealth's direct contribution to the national savings and investment imbalance, which in turn approximates the nation's current account deficit. From a national perspective, movements in government savings may be partially offset by changes in private saving. However, the extent of any such offset will depend on behavioural responses that are uncertain and are likely to vary considerably depending on the nature of the budgetary measures affecting the balance. It is not apparent that the use of any alternative basis for budget estimates would provide an accurate estimate of the net impact of the budget on national saving.(3) The Charter of Budget Honesty requires government to frame fiscal policy in accordance with principles of sound fiscal management (which includes national savings).23991(Question No. 2080)208023991Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 12 October 2000:With respect to the Ipswich Motorway, (a) at what stage is the major upgrade concept planning and (b) when is it expected that the Government will proceed with the major upgrade to relieve congestion and improve safety on the motorway.23991Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) The Federal Government has provided $2 million towards the development of a concept plan for major upgrading of the Ipswich Motorway. This work will be undertaken in 2 phases. Phase 1 will establish the most appropriate standard for the Motorway in general terms, and involves disseminating information and gathering technical data. Phase 1 is now underway and Queensland Department of Main Roads (QDMR), who are undertaking this work on behalf of the Commonwealth, expect it to be completed by March 2001. Following this, Phase 2 will seek participation from key stakeholders and broader community consultation. (b) QDMR expect the planning processes to be completed and a preferred upgrading concept to be identified by June 2002. Funding for construction of this project is still to be allocated, and will be considered in future National Highway works programs for Queensland.23992(Question No. 2086)208623992Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 30 October 2000:(1) What was the outlay for payment of the adjustment to Commonwealth superannuants falling due on the first payday after 1 July 2000.(2) What is the anticipated outlay for payment of the adjustment to Commonwealth superannuants falling due on the first payday after 1 July 2001.(3) Has the Government made provision for advance GST compensation to be paid to public sector superannuants relative to their superannuation pensions as has been the case for other pensioners; if not why not.(4) What would the outlay be for the 4% pensioner GST compensation to be paid to public sector superannuants for (a) Commonwealth, (b) State and (c) Territory superannuants.(5) Did the Government index public sector superannuation pensions in advance of the predicted 1.9% CPI increase as a result of the introduction of the GST; if not, why not.(6) What is the estimated cost of indexing public sector superannuation pensions to Male Total Average Weekly Earnings.(7) Why are public sector superannuation pensions not indexed on a 6 monthly basis like other pensions.23992Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Around $2 million per pension payday in 2000-01 for CSS and PSS pensioners. (2) This will depend upon a number of factors including the percentage increase in the CPI between March 2000 and March 2001. (3) Commonwealth superannuation pensioners are self-funded retirees and as such can benefit from The New Tax System on the same basis as all other self-funded retirees. (4) This has not been costed for Commonwealth superannuants, as they are self-funded retirees. The GST compensation was available to social welfare recipients only. Many Commonwealth superannuants are entitled to a whole or a part age or other social welfare pension and would have received all or part of that compensation in respect of that pension. Questions about State and Territory superannuants need to be directed to the relevant State or Territory Government. (5) No. Commonwealth superannuation pensioners are self-funded retirees and as such can benefit from The New Tax System on the same basis as all other self-funded retirees. (6) The cost of changing the indexation of CSS/PSS pensions to MTAWE will depend upon the difference between CPI and MTAWE in any year. Based on the CSS/PSS liability at 30 June 1999, such a change is estimated to increase the present value of the Commonwealth's CSS/PSS unfunded liability by around $6.6 billion if an ongoing 1.5% difference is assumed or, by $4.1 billion if a 1% difference is assumed. (7) Annual indexation is a method of indexation applied to a number of other pensions, including those paid by some State and Territory superannuation schemes. Annual indexation has been provided for in Commonwealth superannuation schemes since 1973 and forms part of the original scheme design of both the CSS and the PSS.23992(Question No. 2093)209323992McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 October 2000:Further to the answer to question No. 1744, will he update the progress of the review being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in conjunction with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and Airservices Australia.23992Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has determined that air traffic control should not nominate a runway for use when there is a crosswind of more than 20 knots and an alternative runway is available. The new crosswind limit will apply to all airports with more than one runway, including Sydney Airport. CASA has also determined that Airservices Australia must provide pilots with an update of wind conditions when it issues takeoff and landing clearances, except at GAAP airports where the large number of aircraft in the circuit would make it impractical. 23993(Question No. 2099)209923993Quick, Harry, MPMr QuickAV5FranklinALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 November 2000: (1) What items of electronic/electrical equipment were used between 1969 and 1973 by a person who was training as an air electronic officer to operate Neptune and HS748 aircraft. (2) What items of electronic/electrical equipment were used by an air electronic officer who served on Neptune and HS748 aircraft between 1969 and 1973. (3) What were the radiation emission levels from the electronic/electrical equipment used during training. (4) What were the emission levels from the electronic/electrical equipment used on the Neptune and HS748 aircraft between 1969 and 1973.23993Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) During the period identified, Royal Australian Air Force air electronic officers undertook basic airmanship and radio communications training on the HS748 aircraft. They then undertook specific training on, and subsequently used, anti-submarine warfare equipment fitted to the Neptune aircraft. Only limited information exists on the electronic/electrical equipment fitted to the Neptune as it was withdrawn from service in the mid 1970s. The main equipment fitted to each aircraft used by air electronic officers is as follows:HS748HF 618T RadioNeptune - AN/APS20 Radar - AN/AQA4 Jezebel Acoustics Set - DT-37/ASQ-8 Magnetic Anomaly Detector - AN/ASA20 Julie Acoustic Sensor - ARC-92 HF Radio (3) and (4) Of the foregoing, the most significant item in terms of emitted energy would be the Neptune radio. Due to the time that has expired, however, information on emission levels is not readily available. As there is no certainty that extensive archival research will yield this data, in the interests of efficient use of departmental resources, I am not prepared to authorise the time and effort required to provide this information. 23993(Question No. 2126)212623993Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 2000: (1) How many (a) permanent and (b) reservist legal officers are currently serving in the Australian Defence Force. (2) How many (a) permanent and (b) reservist legal officers resigned in (i) 1997-98, (ii) 1998-99 and (iii) 1999-2000. (3) Has the Judge Advocate General expressed concern at insufficient career structures and training opportunities for Defence legal officers; if so, what action has the Government taken to address this problem.23994Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of officers in legal positions in the Australian Defence Force are as follows: (a) Permanent force: 90 (b) Reserve force: Navy - 116, Army - 104 and RAAF - 100. (2) Resignations of legal officers: (a) Permanent force: (i) 1997/98 - 18 (ii) 1998/99 - 23 (iii) 1999/00 - 5 (b) Reserve force: (i) 1997/98 - Nil (ii) 1998/99 - Nil (iii) 1999/00 - Nil (3) The current JAG has twice referred to concern about training opportunities for legal officers. This information is in the JAG Reports for the periods 1 January to 31 December 1997 (p.4) and 1 January to 31 December 1999 (pp. 8-10), which have been forwarded separately to your office. In February 2000 the Defence Remuneration Tribunal approved the Legal Officers' Specialist Structure which provided for a separate career and remuneration structure for legal officers. The new structure is formed on competency levels with a rank overlay. There are five different competency levels and salary levels are more consistent with market forces. The introduction of the new structure has resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of permanent legal officers resigning from the Defence Force.23994(Question No. 2128)212823994O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 2000: (1) Is it the intention of his Department to destroy pay records relating to (a) current and (b) former Defence personnel; if so, which records are to be destroyed. (2) What mechanism will his Department have to validate pay details of current and former defence personnel.23994Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) No. (b) Yes. The Department of Defence intends to destroy paper pay records of former Defence service personnel relating to the post World War II period. There is an agreement with National Archives of Australia to retain permanently pay records up to 1950, particularly including the two World Wars. (2) Authority for disposal of post World War II records lies with the National Archives. Currently the disposal period for military pay records is 30 years after a member discharges. This is subject to a review to enable the disposal period to reflect the current practice of destroying civilian pay records seven years after a member leaves the Department. After pay records are destroyed, pay related information can still be reconstructed from details recorded on the member's personnel file.23995(Question No. 2131)213123995Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith5V5PerthALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 6 November 2000: (1) Further to the answer to question No.1723 (Hansard, 16 August 2000, page 17532), has the Minister considered the report presented to him by Mr Peter Marks; if so, what is the result of the Minister's consideration of the report. (2) When will the Minister make a declaration of protection referred to in the answer to the question.23995Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes, I have carefully considered the report. (2) I will decide the matter properly according to law when I have examined all relevant evidence and am satisfied that procedural fairness has been accorded to the interested parties.23995(Question No. 2135)213523995Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 7 November 2000: (1) What proportion of Australia's small businesses are (a) connected to the Internet and (b) trading online through electronic commerce. (2) How do the figures in part (1) compare to other member nations of the OECD. 23995Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) According to the Yellow Pages, Small Business Index, June 2000; Survey of Technology and E -Commerce in Australian Small and Medium Business, in February 2000:· Approximately 60 per cent of small businesses had access to the Internet - compared to 48 per cent in February 1999.· 25 per cent of small businesses have their own home page.· 17 per cent of small businesses place orders using the Internet.· 11 per cent of small businesses make payments on the Internet.· 14 per cent of small businesses receive orders using the Internet.· 7 per cent of small businesses receive payments using the Internet. (2) Recent international reports by the OECD and Goldman Sachs among others, place Australia among the world's top new economies. In June 2000, the OECD Report Is there a New Economy? rated Australia as one of only six member nations which could be classified as a `new economy'. The highly reputed economic analysts Goldman Sachs have described Australia as highly `tech literate'. In July 2000, the Goldman Sachs paper on Australia, Australian Productivity: Catching a `New Economy' Wave, noted that “Internet penetration rates are the highest in the Asia Pacific, personal computer use is widespread, investment in computer hardware and software is strong and major Australian companies have begun the process of moving online.”Australia has the third biggest Information, Communications and Technology (ICT) market in the Asia-Pacific, behind Japan and China, and is second in the world for ICT spending as a percentage of GDP, with ICT take up as an enabling technology across all sectors of the economy.· Australia is also a world leader in new technology adoption:· Our per capita internet take-up is fourth in the world behind the USA, Iceland and Finland, andWe have the third highest number of secure servers per capita (after the USA and Iceland), which are the essential infrastructure for secure e-commerce.23996(Question No. 2136)213623996Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 7 November 2000:(1) What proportion of business expenditure on research and development in Australia is spent within Australia's higher education sector.(2) How does the statistic in part (1) compare to other member nations of the OECD.23996Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) In 1998, business contributed $136.1 million towards R&D performed in the higher education sector. (2) There are no comparable statistics, however the following table provides comparisons of 20 major OECD nations with Australia ranking in the middle.Business funding of R&D expenditure in universities, major OECD nationsNationReference yearBusiness-funded university R&D % GDP x 100Canada19954.4%Korea19974.2%Switzerland19984.1%Germany19964.0%Sweden19973.6%Finland19972.8%United Kingdom19972.6%Netherlands19972.4%Norway19972.3%AUSTRALIA19982.3%United States19972.3%New Zealand19971.9%Spain19971.7%Ireland19971.7%Italy19971.2%France19971.2%Austria19981.0%Japan19971.0%Denmark19970.8%Belgium19970.1%23996(Question No. 2143)214323996Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 November 2000:(1) In relation to the announcement on 31 October of the sale process of the Essendon Airport, what are the guidelines and parameters to the development of the site referred to in objective (iv).(2) Are majority foreign owned companies precluded from purchasing the airport.(3) Will extra land around the airport be included in the sale process to make it safer.(4) Are discussions being held with the Victorian Government in relation to possible changes in the alignment of the Tullamarine/Calder inter-change.(5) Will the Government ensure that the new operator has emergency services on site 24 hours a day. (6) Has the Government considered what impact a developed Essendon Airport will have on Tullamarine; if so, what will be that impact.(7) How will possible purchasers demonstrate an awareness of environmental and local issues as required in objective (v).(8) Is there a reserve price, or a price below which the Government will not accept a bid for the airport.23997Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows:(1) As advised by my department, in consultation with DOTRS, Essendon Airport is to remain a general aviation airport to be regulated under the Airports Act 1996 with the development of the land to be in accordance with the lease provisions and that Act. Under the Act, the airport lessee is prevented from carrying on substantial trading or financial activities other than those relating to the operation and /or development of the Airport or that are incidental to the operation and /or development of the Airport. In the assessment of bids, attention will be paid to ensuring the proponent has an appropriate mix of financial strength and managerial capability to ensure that these requirements are likely to be met.(2) As advised by my department, in consultation with DOTRS, the Airports Act 1996 precludes foreign ownership in the Airport in excess of 49%.(3) As advised by my department, in consultation with DOTRS, Essendon Airport, like any other licensed aerodrome, is required to meet regulations and standards set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for the safe operation of an airport. In addition, CASA carries out compliance checks on the Airport's application of its standards. The Commonwealth proposes to sell its shares in Essendon Airport Limited, which currently leases the land occupied by the Airport, and there are no changes envisaged to the Airport's existing boundaries.(4) As advised by my department, in consultation with DOTRS, I understand that Essendon Airport Limited management have had previous discussions with the Victorian Government in relation to possible changes in the alignment of the Tullamarine/Calder interchange. I am not aware of any current discussions between these parties.(5) As advised by my department, in consultation with DOTRS, as is the case with all General Aviation Airports, Essendon Airport has no dedicated aviation rescue or fire fighting service. The Airport has well rehearsed Aerodrome emergency procedures developed in accordance with Civil Aviation Regulations and in consultation with Victoria Police, the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, the Ambulance Service of Victoria and other agencies. Those procedures have local emergency services notified by Airservices Australia air traffic controllers when local fire, ambulance and police units are required at the Airport. They also provide for airport administrative arrangements to assist emergency services personnel attending, and operating on, the Airport. An Aerodrome Emergency exercise is held annually and the procedures are reviewed at least semi annually as well as after any live emergency or training exercises. These arrangements would continue under any new operator.(6) As advised by my department, in consultation with DOTRS, the Government has considered what impact a developed Essendon Airport will have on Tullamarine. Essendon Airport will continue to cater principally for general aviation activities and emergency services such as Air Ambulance Victoria and the Victorian Police Air Wing. Current curfew and noise limitations will be formalised in Regulations. Essendon's operations will therefore continue to complement those at Tullamarine. (7) As advised by my department, in consultation with DOTRS, the Airports Act 1996 and the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997 set out a comprehensive environment regulatory regime for the airport site. That regime includes the development and implementation of an approved airport environment strategy that sets out how the airport owner will operate the Airport to safeguard and improve the environment. Potential purchasers of shares in Essendon Airport Limited will need to demonstrate an understanding of the requirements of the environment protection regime and demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of the approved environment strategy for Essendon Airport.(8) The Commonwealth does not set a reserve price for such sales. The Commonwealth will receive from its advisers as part of the sale process, valuation advice relating to Essendon Airport Limited which the Commonwealth will use as part of its assessment of bids against the sale objectives. 23998(Question No. 2146)214623998Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 November 2000:(1) On what date was the decision to keep Essendon Airport open made.(2) Who was informed of the decision prior to its announcement in Parliament on 31 October 2000.(3) Was the Victorian Government informed of the decision prior to its announcement in Parliament on 31 October 2000; if so, (a) on what date and at what time was the Victorian Government informed, (b) who made the contact with the Victorian Government and (c) who was contacted.(4) Was the Victorian Opposition informed of the decision prior to its announcement in Parliament on 31 October 2000; if so, (a) on what date and at what time was the Victorian Opposition informed, (b) who made the contact with the Victorian Opposition and (c) who was contacted.(5) Prior to making the decision to keep Essendon Airport open, was a study undertaken of Victoria's aviation needs; if so, (a) what was the nature of the study, (b) by whom was the study conducted, (c) what consultation process was used and (d) what were the results of the study.(6) Was he aware of any similar study being undertaken by the Victorian Government; if so, (a) on what date was he advised such a study was to be undertaken, (b) was the study completed prior to making the decision to keep Essendon Airport open and (c) what were the results of the study.(7) When and by what process will the Commonwealth shares in Essendon Airport Limited be sold.(8) What mechanism will be used to ensure the purchaser of the shares continues to operate Essendon Airport as an airport.(9) In the event that Essendon Airport Ltd is liquidated, placed in receivership, placed under administration or otherwise faces financial difficulties, how will the Commonwealth ensure that Essendon Airport continues to function as an airport.(10) What control will the Commonwealth Government have on the level of aeronautical charges after the sale of the Commonwealth's shares in Essendon Airport Ltd.23998Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows:(1) 30 October 2000.(2) Commonwealth Departments and agencies.(3) The Victorian Premier was written to on 31 October 2000 advising him of the Commonwealth's decision.(4) Not so far as I or my office are aware.(5) As advised by my department, in consultation with DOTRS, a study was undertaken to provide the Commonwealth with advice on options to divest its shareholding in Essendon Airport Limited. This study included aviation policy input from DOTRS. (a), (b), (c) and (d) - Not Applicable (6) (a) I was advised in December 1999 that the newly elected Victorian Government were considering undertaking a study into the airport requirements for the Port Phillip Basin region.(b) No.(c) This is not a matter for the Commonwealth and should be referred to the relevant Victorian Government agency.(7) The Commonwealth's shares in Essendon Airport Limited are proposed to be sold by competitive tender. The Government expects to finalise the sale by 30 June 2001.(8) As advised by my department, in consultation with DOTRS, the Airport Lease, Airports Act 1996, and conditions of the sale documentation. CASA will also need to be satisfied that the new lessee (as licence holder) will be able to properly operate and maintain the Airport. (9) As advised by my department, in consultation with DOTRS, should Essendon Airport Ltd face financial difficulties which result in it being unable to provide for the use of the Airport site as an airport or provide access to the Airport then the Commonwealth is empowered (under the Airport lease) to terminate the Airport lease and grant the lease to a new operator. (10) As advised by my department, in consultation with DOTRS, Essendon Airport, like other privatised airports, will continue to be subject to the provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and Prices Surveillance Act 1983.23999(Question No. 2147)214723999Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 8 November 2000:(1) On what date did he write to the Premier of Victoria seeking the Victorian Government's views about the future of Essendon Airport and RAAF Base Williams at Point Cook.(2) What reply was received to the letter to the Premier of Victoria.(3) Was an asset sales team or teams formed within his Department to oversee the Commonwealth's disposal of the Essendon Airport and RAAF Base Williams; if so, (a) who comprised the teams, (b) with whom did the teams meet and on what dates and (c) have the teams been disbanded; if so, on what date.(4) Did he personally inspect Essendon Airport and RAAF Base Williams in preparation for the disposal of these sites by the Commonwealth; if so, on what date did the inspection occur and who attended the inspection.(5) On what date was the decision to keep Essendon Airport open made.(6) Prior to making the decision to keep Essendon Airport open, was a study undertaken of Victoria's aviation needs; if so, (a) what was the nature of the study, (b) by whom was the study conducted, (c) what consultation process was used and (d) what were the results of the study.(7) Was he aware of any similar study being undertaken by the Victorian Government; if so, (a) on what date was he advised such a study was to be undertaken, (b) was the study completed prior to making the decision to keep Essendon Airport open and (c) what were the results of the study.(8) When and by what process will the Commonwealth's shares in Essendon Airport Ltd be sold.(9) What mechanism will be used to ensure the purchaser of the shares continues to operate Essendon Airport as an airport.(10) In the event that Essendon Airport Ltd is liquidated, placed in receivership, placed under administration or otherwise faces financial difficulties, how will the Commonwealth ensure that Essendon Airport continues to function as an airport.23999Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows:(1) I wrote to the Victorian Premier on 13 January 2000 advising that the Commonwealth had a short to medium term goal of disposing both the Essendon Airport and Point Cook Airfield sites.(2) The Victorian Premier wrote to me on 11 February 2000 advising that it was Victorian Government policy to have Essendon Airport closed and the site redeveloped. The Premier also noted that the future of Essendon Airport and the maintenance of aviation support services is largely a matter for the Commonwealth.(3) Yes.(a) Officers from the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing (OASITO).(b) OASITO met with Essendon Airport Limited officials on a monthly basis from December 1999 through to May 2000. OASITO also met with officials from the Victorian Department of State and Regional Development in December 1999, March, April and August 2000. (c) No.(4) I have visited both Essendon Airport and Point Cook Airfield since 1997. My last visit to Point Cook was in mid 2000. Officers of Essendon Airport Limited attended my visit to Essendon and officers of the Defence Estate Organisation attended my visit to Point Cook. (5) The most recent date on which the decision to keep Essendon Airport open was reaffirmed was 30 October 2000.(6) As advised by my department, in consultation with DOTRS, a study was undertaken to provide the Commonwealth with advice on options to divest its shareholding in Essendon Airport Limited. This study included aviation policy input from DOTRS. (a), (b), (c) and (d) - Not Applicable.(7) (a) I was advised in December 1999 that the newly elected Victorian Government were considering undertaking a study into the airport requirements for the Port Phillip Basin region.(b) No.(c) This is not a matter for the Commonwealth and should be referred to the relevant Victorian Government agency.(8) The Commonwealth's shares in Essendon Airport Limited are proposed to be sold by competitive tender. The Government expects to finalise the sale by 30 June 2001.(9) The Airport Lease and Airports Act 1996. CASA will also need to be satisfied that the new lessee (as licence holder) will be able to properly operate and maintain the Airport. (10) As advised by me department, in consultation with DOTRS, should Essendon Airport Ltd face financial difficulties which result in it being unable to provide for the use of the Airport site as an airport or provide access to the Airport then the Commonwealth is empowered (under the Airport lease) to terminate the Airport lease and grant the lease to a new operator. 24000(Question No. 2156)215624000Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 27 November 2000: (1) Is superannuation required to be included in the pension means test for those over 55 years and 9 months, but below pension age; if so, what sum did the Government save in (a) 1997-98, (b) 1998-99 and (c) 1999-2000 by implementing this measure.(2) How many individuals did the measure affect in (a) 1997-98, (b) 1998-99 and (c) 1999-2000.(3) Since the inclusion of superannuation in the means test has the Retirement Income Modelling Task Force, or any other group, done modelling on the cost of this measure; if so, what are the results of the modelling.24000Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Superannuation assets of customers below Age Pension age are assessed under the pension and allowance means test when the customer has received income support for a cumulative total of 39 weeks after reaching the age of 55.(a) The administered savings amount from this measure in the 1997-98 year is calculated at $91.30 million.(b) The administered savings amount from this measure in the 1998-99 year is calculated at $90.91 million.(c) The administered savings amount for the 1999-2000 year is not yet available. This amount will be provided when it is available. The above administered savings amounts are primarily based on information from Centrelink pension and allowance records. They are derived by a comparison of pension and allowance payments made to customers holding superannuation assets that are assessable under the measure with the payments that would have been made had these assets not been assessed. This information was supplemented by some estimates, for example in regard to administered savings in respect of customers who did not claim a pension or allowance because the measure resulted in their having no entitlement to a payment, and who therefore do not appear on Centrelink records.(2) (a) 61,921 (b) 52,013(c) The number of customers affected in the 1999-2000 year is not yet available. This number will be provided when it is available.The above customer numbers have been derived in the same way as the administered savings amounts referred to in answer to part (1). (3) I have been advised by the Treasurer that the Retirement Income Modelling Task Force has not done modelling on the cost of this measure. I am not aware of any modelling of the cost of the measure by other groups.24001(Question No. 2158)215824001McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 2000:Is it anticipated that passage of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 would reduce or increase the number of applications for review to the High Court in its original jurisdiction.24001Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:It is anticipated that the passage of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 would reduce the number of applications for review to the High Court in its original jurisdiction.24001(Question No. 2160)216024001McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 2000:Further to his answer to a question without notice (Hansard, 8 November 2000, page 19803), and in relation to the increase in the number of applications under the Migration Act for judicial review in the Federal Court and the High Court, how would the passage of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 reduce the number of applications for judicial review to the High Court in its original jurisdiction.24001Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 would lead to a reduction of applications.It would align the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the High Court, thereby making neither option more attractive. At present, people are applying to the High Court for review in an attempt to access grounds of review that have been excluded in the Federal Court by Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958.The Bill implements a privative clause that would effectively expand the jurisdictional validity of decisions of the Migration and Refugee Review Tribunals. That clause would operate in an identical manner for both the Federal Court and the High Court. The clause would apply in accordance with the doctrine in R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598.24001(Question No. 2161)216124001Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 27 November 2000:(1) How many Australia Post mail processing centres closed in the Sydney metropolitan region in 1999 and 2000, and what was the date and location of each closure.(2) How many employees were retrenched, given redundancies after the closure of other centres.(3) Which processing centres received relocated employees after the closure of other centres.(4) How many employees were relocated to each centre. (5) How many full time employees were there in mail processing centres in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000.(6) What sum of Commonwealth expenditure was invested into new capital and technology within Australia Post in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000.(7) What is the average number of hours worked per week, including overtime, for (a) full time, (b) part time and (c) casual employees of Australia Post mail processing centres.(8) Are there plans to relocate other mail processing centres; if so, which centres.(9) What consultations have taken place between management and Australia Post employees or their unions regarding the proposed relocations.(10) Did Australia Post recently operate a weekend delivery service in the Western Sydney Metropolitan Region; if so, when did the service (a) commence and (b) cease.(11) According to service failure records, how many parcels each day are delivered late from each parcel processing centre in the Sydney metropolitan region.24002McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer, based on advice received from Australia Post, to the honourable member's question:(1) Three facilities were closed as follows:Southern Suburbs Mail Centre (Turrella) on 6 November 1999North Western Suburbs Mail Centre (Seven Hills) on 8 April 2000South Western Suburbs Mail Centre (Leightonfield) on 15 April 2000(2) The numbers of staff affected were as follows: Relocated to other mail processing facilities683Redeployed to other employment within Post6Accepted voluntary retrenchment325(3) and (4) of staff relocations directly associated with the closures were: To Sydney West Letters Facility655To Sydney East Letters Facility28To other facilities/offices6(5) The numbers of full-time staff employed in mail processing centres (in NSW) during the three financial years were as follows: 1997/9840231998/9938511999/003438(6) As a Government business enterprise, Australia Post is self-funding. The Corporation has received no funding from the Commonwealth. However, as indicated in Australia Post's Annual Report, capital investment in Land, Buildings, Plant and Equipment was $369.9m in 1998/99 and $288.5m in 1999/00.(7) For NSW mail processing centres, the average number of hours (including overtime) are as follows: Full-time staff42.07 hoursPart-time staff21.2 hoursCasual staff33.71 hoursAs a general rule, part-time and casual staff are offered extended hours/overtime less frequently than full-time staff.(8) The South West Parcel Centre (Regents Park) is scheduled for closure by the end of January 2001.The parcel sorting function, previously undertaken at Seven Hills, will be relocated to the new West Parcel Centre (Leightonfield).The West Parcel Centre will combine parcel sorting operations for both the North West and South West regions of Sydney. (9) As is usual, Australia Post will deal with staff rendered surplus by the closure and reorganisation of the above facilities in accordance with the Redundancy, Redeployment and Retraining Agreement it has with its unions.The CEPU has been kept closely informed of, and involved in, these changes through consultative meetings and participation in joint working parties.(10) Australia Post normally delivers mail on weekdays. However, weekend deliveries may be undertaken on occasions - eg during periods of exceptionally large mail volumes and/or high staff absenteeism.Most recently, in the Western Sydney region, mail was delivered from the Blacktown Delivery Centre on Saturday, 25 March 2000.(11) Over the six-month period May to October 2000, some 95% of parcels delivered across the Sydney metropolitan region were delivered on time. Of those parcels delivered late, most would be delayed by one day only.24003(Question No. 2163)216324003Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 2000: (1) Is he able to say whether, following the canonisation of 120 Chinese Catholic martyrs by Pope John Paul II, the Chinese Government has extended its denunciation of these canonisations to the ostensibly independent administrative region of Hong Kong.(2) Are Australian representatives in contact with Bishop Joseph Zen, deputy ecclesiastic head of the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong.(3) Is he or the Australian High Commissioner able to confirm whether Beijing's Office of Liaison warned the Catholic Bishop to down play the canonisations.(4) Is he able to say whether a Chinese language newspaper, the Ming Pao on Wednesday, 4 October 2000, reported of Chinas attitude to the Catholic Church in Hong Kong that Beijing is very dissatisfied with you.(5) Has the Australian Government been in contact with the authorities in Beijing about this and other apparent attempts to interfere in the independent political and administrative region of Hong Kong.24003Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I understand that, on 18 September, China's Central Government Liaison Office in Hong Kong met representatives from the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong and requested that canonisation celebrations be kept “low key”. (2) Our Consulate-General in Hong Kong is in contact with a range of human rights and religious organisations - including Roman Catholic representatives as senior as the ecclesiastical head of the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong, Cardinal Wu. The Consulate-General provides regular reports on the implementation of `One Country, Two Systems' and the civil liberties situation in Hong Kong, including on freedom of religion.(3) On 18 September, China's Central Government Liaison Office in Hong Kong met representatives from the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong and requested that canonisation celebrations be kept “low key”. On 10 October, the Ming Pao newspaper reported Bishop Zen as saying that he did not consider the comments by the Central Government Liaison Office as constituting interference and that these comments had not impacted on religious freedom in Hong Kong.(4) On 4 October, the Ming Pao published an open letter from Bishop Zen in which he quoted a mainland Bishop as warning him that “Beijing is very dissatisfied with you”. (4) We continue to discuss with Beijing representatives the implementation of “One Country, Two Systems”, including civil and political rights, because this will be important for the continued success of Hong Kong as an international financial centre in which Australia has important interests.24004(Question No. 2164)216424004Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn to recent visit to Beijing by Ms Anson Chan, Secretary of the Hong Kong Administrative Region, to meet Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen.(2) Is he able to say whether Ms Chan's meeting with the Chinese leader was followed by an admonition in the official Beijing newsagency Xinhua that the Hong Kong civil service headed by Ms Chan had been asked to better support Chief Executive Tung Chee Hua.(3) How does the Australian Government interpret this criticism of Ms Chan and the independent civil service guaranteed under the One Country - Two Systems accord that is the basis of Hong Kong's relationship with China.24004Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian Consulate-General provided a report on the visit at the time.(2) A Xinhua press release after Mrs Chan's meeting with Vice Premier Chen reported Mr Qian as having “expressed his hope that Chan and all public servants in Hong Kong would better support the work of the Chief Executive and, under Tung Chee-hwa's leadership, continue to contribute to Hong Kong's prosperity and stability”.(3) The Australian Government considers that the transition following China's resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong and China's respect for Hong Kong's autonomy, as set out in the Basic Law, has generally proceeded smoothly. It will be important for Hong Kong's continued success as an international financial centre, in which Australia has important interests, that China should continue firmly to adhere to those commitments. Mrs Chan told the media that there was nothing new in Chinese leaders emphasising the importance of Hong Kong's civil servants supporting the Chief Executive. Mr Tung said that Mr Qian's intention had been to encourage civil servants because they were facing many pressures and challenges.24004(Question No. 2165)216524004Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 27 November 2000: (1) Has she commenced or otherwise obtained any report or findings or recommendations relating to the effects or possible effects of current and continuing high fuel prices on tourism in regional and rural Australia. (2) If so, (a) what is the nature of the report or findings, (b) from where have they originated and (c) what use has she made of them. (3) If not, will she commission an independent inquiry into the effects or possible effects of the current and continuing high level of fuel prices on tourism in regional and rural Australia.24004Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) No.24004(Question No. 2166)216624004Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 November 2000:(1) Have any objections or concerns been expressed to his Department or his office about the process for the replacement of the Prime Systems Integrator Panel; if so, (a) what was the nature of the concerns and (b) how have they been addressed. (2) What internal processes does his Department have in place to deal with such complaints and were those processes followed in this case. (3) Is he satisfied that the process was conducted in accordance with the Departmental Secretary's responsibilities under the Financial Management and Accountability Act.24005Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Complaints are handled in accordance with the guidelines contained in the Defence Service Charter and the Defence Procurement Policy Manual. (3) Yes.24005(Question No. 2167)216724005Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 November 2000:(1) What was the process involved leading to the supply of desktop computers to replace PD50 computers under the Defence Preferred Computer Systems Panel (DPCSP).(2) Was the timetable for the development of the DPCSP advised to prospective tenderers and was it adhered to.(3) Have any objections or concerns been expressed to his Department or his office about the process leading to the DPCSP; if so, (a) what was the nature of the concerns and (b) how have they been addressed.(4) What internal processes does his Department have in place to deal with such complaints and were those processes followed in this case.(5) Is he satisfied that the process was conducted in accordance with the Departmental Secretary's responsibilities under the Financial Management and Accountability Act.24005Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Defence issued a Request for Tender to establish the Defence Preferred Computer Systems Panel to replace the PD50 arrangement. An Industry Briefing was subsequently held. Tenders closed and a detailed tender evaluation process was undertaken. The evaluation summaries were then reviewed by the senior management Tender Evaluation Board as part of the approval process. The Department of Defence then provided written advice to tenderers that further detailed review would be required, and to expedite the process, decisions on the individual categories of equipment would be “segmented” to allow successful tenderers for each category to be declared separately.(2) (i) Yes.(ii) Yes, the timetable was adhered to other than for the final stage which has been delayed due to the complexity of the evaluation.(3) No formal concerns or objections have been expressed to my department or my office concerning the process leading to the DPCSP. However, a number of tenderers have contacted my department for information on the status of the project and when a final decision may be expected. (a) Not applicable.(b) Not applicable.(4) There have been no complaints from tenderers about the process. Where complaints do arise, they are handled in accordance with the guidelines contained in the Defence Service Charter and the Defence Procurement Policy Manual. (5) Yes.24005(Question No. 2168)216824005Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 27 November 2000:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 1987 (Hansard, 9 November 2000, page 19988), will all Centrelink IT infrastructure needs be met through the outsourcing process; if so, why is Centrelink negotiating independently and directly with IBM for the procurement of its brand new mainframe. (2) Have the companies competing for the outsource tender advised Centrelink of the impact such a change in technology will have on their Data Centres.(3) Will negotiating with the current sole supplier IBM deliver greater savings to the Commonwealth than negotiating mainframe capacity upgrade requirements through the competitive outsourcing tender process.24006Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Centrelink expects that all in scope IT infrastructure needs would be met by the current outsourcing process. Centrelink is required to ensure provision of adequate capacity to meet its business requirements and the current negotiations with IBM are to supply these under a fully novatable lease.(2) The companies will be officially notified of our changes to the infrastructure after negotiations commence.(3) As a result of the increased capacity requirements Centrelink is not able to defer these upgrades till the current IT infrastructure tender process is resolved. IBM is the sole supplier of the required technology and the rates we have negotiated are quite favourable when benchmarked.24006(Question No. 2174)217424006Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 November 2000:Is Australia a signatory to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; if not (a) why not, (b) will he seek to ensure that Australia signs this international instrument and (c) when is Australia likely to become a signatory to this international instrument.24006Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Australia is not a signatory to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).(a) The Government believes that it would not be appropriate to sign a new United Nations (UN) complaints procedure, the Optional Protocol to CEDAW, while our concerns with the overall operation of the UN treaty committee system remain.(b) & (c) The Government has decided not to sign the Optional Protocol to CEDAW while our concerns with the UN treaty system remain. 24006(Question No. 2175)217524006Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 November 2000: (1) Is he able to provide the cost to his Department of the creation of a secure document network; if not, why not; if so, what is the approximate cost.(2) Will the secure document network proposal will be scrapped [sic].24006Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Annual Report for 1999-2000 of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade states (at p. 111) that the Department has developed a new secure communications system called SATIN (Secure Australian Telecommunications and Information Network). The deployment of this system in Canberra was completed in June 2000, on time and within budget, and replaces ADCNET (Australian Diplomatic Communications Network) in Canberra. The Department plans to introduce SATIN to overseas posts progressively, and is currently examining associated funding issues.It is not clear from the honourable member's question whether the “secure document network” is intended to refer to SATIN or ADCNET or some other system. Upon clarification, I am ready to provide further information.24007(Question No. 2176)217624007Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 28 November 2000:(1) Is the Minister able to confirm whether several days worth of e-mail were lost within the National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE) in the week beginning Sunday, 5 November 2000; if not, why not.(2) If so, (a) how much e-mail was so lost and (b) was the reason for the loss of e-mail due to alleged inefficiencies from the contracted and outsourced Information Technology firm responsible for the management and storage of NOIE e-mail.24007McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) and (2) The response to the question is that NOIE had no recorded down time in the week commencing Sunday 5 November 2000, and no loss of e-mail service.24007(Question No. 2177)217724007Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 28 November 2000:Further to the answer to question No. 2120, will the Minister now recommend legislation to protect the ABC's non-commercial character by proposing an amendment to the ABC Act to extend the Act's current prohibition on advertising to cover the ABC's online services and ABC linked or associated websites.24007McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Government has no current intention to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 to restrict the capacity of the ABC to earn additional revenue through online activities. It is a matter for the ABC Board to ensure that any activities undertaken by the ABC are consistent with the ABC Act and do not adversely affect the independence of the Corporation.24007(Question No. 2178)217824007Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 November 2000:(1) Who is eligible for the Australian Service Medal (ASM). (2) Have ASM medals been awarded to national servicemen who performed their service wholly within Australia.(3) Will he consider adding a new National Service Clasp to the ASM in recognition of all National Servicemen who underwent military training in the compulsory call-ups between 1951 and 1972 inclusive.(4) If not, will he consider a new medal in recognition of the service of National Servicemen who underwent military training in the compulsory call-ups between 1951 and 1972 inclusive.24007Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Those Australian Defence Force personnel who render prescribed operational service and meet the qualifying criteria as approved by the Governor-General.(2) No.(3) No. There is no provision within the ASM Regulations to do so as National Service was not operational service. (4) No. It is Government policy that medals will only be awarded in recognition of operational service, gallantry, distinguished or considerable long and efficient service. Nevertheless, the Government is considering options in relation to appropriate recognition of national service. 24008(Question No. 2180)218024008Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 28 November 2000:(1) Did the Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO) release a study in 1994 indicating that clean energy resources, being geothermal power, capable of meeting Australia's total present energy needs for the next 830 years, had been found in two areas of the Artesian basin in South Australia.(2) Has the Energy Research and Development Corporation said the AGSO study indicated Australia's total hot rock energy reserves would last the nation for 7500 years at present annual rates of all forms of energy.(3) Will the Minister introduce legislation to conduct the necessary investigations required leading to the feasibility of harnessing this untapped clean energy.24008Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) and (2) The study referred to by the Hon member for Lowe was conducted by officers of AGSO with funding support from the Energy Research and Development Corporation which released it for publication in November 1994. The report concludes that “The calculated hot dry rock resources in favoured granite bodies beneath the Eromanga Basin amount to 2.5 million petajoules, 830 times Australia's current energy consumption.”The report also assesses Australia's continental minimum hot dry rock energy resource (22.7 million petajoules) “...enough to supply all of Australia's needs at an annual consumption rate of 3000 petajoules, for 7500 years.” Current energy use is about 10 per cent above this level. (3) Legislation will not enhance the process of harnessing energy from hot dry rock resources. It is a matter for further analysis and research into the technical and economic feasibility of developing hot rock energy in Australia. To this end, the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) has provided funding, under the Renewable Energy Commercialisation Program, of $1.79 million to two projects, which are currently investigating the feasibility of developing hot dry rock as a source of clean energy. Further details on these projects is provided on the AGO's web site: www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewable/recp/projects.html..24008(Question No. 2183)218324008Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 28 November 2000: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 1944 (Hansard, 1 November 2000, page 21969) concerning the granting of permanent protection visas after the expiry of the relevant period for a temporary protection visa (TPV), will a TPV holder who is determined to be a genuine refugee after the three year period has elapsed be guaranteed a permanent protection visa, assuming character and health criteria are met. (2) Did he make an assurance in a public meeting in Melbourne on 22 November 2000 that these TPV holders would definitely be granted permanent protection.24008Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As stated in my response to Question No. 1944, the legislation makes it clear that the protection visa is granted initially for a period of three years but that the TPV holder may be granted a permanent protection visa after the relevant period if they still need protection and meet the criteria. (2) My answer above applies. 24009(Question No. 2186)218624009Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 29 November 2000:(1) When were Australian properties last considered for inscription on the (a) World Heritage List and (b) List of World Heritage in Danger, and with what results.(2) Which Australian properties have been nominated for inscription at the 24th annual session of the World Heritage Committee in Cairns.(3) On what occasions has the Sydney Opera House been considered for inscription on the World Heritage List.24009Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) Before the consideration of the Greater Blue Mountains Area at the 24th annual Session of the World Heritage Committee (27 November - 2 December 2000, Cairns), Heard and McDonald Islands and Macquarie Island were considered at the 21st annual Session of the World Heritage Committee, 1997. The Committee inscribed each of these properties on the World Heritage List.(b) Kakadu National Park was considered by the World Heritage Committee for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the Committee's 3rd Extraordinary Session, held 12 July 1999. The Committee decided not to inscribe the property on this List. (2) See my answer to Question 1(a).(3) A World Heritage nomination for the property: `Sydney Opera House in its setting with the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the surrounding waterways of Sydney Harbour from Bradley's Head to McMahon's Point' was submitted to UNESCO on 31 December 1980. The nomination was considered by the executive of the World Heritage Committee, the World Heritage Bureau, at its 5th Annual Session, held 4-7 May 1981. The Bureau recommended to the Committee that the nomination be deferred and not inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Australian government then withdrew the nomination, in advance of the Committee's consideration. 24009(Question No. 2188)218824009Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 November 2000.Did Army or Defence personnel provide advice to CMAS Consulting on the suitability of former staff when it gained the contract for the supply of labour at Enoggera and South Queensland Logistic Group; if so, were the staff given a copy of that information; if not, why not.24009Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) Under the Queensland State Industrial Relations Act 1999, there is no formal requirement to provide former staff with a written transcript of a verbal referee's report.24009(Question No. 2189)218924009Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 November 2000: (1) Where is the work formerly performed at South Queensland Logistic Group Banyo now undertaken. (2) Have any performance indicators and quality control procedures been introduced for this work. (3) Has any comparison been made of the quality and cost-effectiveness of this work with the previous in-house work. 24010Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The nature of work performed at Banyo has changed; some work, and staff, have been relocated to Bulimba. There has also been an increase in the proportion of work sent to trade repair organisations. (2) Yes. (3) Yes.24010(Question No. 2199)219924010Irwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin83ZFowlerALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 30 November 2000: (1) How many persons under the age of 18 have been held in detention centres in 2000. (2) What has been the average length of stay for persons under the age of 18 in detention centres. (3) How many persons under the age of 18 have been held in adult compounds rather than family quarters. (4) Have any persons under the age of 18 knowingly been detained in adult compounds where they do not have a close relative. (5) On how many occasions have close family groups been separated in detention centres. (6) What priority is given to providing family accommodation to detainees arriving at the (a) Curtin, (b) Darwin and (c) Woomera Centres. (7) Are detention centres subject to State laws. (8) What procedures are there for detainees or staff at detention centres to lodge complaints with State Government agencies. (9) Are detainees routinely prohibited from communicating with media representatives; if so why. (10) Are any agencies independent of the Commonwealth Government permitted to investigate and report on conditions in detention centres; if so, which agencies. (11) Have any complaints alleging sexual abuse been made by detainees at the Villawood Detention Centre; if so, were the complaints referred to the appropriate NSW authorities.24010Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 914 minors have been held in detention centres during 2000 until 14 December. (2) At 14 December, there were 210 minors in detention. Of these 46% have been in detention for less than three months, 38% have been in detention for greater than three months but less than twelve months and 16% have been in detention for greater than twelve months. (3) Families are generally accommodated in separate buildings in most detention centres. At the Villawood centre there are, however, two separate compounds. Stage 1 and Stage 1.5 are for adult males only; and families and minors are housed in Stage 2. (4) Refer to previous answer. Prior to 22 February 2000, a number of young people (16,17 year olds) have at some time been accommodated in Stage 1 of Villawood. Since that date, this no longer happens. (5) This is not information which is collated by the Department. There are, however, circumstances where family groups may be separated. These include where family members may arrive on different boats and therefore may be accommodated in different centres. On occasions when the Department has become aware of this, the Department has moved close family members together in one centre. Other circumstances include: when a member of a family is transferred to prison or to another area within the centre as a result of actions by them which may be a threat to the security of the centre; or where they are charged with an offence; or where they are at risk of self harm or of harming other detainees or staff. (6) There is no detention facility in Darwin. Priority is always given at Curtin and Woomera, as it is at all the detention centres, to appropriately house families. (7) The power to detain is derived from the Migration Act (1958). It is a requirement of the Immigration Detention Standards, which form part of the detention contract, that detention facilities are managed in a manner that is consistent with relevant Commonwealth and State/Territory laws. (8) Specific procedures are in place for detainees to make direct contact with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. There are no specific procedures for detainees to lodge complaints with State Government agencies. However, detainees are able to contact whoever they like, including State Government Agencies, once initial screening has been completed and they are accommodated with the general detainee population within their centre. In addition, staff are able to contact State Government agencies direct and indeed in some cases have mandatory reporting obligations. (9) Detainees are able to contact whoever they like, including the media, once initial screening has been completed and they are accommodated with the general detainee population within their centre. Until this occurs, detainees have limited communication opportunities outside the centre. This is done in order to preserve the integrity of the refugee assessment process. (10) Immigration Detention Centres are subject to external scrutiny through the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. In addition, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration has also visited immigration detention facilities and recently published a report concerning these centres, Not the Hilton. (11) In April 2000, there was an allegation of sexual abuse by a detainee against another detainee. The matter was referred to NSW police for investigation. 24011(Question No. 2200)220024011Hall, Jill, MPMs Hall83NShortlandALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 30 November 2000: (1) What was the total sum of Aged Persons Savings Bonus payments returned to him from the electoral division of Shortland. (2) What was the sum in dollar terms of Aged Persons Savings Bonus payments returned him from the electoral division of Shortland in (a) cheques made out in favour of the Government, (b) money orders made out in favour of the Government, (c) cash, (d) returned savings bonus cheques, (e) cheques made out in favour of him and (f) money orders made out in favour of him.24011Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by my department as follows: (1) The total sum of Aged Persons Savings Bonus payments returned to the Prime Minister from the electoral division of Shortland was $2. (2) The sum in dollar terms of payments returned to the Prime Minister from the electoral division of Shortland was: (a) Nil (b) Nil (c) $2 (d) Nil (e) Nil (f) Nil.24012(Question No. 2201)220124012Hall, Jill, MPMs Hall83NShortlandALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 30 November 2000: (1) What was the total sum of Aged Persons Savings Bonus payments returned to the Minister's Department from the electoral division of Shortland.(2) What was the sum in dollar terms of Aged Persons Savings Bonus payments returned to the Minister's Department from the electoral division of Shortland in (a) cheques, (b) money orders, (c) cash and (d) returned savings bonus payments.24012Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) $2.(2) (a) Nil.(b) Nil.(c) $2.(d) Nil.24012(Question No. 2202)220224012Hall, Jill, MPMs Hall83NShortlandALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 30 November 2000: (1) How many persons within the electoral division of Shortland were penalised for breaches of Centrelink guidelines in (a) 1998 (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. (2) How many persons within the electoral division of Shortland were penalised more than once in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. (3) What is the total sum of money received through penalties of welfare recipients living in the electoral division of Shortland in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000.24012Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Data on the number of people breached is not readily available. Data on the number of breaches imposed has been provided below (note, some people may incur more than one breach in a year). This data is not available by electorate division; data has been provided by Centrelink Customer Service Centre. By comparing the postcodes in the Shortland electorate with the postcodes in Centrelink Customer Service Centres the following centres approximate the Shortland electorate: Charlestown, Lakehaven, Newcastle and Wyong. (a) Data prior to October 1998 is not readily available. Between October 1998 and December 1998, 343 breaches were imposed; made up of 248 activity test breaches and 95 administrative breaches. (b) In 1999, 2,659 breaches were imposed; made up of 1,735 activity test breaches and 924 administrative breaches. (c) Data for November and December 2000 is not currently available. Between January 2000 and October 2000, 4,381 breaches were imposed; made up of 2,841 activity test breaches and 1,540 administrative breaches. (2) Data on the number of people penalised more than once in a year is not readily available. (3) Information required to answer this question is not available at the level requested. Savings are currently only calculated on a national level. 24013(Question No. 2203)220324013Hall, Jill, MPMs Hall83NShortlandALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 30 November 2000: (1) How many persons registered with Centrelink offices living in the electoral division of Shortland (a) applied for (b) received the Aged Persons Saving Bonus.(2) How many persons registered with Centrelink offices living in the electoral division of Shortland who met the eligibility criteria in every aspect other than the aspect of earned income did not receive any Savings Bonus Payment.(3) How many persons registered with Centrelink offices living in the electoral division of Shortland received between $1 and $50.(4) How many persons registered with Centrelink offices living in the electoral division of Shortland received an Aged Savings Bonus payment of less than $1.(5) How many persons registered with Centrelink offices living in the electoral division of Shortland received the maximum Aged Persons Savings Bonus of $1000 for pensioners and $2000 for self-funded retirees.(6) What was the average Aged Persons Savings Bonus paid to (a) pensioners and (b) self-funded retirees in the electoral division of Shortland.(7) How many pensioners and self-funded retirees have appealed to date to have their Aged Persons Savings Bonus payments adjusted.24013Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:NOTE: Due to the placement of Electoral boundaries across postcodes, Centrelink cannot extract exact figures for payments by Electorate. This is because Centrelink customer demographics do not necessarily match those of the electoral population.Responses are estimated based on the percentage of the total postcode population of postcodes located in the Electoral Division. (1) 27,622 persons residing within the electoral division of Shortland applied for and received the Aged Persons Savings Bonus. This figure includes customers who claimed their bonus with either Centrelink, the Department of Veterans' Affairs or the Australian Taxation Office.(2) Data on the number of people residing within the electoral division of Shortland who did not receive the Aged Persons Savings Bonus because they did not satisfy the earned income criterion is not readily available at a national or electorate level.(3) 2,308 persons residing within the electoral division of Shortland received a bonus payment of between $1 and $50. This figure includes customers who claimed their bonus with either Centrelink, the Department of Veterans' Affairs or the Australian Taxation Office.(4) The minimum bonus payment is $1. No bonus payments are made for less than $1.(5) For persons residing within the electoral division of Shortland 16,134 received the maximum $1,000 of Aged Persons Savings Bonus and 1,383 received the maximum $2,000 of Self Funded Retirees Supplementary Bonus. This figure includes customers who claimed their bonus with either Centrelink, the Department of Veterans' Affairs or the Australian Taxation Office.(6) For persons resident in the electoral division of Shortland the average Aged Persons Savings Bonus paid is $745.13 and the average Self Funded Retirees Supplementary Bonus is $1,719.77.(7) 31,752 customers who claimed their bonus with Centrelink have applied for and received a top-up of their original bonus payment.24013(Question No. 2204)220424013Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon8K6HunterALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 November 2000:(1) Is the Sydney-based Wine Society in receipt of a $300,000 grant under the Government's Regional Assistance Program. (2) Is he aware that the Wine Society no longer intends taking up a lease within Sydney's Argyle Centre.(3) Is he satisfied that the grant will be used for the purposes for which it was intended.24014Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) My department has advised me that negotiations on the location of the Wine Centre are continuing and that the exact location has not yet been finalised.(3) Yes.24014(Question No. 2208)220824014Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SomlyayZT4FairfaxLP10 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 4 December 2000: (1) How many persons are of pensionable age in Australia. (2) How many persons of pensionable age are fully self-funding their retirement. (3) How many persons receive the full age pension. (4) How many persons receive a part age pension. (5) How many persons have received a part age pension for the first time in (a) 2000 and (b) 1999. (6) How many persons between 50 years of age and pensionable age are retired. (7) What was the cost of the age pension in (a) 1999-2000 and (b) 1998-99.24014Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) ABS data indicates that there were an estimated 2,560,000 persons of pensionable age in Australia as at 30 June 2000. (2) The department does not track the number of self-funded retirees. However, ABS data indicates that at 30 June 2000 there were approximately 530,000 persons of pensionable age who do not receive a pension from either the Department of Family and Community Services or the Department of Veterans' Affairs. (3) There were 1,143,641 persons on full age pension as at June 2000.* (4) There were 586,219 persons on part rate pension as at June 2000.* (5) Number of persons receiving part age pension for the first time in (a) 2000 was 71,809 (data is only available for 1 January 2000 to 24 November 2000) and (b) 1999 was 55,458. (6) From ABS data, it is estimated that there were approximately 1.25 million people aged between 50 years and age pension age that are retired as at June 2000. (7) The cost of the age pension in (a) 1999-2000 was $14,157,108,000 and (b) 1998-1999 was $13,828,172,000.* In addition there are around 300,000 people of age pension age who receive either a part or full-rate pension from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. 24014(Question No. 2209)220924014Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 4 December 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn to remarks made by the Inspector-General of Security, Mr Bill Blick, on the 7.30 Report on 29 November 2000. (2) Was a refugee at a detention centre incarcerated for 2 years on the basis of an assessment passed to Australian security from a Middle East country with a dubious human rights record. (3) Was the basis for his Department's detention of this refugee in violation of the guidelines laid down for making such assessments. (4) How many other individuals are being detained by his Department on the basis of assessments from security agencies in countries with dubious human rights records. 24015Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) It is not appropriate for me to provide details about individual cases. However, I can confirm that as a result of an adverse security assessment provided by ASIO, an applicant was refused the grant of a visa. That person remained in detention until I intervened to allow a further application after ASIO reviewed the assessment following a complaint to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. He was in detention for slightly less than two years.My Department seeks, and relies on, advice from the relevant Commonwealth agencies as to whether or not protection visa applicants may represent a high risk to national security.It is clear from the 1999-2000 Inspector General's report that he was satisfied that prompt and effective action was taken to address the concerns raised about the security assessment of this particular case and to ensure that the problems did not recur. (3) Under migration legislation, character requirements must be met before a protection visa can be granted. The relevant competent authority makes the assessment and the visa cannot be granted if the assessment is adverse. (4) As of 15 December 2000, there was one individual in detention who had been assessed by the competent authority as representing a high risk to national security. The competent authority is not required to disclose to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs the grounds on which it makes its assessments and as a general rule does not do so.24015(Question No. 2220)222024015Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 6 December: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 2091 (Official Hansard, 30 November 2000, page 23212), is he aware that there is pending litigation between Patricks and other parties. (2) Is any dialogue in this matter directed at Patricks subject to a Court decision and hence sub judice. (3) Will he provide an answer to question 2091 following the decision of the Federal Court.24015Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of litigation that is pending between Patricks and other parties. (2) Any discussion about matters before the Court is sub judice. (3) It would be inappropriate to answer this question before the resolution of proceedings currently in the Federal Court.24015(Question No. 2225)222524015Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 6 December 2000:(1) Given the lack of legislation for an Australian Bill of Rights, will he protect the basic rights of women by ensuring that Australia sign the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); if not, why not. (2) Does he claim that Australia's international reputation with regards to ensuring the protection of human rights will not be damaged by the failure to ratify CEDAW.24016Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by my department as follows:(1) Australia became a signatory to the CEDAW Convention on 17 July 1980.(2) Australia ratified the CEDAW Convention on 28 July 1983.24016(Question No. 2228)222824016Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 6 December 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the concern about the narrow terms of reference for the Flood Inquiry into the Woomera Detention Centre. (2) Will he assure the public that he will investigate, as a matter of urgency, all alternative policies which can achieve the protection of children in detention, including the possibility of releasing all children from detention.24016Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) Yes. Some expressions of concern relate to issues which are the responsibility of, and have been addressed by, the South Australian authorities. The terms of reference of the Flood Inquiry properly comprehend procedural matters which are the responsibility of my Department and its detention services provider. (2) My department takes its duty of care obligations to detainees very seriously, in particular in regard to the detention of minors. Detention services are delivered in accordance with the Immigration Detention Standards, which specify the distinctive nature of services that are required in an immigration detention environment. The emphasis is on the sensitive treatment of the detainee population, including children and family groups.I have asked my department to conduct an examination of detention arrangements for women and children asylum seekers.24016(Question No. 2231)223124016Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca6J4BowmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 2000: (1) How many unauthorised arrivals who have lodged applications for protection in Australia and are currently held in detention are (a) undergoing primary processing, (b) awaiting review and (c) awaiting deportation. (2) What percentage of detainees who have lodged applications for protection pursue avenues of appeal where their application is refused by the primary decision maker. (3) What is the standard delay between a final refusal to grant protection and the deportation of the applicant. (4) What is the standard delay between a decision to grant protection and the release of the applicant into the community.24016Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At the close of business on 8 December 2000, there were 557 unauthorised arrivals in detention undergoing primary processing, 344 awaiting review and 394 identified liable for removal from Australia. (2) In the 1999-2000 program year, 95.34% of unauthorised arrival protection visa (PV) applicants in detention sought review of the primary refusal. For the period 1 July 2000 to the end of October 2000, 89.12% sought review. (3) In the 1999-2000 program year, the average time between final PV decision and removal from Australia was 33 days. For the period 1 July 2000 to the end of October 2000, the average time was 80 days. (4) None. Once the decision is made to grant a visa, the individual becomes a lawful non-citizen and ceases to be in immigration detention. Arrangements to physically transport these people to their community destination are put in place immediately.24017(Question No. 2232)223224017Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 7 December 2000: (1) Has there been an increase in employer industrial action, including lockouts since the enactment of the Workplace Relations Act. (2) Does his Department maintain statistics which dis-aggregate lockouts from other forms of industrial action; if not, why not.24017Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Bureau of Statistics is responsible for collecting statistics on industrial disputes. These statistics do not allow employer industrial action, including lockouts, to be distinguished from union initiated strike action, therefore it is not possible to say whether or not employer industrial action has increased since the enactment of the Workplace Relations Act. It is, however, possible to confirm that employer access to statutory lockout provisions and statutory rights to protected industrial action were first introduced into federal law by the previous Labor Government in 1993. Those provisions were carried over into the Workplace Relations Act 1996. (2) No, for the reason stated in (1). My department has been advised that the feasibility of distinguishing employer initiated industrial action from union initiated industrial action was considered in a recent review by the Australian Bureau of Statistics of its Industrial Disputes Collection. 24017(Question No. 2233)223324017Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:Who were the members of the crew of HMAS Diamantina for the three months ending (a) 30 September 1959, (b) 30 June 1961, (c) 30 June 1962, (d) 31 March 1963, (e) 31 March 1965 and (f) 31 March 1968.24017Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The only method of compiling complete crew lists would require the department to individually check each `Record of Service Card, for every member who served in the Navy (approximately 250,000 records). This task is considered to vast and the department does not have the manpower or resources to carry out such a task.However, partial lists have been able to be compiled from computer records held by Navy. It should be noted that personnel who served in HMAS DIAMANTINA during the periods in question, who discharged prior to 1969, do not appear on the lists.1959P TEUNE1961R J COCKINGA L ECCLESTONG M JUDEJ G LONGDENR N PARTINGTONP J CLOUGHJ JOHNSONJ L J WILSONC R CLARKC A HODGSONJ J ORFORDD R GRAHAMF G HARFORDK H MORTONJ ELWICKR W MEESG J CLUNESR J MARTINC J CANNONL MARTAINR T McLARENW A O'DAYL R HENSBYA G MEYERJ L SULLIVANJ J BOYESR J BROCKIEL J WESTH S H VAN DER HOEKG L LEGGEH R BURGESSH W PIETRASW VAN BEEKUMN J BROADHURSTA T CLARKED G HALTONL P HOLDSWORTHW A KEENR G STRANGEG C TREACYK J BARTONJ WISHARTR T SMITHK W ROSEA T B COTTONT A DAHLBERGP G HANMERL H HILLF S HOWLEYV T JONESG E TIBBITTSN L WHITBURNP C WRIGHTW K ALLANB J ANDERSONR M ARBERYG M DEEGANC F FANKERR HAFFERTG C HALLE J HAWORTHC J LUNARDIA W WELLSD A DUNLOPA V E HANND E LEONARDR J ANESBURYG J FITCHG G S THURSTANSR C WATTD A WESTP J COEB K GOENERJ E McCORRISTON1962R A J T ARUNDELR S BLUEJ G LONGDENA M F SUMMERSJ G YULEJ JOHNSONJ L J WILSONC R CLARKC A HODGSONJ J ORFORDP A C RODGERSF G HARFORDJ D MARSHALLK H MORTONM FITZSIMMONSG W PATMANR A DICIUNAST S SIMMJ S CLARKR J MARTINC J CANNONH K WATTSN R FREEMANJ M SLOPERG NORLEYA R FLETCHERB S JACKSONI W McCUTCHEONH S H VAN DER HOEKS G BALLJ W O TAYLORH W PIETRASR L BEGENTA T CLARKED G HALTONR G STRANGEJ WISHARTD J BROWNP D McGINNISSK M ANDERSONR T SMITHA T B COTTONT A DAHLBERGR M ARBERYE J HAWORTHB E LOWEC J LUNARDID A DUNLOPD E LEONARDE J BROWNG G S THURSTANSP C EVANSP A GOWJ J QUILTYB H WILSONJ E McCORRISTONT R LEWISR V ANDREWSJ M HOUGHP NICHOLASC G BARTLETT1963R A J T ARUNDELR S BLUEA M F SUMMERSJ G YULEJ JOHNSONL MEAKINSJ D MARSHALLK H MORTONM FITZSIMMONSG H HOLDENT BOYDG W PATMANR A DICIUNASJ S CLARKJ B STACEYH K WATTSF K ASHERG NORLEYJ C REDFERNB S JACKSONL J WESTI W McCUTCHEONW G LEEJ W O TAYLORH W PIETRASR L BEGENTA T CLARKER G STRANGEJ WISHARTP D McGINNISSK M ANDERSONR T SMITHT A DAHLBERGR M ARBERYE J HAWORTHB E LOWEC J LUNARDID A DUNLOPD E LEONARDE J BROWNG G S THURSTANSP C EVANSP A GOWJ J QUILTYJ E McCORRISTONT R LEWISW R ROBINSONK W DREWP W SHUTTLEWORTHJ E BAINESR P HUNTB W KILSBYJ M HOUGHD D CLEAKJ H TAYLORK P O'HAGANL H VEARR J MARSHALLL A DINSDALER L PORTERR J C PRITCHARDJ T GRAHAMB R BRACKENG L DAVIESJ HUSCHAD W KEIGR CARLTONB J DONALDR W HARPERJ G MUNROC T STEELEC G BARTLETT1965P E M HOLLOWAYP A ROSSJ L CLARKEJ W E GREENS S WILSONJ A BARNESS M DYSONF G HARFORDR H EDWARDSM D CARTERR A DICIUNASR J BERRYR E SANDERSG D HOOPERD H HINTONN W McNEILLT S SIMMB J TURNERD A S PHILLIPSA G HEADG B OWENP J HUNTERA G MEYERK R JOHNSTONP TEUNEG B ROYLEH W N BENTINKD R ELLISSM J GILESA BIRCHI D INGRAMF R LEATHERBARROWJ A JOYNESD A WESTR E JEWELLB L RETALLACKB FAUSTR V KENNEDYW B EATONR F CONDONA K BOWRAD K FILGATER J MARSHALLR G SLAPPJ T GRAHAMJ A FERGUSONA PIGGOTTM J WESTERSIDED R AUSTINM BORGJ C BUCKLEL CHAPLIN-ARDAGHP MORTIMERA A M CROOTP T HACKETTJ JASPERD J MONEYG PARKERR G TREASUREP J VAN BLADELP E JARVISJ W BELLJ P BIGNELLT J BROWNN S CLARKEJ J GALLACHERJ GURRR B HARRISR A HUSTWAITEG MANSELLJ A MARRISONW J MAYBURYI L MOODIED R REDSHAWR T SALTERD J SEARLEI D STABBK J WALKERM J HOGANG E PURKISSE C SPORERM R HIGGINSW A LESLIER CARLTONP C JENSENP J GREENT IRVINEP J TURLEYJ WORSELING1968M WARDJ E PARSONSJ D DONNELLYP J JAMIESONC C MORGANJ JOHNSONJ W BEARDM K HARGREAVESD R GRAHAMP J GRANTF G HARFORDR E LEWISD C HOUSED T SAMSR A KELLYG SAUNDERSJ C CAMPBELLD J COOKR K GREGSOND J GILMOREJ M MACDONALDS A PETERST A SMITHL W CHAPMANB J NORMANK E WALKERA P LUCKMANJ HUSZCZOD R SMITHJ EDWARDSG R McDONALDT R COOKB A KRONINGG W SALKELDM B GOULDTHORPC B DEANJ A STABLESA R WARRENR L MEWSP G HANMERC N NICOLAIDESA I REIDK W LEWINGTONL J OVERTONR P HUNTK R INGRAMG T McLEANS ROOKYARDR M DAVIDSONA D STEERR B JOHNSTONR J FITZPATRICKD E LAPHAMA R THORPEP IGNATIEWM H KEOGHP J VAN BLADELJ P W PEDGEONA R HICKSN J S BRANSOMN S CLARKEJ T McVEIGHP V BOWMANA M ANDERSONR H POATR T HORTONE F TEARLEV SCHUTB A BARTLEYC W A HOLMESB J STOCKDALER T BURTTE BORONW M TREADGOLDS J ADAMSKIR L STOUTJ W A ADIDIL A BAILLIER C BENNETTP R BOYLEK G CARTNERP M CREELMANM K CROSSP CURRIEP A DE LA CRUZG EADESP F GRIGGP G HALLB W HAYESJ H KEMPM S PATTERSONJ D PROSSERJ H COURAGEB R STOBAUSM C STOREYA R SURMANM E SWANNE L SYMONSW TAPAUJ L WALTERSI G WASIUP J WESTONT J WIGNEYL J WILLIAMSI R MOATER GARBUTTJ E McARTHURE C SPORERR W S STALKERL J DWYERP M SALMONA F W GYSENR M AIBERTIG W HARTEG BEEKMANR J GIBSONEH L VANDERVORDS W BUTCHERG BOYCEA F GOERKEK J HASSONP G M KALKMANG T LYMND J I STEVENSONG E OWEND DAWSONP J McGOVERND T COOKR L CROCKERC S DOWDR B DYER A TOY24020(Question No. 2234)223424020Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 2000: (1) Has he had discussions with Veterans groups regarding the construction of a national memorial to Australian servicemen who served in Malaya and Borneo; if so, with which groups. (2) Will the Government construct such a memorial; if so, what is the timeframe.24020Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There has been no discussion with veterans groups concerning the construction of an Australian national memorial to service in Malaya and Borneo. (2) The Government acknowledges that national memorials of this nature play an important part in recording the service and sacrifice of Australians at war. The existing memorials in Anzac Parade in Canberra form an impressive commemorative axis from the Australian War Memorial to Lake Burley Griffin and Parliament House. This axis is a key feature of Walter Burley Griffin's original 1912 plan for Canberra. It is not the role of the Government to construct these national memorials. My role, in conjunction with the National Capital Authority and other arms of government, is to examine proposals to ensure that the standards comply with those envisaged in Burley Griffin's plan. The completed work would need to be of notable design and of lasting quality to minimise maintenance and add value to the existing memorials of Anzac Parade. Proposals for new memorials need an active organisation able to attract sufficient public support to raise the necessary funds for the construction. Recent examples of new memorials include the Australian Service Nurses National Memorial and the Australian National Korean War Memorial. In each case very active committees were formed and State Government and veteran organisations provided strong financial support. While considerable Federal Government financial assistance was still necessary when public fund-raising failed to meet the target in each case, this form of support cannot be relied upon for future memorials.24021(Question No. 2241)224124021Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon8K6HunterALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:(1) Is he aware of a report prepared in 2000 by the Office of Small Business (OSB) on the impact of the Cabinet decision about the importation of second hand motor vehicles; if so, (a) why was the report commissioned, (b) who authorised the commissioning of the report and (c) when was the report provided to the Government.(2) Did the low volume industry assist in the preparation of this report; if so, has OSB provided a copy to the low volume industry; if not, why not.(3) Will he table the report in Parliament.(4) Was the report required because the Regulatory Impact Statement on the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 identified a threat of significant small businesses closures in this industry.(5) Does the report recognise the low volume industry as a major provider of jobs for small businesses throughout Australia.(6) Will the Government revoke existing licences in May 2002 that were issued for the life of a model for vehicles no longer eligible under the Specialist and Enthusiast Vehicle Scheme (SEVS); if so, (a) why and (b) what compensation will be offered to the low volume industry.24021Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) to (c) After discussions with the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, it was agreed that the Office of Small Business (OSB) (in consultation with the Ministers' Departments) should report on the impact on small business of the Government decision to replace the Low Volume Scheme (LVS) with the Specialist and Enthusiast Vehicle Scheme (SEVS). The OSB reported on 8 August 2000.(2) The OSB consulted the relevant industry organisations representing low volume importers in developing the report. The report was prepared to assist Ministers in their deliberations and was not made available to other parties interested in the SEVS decision. (3) The report was a report to Ministers on a specific issue and it is not proposed for it to be tabled.(4) No.(5) The report is confidential.(6)(a) The Government is providing a 2 year transitional period to May 2002. Holders of approvals after the transitional period will need to re-apply for assessment against the SEVS criteria. Vehicle models that satisfy the new criteria will continue to be eligible. (6)(b) No compensation is available for those involved in the new arrangements. The Government is assisting to minimise any disruption from the introduction of the new scheme. Specific duty and regulatory concessions are carried over to SEVS. 24022(Question No. 2242)224224022Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon8K6HunterALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2056 (Hansard, 27 November 2000, page 20085), do the oil terminal access regimes the Minister has referred to deny access to all those market participants who have a supply agreement with one of the country's four major oil companies.(2) If so, what proportion, by volume, of petrol flowing through Australia's terminals is sold to those who are in a supply agreement with one of the four major oil companies.24022Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No. Market participants' right of access to terminals is determined by the factors outlined in the answer to question No. 2056, including safety and environmental requirements. The nature of supply agreements between the four major oil companies and other market participants varies depending on the commercial arrangements between the parties. Some supply agreements include delivery of fuel by the oil company. Other supply agreements are based on collection of fuel from terminals. The question of access to terminals thus will vary depending on commercial arrangements.(2) See answer to question 1.24022(Question No. 2243)224324022Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon8K6HunterALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism upon notice, on 7 December 2000: (1) Is the declining value of the Australian dollar severely limiting the ability of the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) to fund international advertisements promoting Australia as a tourist destination. (2) Is the Government considering any measures to assist the ATC while the value of the Australian dollar remains low.24022Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government allocated a record $360.9 million, over four years to The Government allocated a record $360.9 million, over four years to 2001-02, to the Australian Tourist Commission to bolster Australia's position in the international market place. It has delivered on the third instalment of this record funding by allocating in excess of $91 million to the ATC in the 2000-01 Budget.Latest overseas arrivals figures confirm that the ATC is continuing to do an excellent job in promoting Australia overseas. International visitor arrivals to Australia increased by 9.7% (preliminary) in October 2000 compared to October 1999. In the ten months to October 2000, international visitor arrivals increased by 9.4 % (preliminary) compared to the same period in 1999.The ATC is working co-operatively with its partners to convert positive publicity of Australia, generated by the Sydney 2000 Games, into increased visitors and expenditure. In September 2000 it commenced its global 2001 strategy which includes the launch of over 90 tactical advertising campaigns, worth more than $45 million, involving 200 industry partners, promoting holiday packages to potential visitors and an aggressive $6 million direct marketing campaign. (2) The Government will continue to review the ATC's funding needs as part of the annual Budget process.24023(Question No. 2244)224424023Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Daily Telegraph on 6 December 2000 concerning a site for Sydneys second airport; if so, is the Government considering Kurnell peninsula as a possible site for the airport.(2) Will a decision made on the site of Kurnell Peninsula as Sydneys Second Airport in the next year.(3) What are the potential implications for another runway based at Botany Bay on the residents of inner Western Sydney.(4) Is he able to confirm the cost of relocating the Caltex Oil Refinery and associated infrastructure to the Hunter Valley.(5) Why is the Government considering a site that is a National Park as a potential second airport for Sydney.(6) Will there be foreseeable environmental impacts in placing Sydneys second airport at Kurnell Peninsula on existing environmental controls, including the existing (a) Landscape Conservation Area and (b) Aquatic Reserve in the vicinity of the peninsula.(7) Is he able to calculate the cost of relocating the 2000 residents who live on Kurnell Peninsula.24023Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) to (7) On 13 December 2000, I announced that the Government had decided not to examine further the possibility of constructing an airport on the Kurnell Peninsula.24023(Question No. 2245)224524023Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 2000: (1) Is Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) involved in running private prison facilities in Queensland. (2) Have there been concerns expressed about the actions of ACM and its staff by the Queensland Government. (3) Have ACM practices and the actions of its personnel in Queensland in any way led him to question the suitability of ACM in relation to immigration detention centres.24023Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd (ACM) manage the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre in Brisbane. (2) To my knowledge there have been no concerns expressed by the Queensland Government in relation to the actions of ACM and any of their personnel. To obtain an authoritative answer the honourable member should enquire of the Queensland Government. (3) No. 24023(Question No. 2247)224724023Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 2000: (1) How many protests have he and his Department received about Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) and its staff, from all sources, with regards to the running of immigrational detention facilities. (2) How many protests have been investigated. (3) What penalties have been imposed under the specifications of the Act. (4) Does he have concerns about the actions of ACM and its staff, and the suitability of ACM in relation to the running of immigration detention centres.24024Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The principle means for individuals in detention or the general community to lodge complaints in relation to detention matters are through the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). The following table lists the number of complaints in relation to detention matters for the 1998/99 and 1999/2000 program years, and the 2000/2001 year to date: 1998/991999/002000/2001 ytdOmbudsman 12 formal22 informal3 formal30 informal3 formalHREOC61815In the time available and given resource constraints, it has not been possible to identify the proportion of these complaints that may have been specifically about ACM.In addition to these complaints, 634 letters to the Minister in the 2000/2001 program year to date have been identified as relating to the policy of mandatory detention. However given resource constraints and the time available it has not been possible to identify how many of these letters may relate directly to ACM. (2) All formal complaints and serious allegations received by my department are investigated. (3) None. The Migration Act does not regulate the administration of the detention services contract with ACM. Any sanctions which may be imposed on the detention services provider are applied under the terms of the detention services contract. (4) I spoke on this issue in the House on 6 December 2000 and my statements are recorded in Hansard. I reiterate what I said then “...The fact is that the contract, by its very terms, deals with issues of further contract negotiations, that they be undertaken with probity and that nothing I say in any way compromises the officers who undertake decisions under those contracts. So I think it is quite inappropriate for me to be invited to comment on a matter which might jeopardise the Commonwealth's position in relation to dealing with those issues”.24024(Question No. 2248)224824024Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:(1) How many Defence properties have been sold or otherwise disposed of since May 1998 and what was the total amount obtained by the Commonwealth for these properties.(2) In respect of each property referred to in part (1), what was the (a) suburb or town in which it was located, (b) Defence Unit or Units that previously occupied the site, (c) site to which these Units were relocated and (d) identity of the new owner.24024Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The disposal date of properties is based on the exchange of contracts and not settlement or title transfer. The number of contracts of sale for the disposal of Defence properties or portions of properties that were signed from May 1998 to the present totals 64. The total revenue received or to be received from these sales is $140.8 million.(2) In respect of each property disposal as to what the (a) suburb or town in which it was located, (b) Defence unit or Units that previously occupied the site, (c) site to which these Units were relocated and (d) identity of the new owner, see following table. Where settlement has not yet happened, the purchaser cannot be disclosed due to commercial-in-confidence restrictions.There are no site relocation details provided for disestablished units or for redundant properties such as rifle ranges or communication sites. In addition, some properties had multiple units on site and these units have been relocated to several other operational properties. DEFENCE PROPERTY DISPOSALS SINCE MAY 1998 PropertySuburb/TownStatePrevious UseUnitNew LocationPurchaserCONTRACTS OF SALE SIGNED MAY - JUNE 19981LAVERTONOUTER MELBOURNEVICAirfieldN/AN/ACedar Woods Pty Ltd2DIGGERS RESTNEAR MELBOURNEVICCommunications siteN/AN/A - overtaken by technologyHossam Omar3BEAUMARIS HOUSEHOBARTTASTraining Depot12/40 RTR (Army Reserve)Dowsings Point, TASM A Keady Pty Ltd4FRENCHVILLEROCKHAMPTONQLDRifle RangeN/AN/AAriah Park Investments Pty Ltd5FAIRBAIRNCANBERRAACTRAAF BaseVariousRemaining under leaseback arrangement until May 2003Capital Airport GroupCONTRACTS OF SALE SIGNED JULY 1998 - JUNE 19996ARNCLIFFESYDNEYNSWTraining DepotRoyal New South Wales RegimentRockdale Multi User Depot (MUD)NSW Roads and Traffic Authority7RANDWICK (FRENCHMANS RD)SYDNEYNSWMarried Quarter (Archina)N/AN/AW H & M J Measday - 25 Junction Street, Woollahra NSW 20258RANDWICK (FRENCHMANS RD)SYDNEYNSWTraining Depot1 Logistical Support GroupRankwick BarracksBaypine Pty Limited (47 Rosebery St, Penshurst NSW 2222)9RANDWICK (FRENCHMANS RD)SYDNEYNSWMarried Quarter (Ascot)N/AN/ADanuta Kozaki (1A Thomas St, Coogee NSW 2034)10CROWS NESTSYDNEYNSWTraining Depot5 Field AmbulanceRockdale MUDHampton Properties Pty Ltd11PARKES (Part - northern portion only)PARKESNSWMarried Quarter and vacant landN/AN/AMr Max Harrison12ALEXANDRIASYDNEYNSWMaterial Testing LaboratoryDisbanded - function outsourcedN/AHassan Choker13FOREST LODGESYDNEYNSWTraining Depot1 Field AmbulanceDundas MUDHarb Enterprises Pty Ltd14JENNER HOUSE, POTTS POINTSYDNEYNSWOffice AccommodationNavyGarden Island, SydneyMr Anthony Francis Peterson15ALICE SPRINGSALICE SPRINGSNTFuel DepotN/AN/AIndigenous Land Corporation16GREENBANK (Part - 1 Ha portion)BRISBANEQLDVacant landN/AN/AQLD Govt - Dept of Natural Resources17TOWNSVILLETOWNSVILLEQLDBuffer zone - vacant landN/AN/ABW & DS Addison18TOWNSVILLETOWNSVILLEQLDBuffer zone - vacant landN/AN/ADuckworth Street Investments Pty Ltd19TIGHNABRUAICHBRISBANEQLDRepresentational HomeN/AN/AD & C J Malloy20TIGHNABRUAICHBRISBANEQLDVacant landN/AN/ATrikam21SOMERTON PARKADELAIDESATraining Depot9 Military Police PlatoonKeswick Barracks, AdelaideTerence Raymond Webber and/or nominees (Scarborough Mews Estate Pty Ltd)22ROCKBANK (PART)NEAR MELBOURNEVICBuffer zone - vacant landN/AN/AAnthony, Milan and Simon Luketic23MOORABBINMELBOURNEVICIndustrial LaboratoryN/AN/ARobin John Murdoch and/or nominee (14 Clive St Murrumbeana)24INDIGO VALLEYNEAR WODONGAVICVacant landN/AN/AMr Ian Jack and/or nominees (Indigo Investments Pty Ltd)25WERRIBEEOUTER MELBOURNEVICCommunications siteN/AN/APrime Equity Investments Pty Ltd26ALBIONMELBOURNEVICExplosives FactoryMultipleMultipleUrban Land Corporation (Victoria)27'CHARSFIELD', MELBOURNEMELBOURNEVICLiving-in AccommodationN/AN/AMichael Renzella28'LANDENE', MELBOURNEMELBOURNEVICLiving-in AccommodationN/AN/ALawonnue Pty Ltd29SOUTH GUILDFORD, PALMER BKS (Part)PERTHWAVacant landN/AN/AShire of Swan, WACONTRACTS OF SALE SIGNED JULY 1999 - JUNE 200030LITHGOWLITHGOWNSWTraining Depot1/19 Royal New South Wales Regiment and cadet unitMarrangaroo Ammunition DepotLoch Co No 28 Pty Ltd (local family trust company)31JASPERS BRUSHNEAR NOWRANSWParachute Drop Zone & Grass airstripN/AFunction relocated to NAS NowraMornington Waters Pty Ltd (skydiving consortium)32HOLSWORTHYSYDNEYNSWVacant landN/AN/AMirvac Homes (NSW)33HOMEBUSHSYDNEYNSWTraining DepotHQ 8 BrigadeDundas MUDCrown International34MERRYLANDSSYDNEYNSWOpen SpaceN/AN/AParramatta City Council35BOMERA/TARANASYDNEYNSWOffice AccommodationMulitpleGarden Island, SydneyTesrol Holdings36STUART HIGHWAYREGIONAL NTNTVacant landN/AN/ANT Government37KELVIN GROVE (Gona Barracks)BRISBANEQLDTraining DepotMulitpleEnoggeraQLD State Government/QLD Housing Commission38TOWNSVILLETOWNSVILLEQLDBuffer zone - vacant landN/AN/AMVO Industries Pty Ltd39TOWNSVILLETOWNSVILLEQLDBuffer zone - vacant landN/AN/AO'Keefe Investments Ltd40TOWNSVILLETOWNSVILLEQLDBuffer zone - vacant landN/AN/ABayswater Road Properties Pty Ltd (on behalf of Kilcor)41TOWNSVILLETOWNSVILLEQLDBuffer zone - vacant landN/AN/ATownsville Resorts Pty Ltd42TOWNSVILLETOWNSVILLEQLDBuffer zone - vacant landN/AN/AA. Gabrielli Constructions Pty Ltd43TOWNSVILLETOWNSVILLEQLDBuffer zone - vacant landN/AN/AMike Carney Motors Pty Ltd44PORTON BARRACKSCAIRNSQLDTraining Depot51 Far North Queensland RegimentNew facility at Querra.AFL Cairns (Cazaly's)45THURSDAY ISLAND DEPOTTHURSDAY ISLANDQLDOffice Accommodation and storage51 Far North Queensland RegimentConsolidated onto the Naval Depot on Thursday IslandFrank Markert Pty Ltd46SANDGATEBRISBANEQLDTraining DepotSupport Company 9 Royal Queensland RegimentEnoggeraHavenfleet Pty Ltd and MG & DM Cross as trustee47ZILLMEREBRISBANEQLDVacant landN/AN/APelling48ENCOUNTERADELAIDESANaval EstablishmentNaval HQ for South AutraliaN/A - function ceasedTripodi49GAWLERNEAR ADELAIDESATraining DepotSA Mounted RiflesElizabeth North DepotTripodi50STAWELLREGIONAL VICTORIAVICRifle RangeN/AN/ANorthern Grampians Shire Council51BENDIGO, TEMPLEREGIONAL VICTORIAVICChinese TempleN/AN/ACity of Greater Bendigo52DIGGERS RESTNEAR MELBOURNEVICCommunications siteN/AN/A - overtaken by technologyPrime Equity Investments Pty Ltd53DUNLOP BKS, BRIGHTONMELBOURNEVICTraining DepotMultipleMultipleAustraland54BENALLAREGIONAL VICTORIAVICTraining Depot37 Regional Cadet UnitRemainingDelatite Shire Council55EAST MELBOURNEMELBOURNEVICTraining DepotElements of Melbourne University RegimentGratton St, Carlton DepotLawson Consulting Pty Ltd56HAMILTONREGIONAL VICTORIAVICTraining Depot8/7 Battallion Royal Victoria RegimentDisbandedLot 1: Clarence Mark UebergangLot 2: Dean Robert Menzel57CAMPBELL BKS, SWANBOURNE (PT)PERTHWAVacant landN/AN/AWA Department of Main Roads58BUNBURYREGIONAL WAWATraining Depot10 Flight Air Training Corps (AIRTC) CadetsRelocation of Flight to posssibly the ARes Depot in Bunbury.Settlement due February 200159BULLSBROOKNEAR PERTHWAVacant landN/AN/ADepartment of Main Roads, WA60'DILHORN', PERTHPERTHWAMuseumArmy Museum of WAArtillery Barracks, FremantleNicholas & Alexandra Kennedy61BELMONTPERTHWATraining Depot15 Flight Air Training Corps (AIRTC) CadetsRelocation of Flight to possibly Palmer Barracks, South Guildford.The name of the purchaser remains commercial in confidence until the expected settlement in February 2001CONTRACTS OF SALE SIGNED JULY 2000 - DECEMBER 200062LEEDERVILLEPERTHWATraining Depot6, 14 and 16 Flights Air Training Corps (AIRTC) Cadets and HQ AIRTC.Relocation to other Defence properties in Perth regionThe name of the purchaser remains commercial in confidence until the expected settlement in April 200163ALBEURA STREETHOBARTTASOffice Accommodation - part of Anglesea BarracksMedical and financial assessment unitsConsolidated onto the remainder of Anglesea Barracks.The name of the purchaser remains commercial in confidence until the expected settlement in February 20016453 VICTORIA STREETMELBOURNEVICTraining DepotRecruiting and training unitLeased accommodation in Melbourne CBD.The name of the purchaser remains commercial in confidence until the expected settlement in February 200124029(Question No. 2249)224924029Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister of Defence, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:In relation to the investigation conducted by Commodore Ken Birrer into a number of management initiated early retirements and voluntary redundancies involving Defence Force officers, (a) what prompted the commissioning of the review, (b) what were the terms of reference of the review, (c) how many separate cases were investigated, (d) what was the total value of the payouts made to the officers involved, (e) on what date was the final report of the review submitted to Defence, (f) what were the findings and conclusions made by Commodore Birrer and (g) what action has the Government taken in response to the report.24029Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) commissioned the Birrer review after taking into consideration concerns raised publicly with regard to a case of possible inappropriate use of management initiated early retirement (MIER). (b) Legal advice remains extant that the terms of reference should not be publicly released. (c) All the cases of MIER and voluntary redundancy (VR), for which full documentation was available, were examined. Specifically this amounted to 28 cases of MIER and 159 cases of VR. (d) It is not possible to provide an accurate figure for the 187 cases examined by the review. (e) The final report was submitted on 1 November 1999. (f) Legal advice remains extant that the review should not be publicly released. However, Air Commodore Birrer did find that in general the MIER and VR programs had been managed in accordance with policy and administered appropriately, although, he recommended that ADF policy on the application of MIER and VR be amended. (g) The Government accepted the recommendations and CDF Directive 1/2000, dated 23 March 2000, details the ADF policy on the application of MIER and VR.24029(Question No. 2255)225524029Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 2000. (1) Does privacy legislation allow the release of information in conformance with information privacy principles that would permit the release of information in the public interest. (2) Do spouses, sponsors and those placing bonds for and on behalf of visa applicants have a public interest to information otherwise denied for release under privacy law or statutory provisions under the Migration Act; if not, will he amend the existing migration legislation that permits a spouse, sponsor or those placing bond monies, a right to access information relating to the visa applicant for the purposes of granting them limited rights to access to information regarding the visa applicant. (3) What percentage of spouse visa applicants result in separation or divorce from their sponsors after the two years provisional spouse condition on their visa. (4) What percentage of spouse visa applications are marriages of convenience.24029Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answers to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Information Privacy Principle 11 of the Privacy Act 1988, which limits the disclosure of personal information, states that:“1. A record-keeper who has possession or control of a record that contains personal information shall not disclose the information to a person, body or agency (other than the individual concerned) unless: (a) the individual concerned is reasonably likely to have been aware, or made aware under Principle 2, that information of that kind is usually passed to that person, body or agency; (b) the individual concerned has consented to the disclosure; (c) the record-keeper believes on reasonable grounds that the disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of the individual concerned or of another person; (d) the disclosure is required or authorised by or under law; or (e) the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the criminal law or of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty, or for the protection of the public revenue.” (2) The concept of “public interest” is given different applications in various areas of decision making, depending on the legislative or administrative purposes involved. It relates to concerns of the general community as a whole rather than just to a private individual. In spite of the fact that such public interests may exist in the community, neither the Privacy Act nor the Migration Act makes any provision for the disclosure of personal information to someone else on the grounds of public interest.DIMA officers are already permitted to make certain disclosures of visa applicant information to sponsors, as explained in Administrative Circular 198 “Privacy Act 1988: Disclosure of personal information to third parties”. This advises that limited information of the visa applicant may be disclosed to the nominator / sponsor in accordance with Information Privacy Principle 11.1.a: “10.1 Where a sponsor, or a Member of Parliament (including a Member's staff) acting on behalf of a sponsor, seeks access to personal information of an applicant, only as much information may be disclosed as the applicant would be reasonably likely to expect would be disclosed to the sponsor (that is, IPP 11(1)(a) applies). Personal information which it would be reasonable to disclose in response to inquiries from sponsors or from Members of Parliament acting on their behalf includes:· whether application has been lodged;· stage reached;· points awarded;· decision made; and· if rejected, reasons for that decision, unless they are of a personal or sensitive nature. Assessments based on occupational considerations, for example, would not normally give rise to privacy concerns. Assessments based on health or character, however, would normally be regarded as sensitive and details would not normally be released without the consent of the applicant.10.2 Certain general information is non-personal in nature and can be disclosed. Such information includes:· advice on processing times;· advice on requirements which apply to a particular visa class;· passmark, pooling provisions, etc.”To make additional disclosures, the visa applicant's consent must be obtained (Information Privacy Principle 11.1.b), or the sponsor may ask the visa applicant directly for the information. There is no intention to amend the Migration Act to authorise such disclosures of a visa applicant's personal information to a sponsor on the grounds of public interest. (3) A breakdown of the specific reasons for refusal of a permanent (second stage) Spouse visa is not available, however, anecdotally most spouse applications are refused because applicants no longer meet the spouse definition of the Migration Regulations due to the breakdown of the relationship.Data on the total number of persons who are refused the grant of permanent (second stage) Spouse visa is an indicator of the number of relationships that cease due to separation or divorce. Spouse visa applicants at the permanent stage may be refused for a number of reasons including failure to meet the health and character requirements; and no longer being in a continuing and genuine spouse relationship. For the Program Year 1999-2000, of the 9,500 decisions made on applications for a permanent Spouse visa where the spouse was granted a provisional (first stage) visa at an overseas post, less than 4 percent were refused the permanent (second stage) visa. A further 3 percent of holders of the provisional visa elected to withdraw their application for the permanent Spouse visa before a decision was made. (4) The overall Spouse visa (first stage) refusal rate of 14 per cent for offshore and 9 per cent for onshore lodged cases for the 1999-2000 Program year would mostly reflect refusals on the grounds that a delegated decision-maker did not consider the relationship to be genuine and ongoing.