2002-03-144011REPS129702002-03-14—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills1297R14881297Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.129709:31:001297Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.Since its election in March 1996, the coalition has put in place a succession of initiatives providing practical financial assistance to families.The $2 billion family tax initiative was introduced in January 1997. This initiative increased the tax free threshold for families with children and introduced additional benefits for single income families with one child under five.The increases in tax free thresholds made available under the family tax initiative were doubled as part of the new tax system which commenced on 1 July 2000, providing another $2 billion annually of further benefits to families. As part of the new tax system, the coalition also simplified the family benefits structure and improved the incentives for families to work by easing the income test for family tax benefit and cutting income taxes.Families with children deserve assistance with the cost of raising children. Financial assistance to families is a very direct way of supporting our most important institution, the family, and investing in our most important resource, our children.One of the largest costs that families face with the birth of their first child is the loss of a second income. Generally speaking, a couple goes from two incomes down to one at the same time as they have the additional cost of a new baby. Whilst family tax benefit A and family tax benefit B help families, these benefits do not amount to the same as a second income. The arrival of a child generally leads to a large fluctuation in the family's income.There are some occupations that experience fluctuating incomes that are allowed to average their incomes for tax purposes— farmers and artists are examples. By averaging their incomes, they reduce tax liability over the average period. They can do this by taking advantage of the tax free threshold in bad years, which would otherwise be unused, to reduce tax in the good years.A mother on a salary of $30,000 in the full year before the birth of a baby would pay $5,380 in tax on that income. If she averaged that $30,000 over five years when she was out of the work force with a child then her income would be $6,000 per annum. This is the tax free threshold and she would pay no tax at all.Recognising the family that experiences a fluctuating income where a mother leaves the work force to look after a child, the coalition announced, during the recent federal election, that it would introduce a system which effectively averages income over five years and allows a mother to claim back the tax paid on her income in the year prior to the birth of a child.The first child tax refund—or the baby bonus, as it became known during the election campaign and as it will now be known as a consequence of this bill—will be available from 1 July 2002 and will apply to the family's first child born on or after 1 July 2001.The maximum annual refund of $2,500 equates to one-fifth of the tax paid on a salary of $52,666. It is estimated that some 93 per cent of partnered women without children earn this amount or less. Those with a base year salary over this amount will still be able to claim back a refund of $2,500 but not higher.To ensure that mothers on low incomes, including those who are not in the work force, also benefit from the measure, a minimum annual payment of $500 will be available for those with taxable incomes of $25,000 or less in the year that they make their claim. Where the mother returns to work and the father stays at home, the baby bonus will be able to be transferred to the father. Parents returning to work on a part-time basis will still be able to receive the baby bonus, with a reduction according to the income they earn upon returning to the work force. For example, if a parent returns to work and earns one-third of the income they earned before they had the child, the baby bonus will be reduced by one-third.The baby bonus will also be available to parents who adopt a child under five years of age on or after 1 July 2001. To ensure that families who already have a child do not miss out, the baby bonus will also be available for the first child born on or after 1 July 2001 for families who already have children.The baby bonus can be claimed in tax returns from 1 July 2002 or, for those who do not lodge tax returns, on a separate form that will be available from the tax office.This is targeted help for hundreds of thousands of families. We expect that around 245,000 mothers and their families will benefit from the baby bonus in the first year, and that eventually it will deliver benefits to some 600,000 families at any one time.This is the implementation of a solid policy that only this government has the credentials to deliver. During the campaign we made a pledge to families, and now we are delivering on budget, on time and in full.Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum, which I now present, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Bills1298R15181298Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.129809:38:001298Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this Quarantine Amendment Bill 2002 is to amend the Quarantine Act 1908:· to enhance Australia's national emergency powers to ensure the Commonwealth, states and territories have adequate legislative powers to enable them to prevent, or to act rapidly to control and eradicate, a major national animal disease outbreak, such as foot-and-mouth disease; and· to create a new offence for commercial smuggling with significant increases in the pecuniary penalties applicable to individuals and corporations.An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Australia would have an enormous impact on the national economy and on the lives of individuals, particularly in our rural and regional areas. For this reason, the Commonwealth, in cooperation with the states, territories and industry, has been reviewing and further developing national whole of government frameworks for the prevention, preparedness for and management of a major national animal disease emergency. In the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Australia, it is the states and territories who would provide frontline response measures. While state and territory animal health acts and emergency response measures are adequate in a normal disease event, the magnitude of a disease such as foot-and-mouth may not so easily be dealt with. Currently section 2B of the Quarantine Act provides significant powers whereby the minister can, upon the issue of a proclamation by the Governor-General, direct that certain actions be undertaken in the event of an epidemic. These powers, while important, are inadequate as it is not the Commonwealth who should, in terms of resources, constitutional responsibility and expertise, take control of disease response measures; it is the states and territories.The amendments, therefore, provide for the Commonwealth to authorise state and territory agencies to take necessary actions under the Commonwealth quarantine power. This enhances the legislative authority of the states and territories and can be used where their own legislation has gaps or is inadequate. The authorisation by the Commonwealth provides the states and territories with the autonomy to decide when, how and if such measures are necessary. The amendments provide for the Governor-General to declare by proclamation that an epidemic has the potential to so affect a primary industry of national significance that the exercise of coordinated response powers may be required.These powers would allow the minister to authorise the executive heads of national response agencies to take quarantine measures to control, eradicate or remove the danger of an epidemic. Provision is to be made for response agencies to be notified in the Gazette. In general terms, these agencies would encompass those that are usually called on to respond to emergencies or disasters at a national, state or local level.Upon authorisation by the minister, persons performing duties in the authorised agencies, under the authority and direction of the heads of those agencies, can take specified response actions using the Commonwealth's quarantine power.Section 4 of the Quarantine Act currently provides broad powers of quarantine. It is this section which provides the ability by which broad quarantine powers can be exercised under section 2B. This bill also amends section 4 of the Quarantine Act. Section 4 sets out the scope of quarantine. The amendment puts beyond doubt that the coordinated response powers that extend to the seizure and destruction of animals, plants or other goods or things, and the destruction of premises when treatment of the buildings is not practicable, fall within the scope of quarantine.The amendments include provisions for a number of limitations and conditions that can be attached to authorisations provided by the minister and which would be extended to the executive heads of national response agencies. While it is accepted that broad powers are necessary to allow an effective and rapid national response to foot-and-mouth disease, it is important that responses in emergency situations are suited to the type and scale of event and carried out with the appropriate approvals in place.Additionally, guidelines to be formulated by the states, territories and Commonwealth will establish processes by which these powers will be utilised to ensure the aims of consistency and coordination are met, both nationally and within state and territory borders.The authorisations that are proposed to be extended to members of national response agencies raise the question of immunity from suit. Section 82 of the Quarantine Act currently provides for protection of authorised or approved persons from suit. It is proposed that this immunity be extended to those authorised to take action and give directions under the proposed amendments to the act, including temporary staff, contractors and volunteers.By necessity, the amendments include an expansion of section 69A of the act in relation to compensation, to include provision for compensation for any premises destroyed in accordance with the act.The bill also proposes an amendment to section 11 of the act which would allow the Commonwealth to assist states and territories in the implementation and monitoring of arrangements so as to enable certification of exported products and in providing reports to the Commonwealth on such matters. As international requirements in relation to export certification expand, it is considered timely to provide an added level of support and assistance between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in relation to such activities.The proposed amendments are an important step in our review and development of national whole of government response measures to major national animal disease emergencies. They will assist in our task of working hand in hand with the states and territories and will ensure that, as a nation, we will be in a strong position to fight major emergency diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, should an outbreak occur.The new offence for commercial smuggling implements the election commitment made in Australia's Rural Industries— Growing Stronger to provide stronger sanctions for quarantine offences. The new offence will highlight the very serious nature of smuggling for commercial purposes by imposing a higher maximum pecuniary penalty for individuals and corporations than that which applies to an offence under the existing illegal importation offence in section 67. Under the new offence, it is proposed to have a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and/or 2,000 penalty units for individuals and 10,000 penalty units for corporations. This means that, at the present time, individuals may be fined up to $220,000 and corporations up to $1,100,000.Given the disastrous impact of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom, it is important that a strong message be given to potential offenders about the serious consequences of illegal importations and behaviour of this nature. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Bills1300R15131300Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.130009:46:001300Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services (Amendment) Bill 2002 bill seeks to amend the Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services Act 2000—the HMRDS Act—to deem Horticulture Australia Ltd, HAL, in its capacity as the export control body under the act to be a Commonwealth agency for the purposes of section 16 of the Customs Administration Act 1985—the Customs act.Currently HAL has the function of administering export controls on behalf of horticultural industries as the company has been declared the export control body under subsection 9(2) of the HMRDS Act.HAL commenced business on 1 February 2001, taking over the functions previously undertaken by the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation, the Australian Horticultural Corporation and the Australian Dried Fruits Board. HAL is an industry owned company that the Commonwealth has entered into arrangements with for delivery of marketing and research and development services to the horticulture industry.The AHC previously administered export controls on behalf of horticultural industries. During the period of its operation, the AHC could access information from the Australian Customs Service EXIT database to enable it to exercise appropriate management over export control powers.As HAL does not meet the criteria of a Commonwealth agency under section 16 of the Customs act, the ACS has advised HAL that it is no longer able to provide information from its EXIT database to the company. Yet the intention of the HMRDS Act is that the export control body—namely, HAL— should be able to exercise similar but no greater powers to those exercised by the former AHC and thus should be able to obtain access to Customs EXIT database information.The proposed Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services (Amendment) Bill 2002 amends the HMRDS Act to deem HAL, in its capacity as the export control body, to be a Commonwealth agency for the purposes of section 16 of the Customs Administration Act 1985. This amendment will ensure that HAL can exercise appropriate management over current export control powers in place, and any future export controls that may be put in place, by being able to access information in the ACS EXIT database to show evidence of any breaches that may have occurred in contravention of the export controls.This bill does not create any new administrative burden and has no financial implications for the Commonwealth.Mr Speaker, I am sure you will be very interested in this little piece of legislation, which I commend to the whole House. I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned. Bills1301R14981301Bill presented by Mr Tuckey, and read a first time.130109:50:001301Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 will amend several aviation related Acts within the Transport and Regional Services portfolio. These amendments are contained within three schedules to the bill.Schedule 1 of the bill streamlines International Air Services Commission processes through amendments to the International Air Services Commission Act 1992.In 1992 the International Air Services Commission was established to act as an independent body for allocating capacity available under Australia's air services agreements to Australian airlines.The government's success in negotiating significantly increased capacity has created opportunities for the Australian community, particularly regional Australia. The changes have also increased opportunities for Australian airlines, provided that they can respond more quickly to changes in what is an increasingly global market.Therefore the bill simplifies the process of allocating capacity to ensure that Australian airlines are not unduly delayed by commission procedures from putting Australian capacity into the market to compete with foreign airlines.The government will retain the commission's role of assessing the viability of airlines applying for capacity to operate international air services. It is reasonable to seek evidence from applicants that they are capable of using the resources that are allocated to them and this act provides that commissioners be selected for specific skills that are directly relevant to this assessment.Further, there is an obligation for a government each time it licenses a service provider. The government needs to be satisfied that the licensee can actually provide the services it is licensed to perform.The next major component of the bill, schedule 2, initiates a program of reform to improve and modernise Australia's regulatory standards for aviation security.Aviation security is aimed at protecting major commercial airline passengers against acts of unlawful interference such as aircraft hijack or aircraft sabotage. Aviation security allows Australians to place confidence in the aviation industry by reducing the threat to members of the travelling public and the business community.Schedule 2 will pave the way for the introduction of a centralised and specialised set of regulations made under the act: in essence a dedicated set of aviation security standards. These regulations are proposed as the Aviation Security Regulations 2002. Schedule 2 will support the new regulations by providing three packages of amendments to the Air Navigation Act 1920.Schedule 2 will introduce a statutory framework for the handling of aviation security information. This framework is designed to encourage industry to provide regular and accurate information to government on how it complies with the aviation security standards. The receipt of this additional, targeted security information will assist the government to deal with and resolve compliance issues within the industry in a timely and effective manner.Schedule 2 also reforms the regulation of the carriage of munitions and implements of war on board civil aircraft. The amendments will eliminate duplication and bureaucratic approval processes whilst maintaining standards.Finally, schedule 2 will repeal a number of remaining provisions in the act that would conflict with the new security standards under the Aviation Security Regulations 2002.In summary, the new security standards to be initiated under schedule 2 to the bill will be focused on the security outcomes to be achieved by Australia's civil aviation industry and will support an effective industry compliance program. Schedule 3 proposes that the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 be repealed and that any remaining contracts, assets and liabilities of the corporation be transferred to the Commonwealth.The Federal Airports Corporation ceased trading in September 1998. All airports previously owned and operated by the FAC are now operated either by private lessee companies or Commonwealth owned corporations. There is therefore no need to retain the legislation on the statute books.With some minor exceptions, the transfer of assets and liabilities to the Commonwealth was completed in September 1999. It was however not possible to transfer residual liabilities in relation to head office employees who did not transfer to the privately leased airports. The proposed amendments will transfer any residual contracts, assets and liabilities in relation to these employees to the Commonwealth.I commend this legislation to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Bills1302R15001302Bill presented by Mr Anthony, and read a first time.130209:57:001302Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This government is committed to the effective delivery of its income support measures. Part of this commitment involves encouraging people to provide for themselves where they have capacity to do so.This Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Disposal of Assets—Integrity of Means Testing) Bill 2002 bill amends those provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 that set out how much a person or couple may give away as gifts without the value of those gifts still counting as part of their assets for means testing purposes.Currently, if a person or couple gives away up to $10,000 a year this may result in them getting a higher rate of income support. This is particularly the case for customers whose rate is affected by the assets test—that is, pensioners with quite significant levels of assets.If a person or couple gives away more than $10,000 in a year, then the amount in excess of $10,000 is still counted as forming part of their assets for the next five years. Accordingly, the excess of the gift over the free area will not result in a further increase in income support over that period.The government considers that this annual $10,000 `free area' is generous given that it is almost equal to the maximum single pension rate—some $10,670 per year.Nevertheless, the government recognises that there may be compelling reasons where, for example, family circumstances necessitate gifts of this nature. Accordingly, this bill will not change the $10,000 in a single year rule.The government is concerned, however, that `gifting' has become a favourite tool for many financial planners who exploit gifting to increase the income support entitlement of their clients. There are a significant number of cases where such gifts appear to be annual occurrences designed to reduce assets and increase income support rather than to provide assistance to a family member in response to `one-off' compelling events.This bill addresses the problem by introducing a further rule. Simply put, the bill introduces a new free area of $25,000 that will apply over a rolling five-year period and that will operate concurrently with the `$10,000 in a single year' free area. Any gifts in excess of either of these free areas will be assessed as a deprived asset of the person or couple for five years, with the same effect as present.The bill reduces the capacity of those with significant assets to use regular gifting strategies to increase their taxpayer funded income support entitlements. It is important to realise that no matter how much cash or other financial assets a person gives away, these rules cannot and will not result in them getting less income support than they are receiving before they make a gift.These new rules will apply to amounts disposed of on and after 1 July 2002.The bill also takes the opportunity to change the basis of the gifting rules from a `pension year' to the more widely understood `financial year'.I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Bills1303R15051303Bill presented by Mrs Vale, and read a first time.130310:02:001303Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.It is my delight to present the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card Extension) Bill 2002 to the House. This bill implements a key commitment made by this government to the Australian veteran community during the federal election.Since taking office, our government has given a high priority to providing appropriate recognition for the service and sacrifice of Australians in times of war and conflict.The health and wellbeing of our veterans and war widows has been of prime concern. Our veteran population is ageing and their health care needs are changing as they grow older.On 1 January 1999, our government extended eligibility for the repatriation gold card to include Australian veterans and merchant mariners who have qualifying service from World War II and are over the age of 70.As a result, some 38,000 World War II veterans and mariners became eligible for the top level of health care under the repatriation system.There are now almost 282,000 members of the veteran community with a gold card.However, we recognise that it is not only our World War II veterans who are growing older.Many Australians who served in post-World War II conflicts are approaching or are over the age of 70.These veterans already are facing an increased need for health care, and others will in years to come.This bill will further extend eligibility for the gold card to include all Australian Defence Force veterans who are over the age of 70 and have qualifying service.This will make the gold card available to older veterans of conflicts, including the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency, the Indonesian Confrontation and the Vietnam War.This initiative is proposed to take effect from 1 July 2002.Many eligible veterans will not need to submit an application for a gold card.I am pleased to be able to introduce this important legislation earlier rather than later to enable my department to ensure that the application process provides every opportunity for eligible veterans to receive their gold card entitlement by 1 July this year. I trust that the ALP and the Democrats will support this important legislation.My department will be able to identify from its records many veterans who will qualify by virtue of their age and qualifying service. These veterans will automatically be sent a gold card so that they can access their entitlements from 1 July.Veterans not readily identifiable to the department will be able to complete a new application form for the gold card.If the Repatriation Commission has not already made a determination about whether or not the veteran has qualifying service, then a determination will be made as a result of this application. Eligible veterans who apply before 1 July will be able to access their entitlements from 1 July.Veterans who apply after 1 July will be eligible from the date their written application is received by the department.Veterans with qualifying service who turn 70 after 1 July can apply in advance for the gold card—their eligibility will commence on the date they turn 70.This bill continues the coalition government's commitment to advancing the welfare and interests of the veteran community.It carries out Australia's duty of care to those who serve our country in wartime.Importantly, this initiative also takes the longer view, providing for access to the gold card in years to come by veterans with qualifying service from later conflicts, such as the Gulf War, East Timor and Australia's current deployment in the coalition war against terror.Our government, by this important legislation, has legislated to ensure that, regardless of which conflict our older veterans have served in, they will receive the care they need and the care they deserve.Our government, by this important legislation, has etched our commitment to our veterans in gold.I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.10:06:001304Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I move:That the debate be adjourned.I congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on the presentation of her first bill as a new minister.Question agreed to.Bills1304R15021304Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.130410:07:001304Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 bill contains amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act) to provide that following elections, public funding for the Liberal Party is to be paid to the agent of the Liberal Party of Australia (federal secretariat), rather than to the state and territory divisions of the Liberal Party (that is, those state and territory divisions of the Liberal Party which are constitutionally linked to the federal secretariat—New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory).However, the agent of the federal secretariat of the Liberal Party may lodge with the Australian Electoral Commission, prior to polling day, a written notice that sets out the proportion of the public funding to be paid to the agents of the state and territory divisions and the proportion of the public funding to be paid to the agent of the federal secretariat. The public funding would then be paid to those agents in accordance with the proportions set out in the notice.Currently, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides that public funding be paid to the agent of the state or territory division of a party for the state or territory in which the candidate stood. However, as the federal secretariat of the Liberal Party is responsible for federal election campaigns, it is appropriate that all or part of the public funding be paid to the agent of the federal secretariat.This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on 9 August 2001, but lapsed when the parliament was prorogued for the 2001 federal election. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Bills1305R15011305Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.130510:10:001305Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Roll Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2002 bill contains amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act) and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 arising from the government-supported electoral reform recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report titled The 1998 federal election.The government response to the JSCEM report was tabled on 1 March 2001.The most notable amendments of this bill include those which will:· provide for the close of the rolls for an election or referendum for new enrolments at 6 p.m. on the day of the issue of the writ, and for existing electors, wishing to update their enrolment, at 8 p.m. three working days after the issue of the writ;· remove the right to vote for all prisoners serving a sentence of full-time detention;· amend the multiple voting offence to provide an increased penalty where it can be demonstrated that the offence was committed deliberately;· increase a number of the financial disclosure thresholds to $3,000, effective from 1 July 2001;· amend the objection provisions to provide that electors may be removed from the roll by objection if they no longer reside at their enrolled address and have not lived there for at least the last month, rather than the requirement that the objection be based on non-residence in the subdivision for the last month; · provide that an elector's provisional vote will not be admitted to scrutiny if an election (excluding the election to which the scrutiny relates) has been held since the removal of the elector from the roll or if there has been a redistribution of the state or territory that includes the division since the last election;· provide that there will be no automatic reinstatement to the roll for electors whose provisional votes have been admitted to the count, instead electors will be required to complete an enrolment form to be placed back on the roll; and· prohibit scrutineers from actively participating in assisted votes.This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on 16 September 2001, as the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001, but lapsed when the parliament was prorogued for the 2001 federal election.The government considers that these are important and urgent reforms to the electoral process, which should be implemented as soon as possible. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Bills1305R15121305Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.130510:14:001305Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 bill makes amendments to the income tax law and other laws to give effect to the following measures.The imputation rules in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 will be amended to take account of the reduction of the company tax rate from 34 per cent to 30 per cent. The measures preserve the value of franking credits accumulated prior to the rate change whilst minimising compliance costs for corporate taxpayers. These amendments will apply from 1 July 2001. As a consequence of the deferral in the Review of Business Taxation life insurance policyholder proposals until 1 July 2002, the commencement date of the proposals to tax friendly societies on investment income received that is attributable to funeral policies, scholarship plans and income bonds sold after 30 November 1999 will also be deferred. Friendly societies will remain exempt from tax on that investment income until 30 June 2002. In addition, the change in methodology for working out the capital component of ordinary life insurance investment policies will also be deferred until 1 July 2002.This bill further amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 so that neither the intercorporate dividend rebate nor a related deduction are allowed in respect of any unfranked dividends paid to or by a dual resident company.The Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 will be amended to remove scope for double refunds of excess imputation credits to both a trustee and a beneficiary and a consequential amendment will be made to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.Amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 are also required to deny refunds of excess imputation credits to non-complying superannuation funds and non-complying approved deposit funds. It has become apparent that, if their access to excess imputation credits is not prevented, these entities could be used as a vehicle to access tax benefits inappropriately through artificial schemes to produce surplus imputation credits in respect of which they would be entitled to refunds.The technical amendments are required to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to enable the franking rebate provisions to clarify that registered charities and gift-deductible organisations which are trusts are eligible for refunds of imputation credits in respect of distributions received indirectly through another trust.The amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 will broaden the class of taxpayers eligible to claim the senior Australians tax offset. The following taxpayers will also be eligible to claim the senior Australians tax offset:Veterans who were eligible to receive a pension, allowance or benefit under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 but did not receive one; and persons who were eligible to receive an age pension on alternative grounds to the residency test.The amendment to the Medicare Levy Act 1986 will make a minor technical correction.This bill further amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that taxpayers who received shares in Tower Ltd as a consequence of the demutualisation of Tower Corporation—a former New Zealand resident mutual company—in October 1999 are not subject to capital gains tax at the time their membership rights ceased to exist. The amendments also specify the cost base for shares received in Tower Ltd as a consequence of giving up those membership rights.The bill also contains amendments to the gift provisions of the income tax law to give effect to announcements the government has made over the past several months that gifts of $2 or more to certain organisations are to be tax deductible. These organisations include those engaged in health and education, and those that recognise the contribution our war veterans have made to Australia.The bill amends the income tax law to recognise a new demutualisation method for non-insurance mutual entities. Members of non-insurance mutual entities that demutualise using the new method will qualify for the concessions currently available to members of such entities that demutualise using one of the existing demutualisation methods.The bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to insert a capital gains tax rollover for a policyholder-member of a mutual insurance company who becomes absolutely entitled to certain shares held on trust as part of a demutualisation. The amendments will apply from 10 December 1999.Lastly, this bill makes a number of technical corrections to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and other tax related legislation. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend this bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Personal Explanations130710:20:001307Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a short statement.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr H.A. Jenkins)—Indulgence is granted.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—Yesterday, I used remarks which may have offended the member for Cowan. If that is the case, I withdraw those remarks. He is a very gallant member of the House and I would not want to reflect on his commitment to this nation.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker: I asked the deputy speaker in the chair yesterday to ask the member for Mitchell to apologise to the House as well as the member for Cowan because all members of this House were offended by his words. I ask the member for Mitchell if he intends to apologise to the whole of the opposition for the words he used in the debate yesterday.Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I am satisfied that at this point the matter is closed.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Mr Deputy Speaker, could you ask the deputy speaker who was in the chair if he is going to pursue my request for him to ask the member—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Lingiari will resume his seat. I will not be asking the deputy speaker who was in charge at that time. I think the matter is now closed. These matters need to be dealt with by the House at the time.Bills1307R15031307Debate resumed from 13 March, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That this bill be now read a second time.10:22:001307Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—Labor has always said that you can be strong on protecting your borders but you can show compassion towards asylum seekers at the same time. I have been consistent and constructive in advocating this, because I believe that the government has the balance wrong. I will be moving during the debate a second reading amendment that does a number of things. It seeks to improve the factual base upon which sensible decisions towards a lasting solution can be arrived at. We need to know the facts, and this amendment seeks those facts. If we cannot get them from the minister in this place, we will use the processes of the Senate to obtain them. We believe, in the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship, the government should give us this information. If they were to do that, the next step they should take is to sit down with the opposition and work with us towards a lasting solution. We need an international framework, we need understandings with our neighbours and we need to have a lasting solution, and we the opposition are prepared to work with the government to achieve one. So I am calling today for not only the facts but also a commitment from the government to sit down with us and work towards a lasting solution. Specifically, in terms of the legislation that we are debating today, I am proposing two amendments— and I will outline them later. Today, we are debating a bill which is an admission of failure by the government; a humiliating backdown by the Prime Minister and Minister Ruddock. This is proof positive that the Pacific solution was an expensive, temporary diversion for the election campaign, and it is not working. It was a solution conceived in deceit and delivered in haste. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002 is proof that the Pacific solution is not working—it is sinking—and the government is looking for a way out of another mess it has created simply because it has no long-term solution for this problem. Six months on from its launch, the `HMAS Pacific solution' is now sinking in the waves. Remember what the Howard government promised the people of Australia when the Tampa affair happened: no asylum seeker from the Tampa would set foot on Australian soil. That is what the Prime Minister said. He was up there, he could not contain himself in the press gallery the night that the flawed legislation— the Border Protection Bill 2001—was rammed through the parliament. He was all pumped up, shaking his fists and boasting to journalists that people on the Tampa would never be allowed to land in Australia. Two days later, he was just as emphatic on the Neil Mitchell program when he said, `They should not be allowed to land in Australia.' Prime Minister, they will land in Australia now, and the reason they will land in Australia is the legislation you are bringing into the parliament today. It takes whatever credibility you had left down the drain with you. The reason they are having to introduce this is because they have bungled the issue from the outset. In the meantime, it is not just the bungling on the policy—it has cost Australian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, but they will not tell us the amount. This is a government that have admitted that the Pacific solution is costing more than they told us it would do before the election; it is just that they will not tell us how much. Remember when they told us that they had budgeted for this, that everything was contained in the budget? We now know that, when the budget comes down in May, there will be extra expenditure. The government know already what it is costing; it is just that they will not tell the Australian people.This has seen our Navy used as an expensive water taxi service to `club Nauru' and `club Manus'. It has contributed to leadership divisions, falling morale, a discredited admiral and splits in the armed forces, when they are engaged in battle, defending Australia in the war against terrorism. Six months on from the Tampa affair, four months on from the election, with hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain, asylum seekers will be landing in Australia, despite what the Prime Minister said before the election, because of this legislation that is coming into the parliament. Doesn't that sound familiar? We have a Prime Minister who says one thing before the election and then delivers exactly the opposite after the election. This is a pattern of deceit, and this is a piece of legislation confirming the pattern of this serial offender. Stay tuned for the removal of the multimillion dollar a day naval blockade of asylum seekers and the closure of the multimillion dollar a day camps, `club Nauru' and `club Manus'. In the meantime, it has cost Australian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars—but we are still to be told how much.We would like to know from the Prime Minister when he intends to stop producing a fresh scandal a day as a smokescreen for his lack of a third-term agenda. Every day since parliament has been recalled the government has been in crisis. First, there was the `kids overboard' affair—you know, the circumstances in which on day one we are back in this place and the Prime Minister just happens to drop a report, that he has been sitting on for weeks, that shows the `kids overboard' affair never happened. Then for the next two weeks between this chamber and the Senate estimates process, we saw the people involved in the affair admitting that the government knew that that claim was a lie but they never told the Australian public. Adviser after adviser was shown to have known that this information was incorrect. Minister Reith knew it was incorrect. Minister Reith spoke to the Prime Minister, we know, on 7 November; the Prime Minister has now admitted it. Minister Reith told the Prime Minister there was doubt about the photos, but the Prime Minister still went out the very next day and said at the National Press Club, `No change; the story still stands.' This government have been in crisis over the `kids overboard' affair.They have also been in crisis over the Governor-General and over Casino Costello's foreign exchange gamble. I wonder what his brother thinks of his gambling habit. It would be an interesting question. This is a Treasurer who has gambled and lost $5 billion. He was asleep at the roulette wheel and he lost the money. Then we find out he moved from currency swaps to interest rate swaps; he changed from roulette to craps. But he was still gambling and still losing. This is another scandal which has got a way to run because we will see in the budget, with the government's losses, who is made to pay for this gambling habit of the Treasurer. It will be the unemployed; it will be the disadvantaged. We also have the `Michael Wooldridge House' affair. This is a scandal of incredibly significant proportions because here was a minister feathering his own nest just before he left this place—looking after himself while people he was supposed to be looking after were being disadvantaged: the asthma sufferers, people on rural health. These were the programs that were cut, because he took funding from those programs and diverted it into funding for a building which is going to house his office. At the same time as he was giving them the money, he was signing a contract for himself to work there after he left this place—the same as Minister Reith, who was doing his deal. Even as he was still a minister, he was signing his contract for retirement. Yesterday, there was the attack by Senator Heffernan on Justice Kirby. We have a Prime Minister prepared to condone his parliamentary secretary using parliamentary privilege when the evidence upon which it was based had been rejected by the police, found to have no basis for any charges to be laid. Yet Heffernan was allowed—8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—Encouraged.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I believe encouraged; we will wait and see about this—to get up in the Senate and malign the justice. We heard that the Prime Minister advised his parliamentary secretary not to use the Senate to do it, and he defied him. If he is defying the Prime Minister, he should be sacked. But if, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, he did not believe it was defiance, then it must have been encouragement. It must have been part of the plot; it must have been the new conspiracy to get themselves off the hook in terms of all of the other scandals.We also have the situation emerging in which this government gets over a crisis by creating another one. The Howard government lied to the Australian people in the same way that it lied about the claim that asylum seekers threw children overboard. I have said that the so-called Pacific solution is shown to have been discredited, just like the boat in that other farcical comedy. This is not a Pacific solution; this is Gilligan's Island. That is what has been happening here: Skipper Howard and Gilligan Ruddock, dumping their passengers on charted desert islands—only this time it is not a three-hour cruise but a six-month diversion. The joke is on the taxpayers of Australia, paying hundreds of millions of dollars for a stunt that was only ever designed to get the government past the election. Pacific solution indeed! It is Gilligan's Island, and there is Gilligan Ruddock sitting over there. Yet again, this government has been caught out, telling the voters one thing before the election and another afterwards. They lied about the justification for the Pacific solution and now their actions are showing that the policy just is not working. The first admission of failure was made on Tuesday with the announcement that the government would construct a 1,200-person detention centre at Christmas Island on Australian soil. This was the government saying, `The Pacific solution is working because there are no more boats coming'—forget the fact that the monsoons meant that the boats could not come anyway. If the Pacific solution is working, Minister, and no more boats are coming, why are you building a facility on Christmas Island to house 1,200 people? It sounds like a lot of people to me—a few votes in there, Minister.This bill is the second admission of failure. This bill is an admission that the asylum seekers who are now at `Club Manus' and `Club Nauru', including the asylum seekers who were on the Tampa, will be back on Australian soil. The government should come clean and admit that the so-called Pacific solution is no more than a hastily cobbled together charade for political advantage, and it is now over. Just admit it. We know that the so-called Pacific solution is sinking, so I offer again to the government—and particularly with the minister in here—in the spirit of bipartisanship: let us get a comprehensive and lasting solution. Let us work through it. Do not smirk about it, Minister; act on it. Because it is a genuine offer. It has been out there now for months and, to date, you have not made a response to it. So do not smirk; act. Because we are serious about developing a solution—are you? That is the challenge for you today. Instead, this government prefers to continue the pretence that the Pacific solution is not sinking and wants yet another legislative band-aid to try to patch up the sinking boat. If the government refuses to accept this offer of bipartisanship, we will not be opposing the bill in the House but we will subject it to the necessary scrutiny in the other chamber. The government know and we know that the Pacific solution is not working. We want to correct it and we are prepared to be constructive. But it takes two to play that game, and at the moment you are not prepared to participate on the field with us.I want to make some comments on the process of this bill's introduction, because I had something to say about this yesterday in relation to the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 [No. 2]. Yesterday, we were forced to debate legislation relating to terrorism—100 pages of legislation, in addition to the explanatory memorandum—and we were given 16 hours to consider it. A government that has been saying it needed legislation to be tough on terrorism—it has been saying it for six months, ever since September 11; we said we agree, we put forward a 10-point plan and we said, `Come up with a solution. We are prepared to work with you'—takes six months to develop a solution and expects us to consider it in 16 hours. The debate was a fiasco yesterday because the government was forced to withdraw one of its key bills because of poor drafting. It should have been reintroduced by the Attorney-General. He could not be in the chamber because he was in a crisis meeting with the Prime Minister over the Heffernan allegations against Justice Kirby. But that is what happens when you do things in haste: haste produces bad legislation.Again we are presented with this very important legislation that we are debating today at very short notice. I wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday expressing our deep concerns about the way in which this government was getting into the habit of just rushing through contentious legislation without sufficient time for us, in the opposition, to consider it. I said in the letter that wise and effective public policy is not advanced by routinely requiring such short time frames for the consideration of legislation when no policy rationale can be provided to explain the need for time frames of 24 hours for passage. I say no policy rationale but, of course, there is a political one.The Prime Minister is giving exclusive after exclusive to the nation's newspapers, saying how supremely untroubled he is by the controversies that he finds himself in, because it seems that it does not matter to him that he never told the truth during an election campaign. I think he protests too much, and the manufactured haste of this bill and the terrorism legislation yesterday prove it. They are smoke-screens, but they deserve weighty consideration. This is about a big agenda switch—when nothing else is working, he always throws the switch to fear.We in the opposition take seriously our duties as responsible legislators, and we are not going to be part of abusing this parliament to dig this government out of the political hole it has put itself in. We intend to give detailed consideration to this bill through the normal processes of our parliamentary party and through proper parliamentary processes. This will be our consistent practice for the remainder of this parliament, and the government should get used to it. These are the words I will move as a second reading amendment: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 condemns the Howard government:(1) for the haste with which this legislation has been introduced and passage requested without the Government providing any policy justification for such haste, and for the apparent intention of the Government to prevent appropriate debate of this bill by the House; (2) for deceiving the Australian people during the last election campaign by claiming that asylum seekers threw children overboard and that asylum seekers on the Tampa would not set foot on Australian soil;(3) for continuing the deceit by its failure to admit that its announcement of a 1,200 person detention centre on Australian soil at Christmas Island and the introduction of this bill means the so-called Pacific Solution, which the government promised would stop asylum seekers being on Australian soil, is a complete failure;(4) for pretending during the election campaign and since that its so-called Pacific Solution is a solution for Australia in relation to asylum seekers when it is clearly no more than an expensive charade hastily cobbled together for gross political advantage;(5) for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers money on its so-called Pacific Solution and for failing to ever publicly disclose the amount so wasted; and(6) for enacting legislation to support the so-called Pacific Solution which is so flawed the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has had to manipulate visa arrangements to avoid Departmental officers being liable for people smuggling charges; and calls on the Government to now truthfully and fully disclose to Australians:(7) how much money to so-called Pacific Solution has cost to date and how much it will cost before it is finally abandoned the cost of the so-called Pacific Solution;(8) how many asylum seekers have been brought to Australia from Manus Island and Nauru already;(9) how many of the 356 asylum seekers on Manus Island and the 1159 asylum seekers on Nauru the Government plans to bring to Australia;(10) what is the maximum period any of the asylum seekers who are found not to be genuine refugees will be in Australia under the government's new plans;(11) how many countries have volunteered to resettle those found to be genuine refugees;(12) how many of those found to be genuine refugees will be resettled in Australia and how many genuine refugees will be left without a resettlement place; and (13) how many asylum seekers whose claims have not been upheld can realistically be returned to their home countries or third countries and, in particular, how many Afghans the Government will not be able to return until the situation in Afghanistan further stabilises; and, having disclosed the full facts, calls on the Government to work in a bipartisan way with the Opposition to achieve a comprehensive long-term solution to the issue of asylum seekers which is both tough on border protection and compassionate and contains, in the context of this legislation, the following two elements:(a) that a proper time limited safe haven arrangement for Afghans, like the arrangement used for the Kosovars, given the majority of Afghan asylum seekers cannot currently return to Afghanistan because of the war against terrorism, continued instability and the need for rebuilding that devastated nation, and(b) that those asylum-seekers from Manus Island and Nauru who the Government returns to Australia, holds in detention and fails to return to their home or third countries for a period exceeding six months have the right of appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal consistent with the process introduced by the Government last year, provided that during the six month period the asylum seeker has cooperated with the return process'.Labor's second reading amendment makes the point that this bill, and the associated announcement of the new detention centre on Christmas Island, are about nothing more than an end to the Pacific solution. What we are putting forward is constructive amendments that provide a way to balance border protection with the compassion for refugees. The first substantive amendment is the creation of new visa arrangements for Afghans, similar to that of the Kosovars. This is needed to deal with the reality that it is currently extremely difficult to return many Afghans to Afghanistan because of the dangerous political and military situation.Because large numbers of Afghans cannot be returned at the moment, the government has to face the need for interim arrangements for those who must return eventually. It can be easily done. It is exactly what the government did in the case of the Kosovar refugees, with which we agreed at the time. There were just under 4,000 Kosovars and we estimate that there are only about 11,000 Afghans. If we can do it for almost four times as many people, we must be able to do it in this case in terms of trying to deal with the practicalities of that situation. We want to work together with the government to develop a sensible regime for safe haven until the people can return, as we all agree they will. This is about Australia playing its part in helping Afghanistan get back on its feet under its new leadership after the devastating war. I might add that it includes helping Afghanistan identify skilled people among the asylum seeker population here in Australia and helping them return to rebuild their nation as a matter of urgency. We know that the government is going to have to come up with a solution like this sometime in the future. All I am saying, Minister, is swallow your pride and do it now. Let us do it now and get a bit of certainty here. You are going to have to do it so, as part of getting this legislation through now—quickly—do it now.The second substantive amendment provides a way of dealing with those people currently detained on Pacific islands who cannot be returned home because the source country will not accept them, and who must be kept in detention in Australia for long periods. We believe that these people should be allowed access to the Refugee Review Tribunal, but only as long as they cooperate with the return process. Labor's amendment means that these detainees cannot start the process again, but they can complete it. They can complete it consistent with the process that this government has put in place in its legislative amendments of last year. In other words, it has been no more than consistent with Minister Ruddock's own legislation. How could he possibly object to that?The government claims it is pressed for time. It is telling us it needs the process, not just through this chamber, but through the Senate. We are prepared to cooperate, but we are only prepared to do it if the government accepts these two amendments. Essentially, we are asking the government to do two things. The first is to give a commitment to work with us following this legislation—to sit down and work towards a long-term solution, a lasting solution. We are prepared to cooperate: I have said that before. The second thing that we want it to do is to pass the two amendments.The government has said that it would never let asylum seekers into Australia. Well, they are now coming in because this government is introducing legislation that will ensure that they come here. We know it was never a real solution, never a lasting one. But one thing is for sure: the Pacific solution is over. Here is the chance for the government to return some sanity to this debate and some balance to the solution. Labor has already offered a number of constructive suggestions to create a lasting and more balanced solution to the asylum seeker problem and these include: getting the children out from behind the razor wire; putting the government back in control of the detention centres; mothballing Woomera and having detainees moved to other facilities; allowing media access to detention centres with appropriate protocols; and extending the Afghan resettlement allowance to Afghans with temporary protection visas and to other ethnic groups to help them return home. And then there are the two initiatives that we have put forward today: the safe haven in relation to the Afghans—which we know you are going to have to do: just do it quickly and admit it—and the bringing of some consistency by allowing people to complete the process if they are brought here, consistent with your own legislation.We ask the Prime Minister and the minister who is in the chamber—the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs—in his discussions with the Prime Minister, to accept our proposals and to accept our amendments for the good of the nation. It is essential that we learn from this exercise. We know that the solution failed and we know that the government was deceitful about it, but that is past; we have to live with that. But I do not think the Australian public will ever live with the government's deceit. They do not like deceit and we will continue to expose it because they are entitled to know about it. As the government was so devious and deceitful on this issue, what else will it be devious and deceitful on? That is the reason we have to disclose that. This is not an issue of trying to relive the last election. It is an issue of trying to get sound policy as a result of it. It is a recognition that your policy has failed. Your policy is flawed and was conceived in deceit. Your hasty legislation is not working and you are in here consistently trying to patch it up. Let us learn from that. Let us develop a constructive approach and a lasting solution. We have said that the framework exists, Minister, and the framework is this: we need an international framework. We need a framework in which, under the auspices of the United Nations, we can develop understandings about the flow of people to this country.We are the country at the end of the pipeline. Unless we get agreements with the countries from which they come, we are not serious about dealing with the problem at source. We should be trying to get some understanding that recognises that processing takes place at country of first asylum. It is not a hard concept, but you have to believe in it and you have to be prepared to pursue it. But it was not on the agenda of CHOGM. There are eight countries that are not signatories to the 1967 protocol on refugees. Seven of them are Commonwealth countries and they happen to be in the pipeline between the Mediterranean and Australia. Why was it not on the agenda, Minister? For the life of me, I cannot believe that, if you are looking for a solution, you would not be going to the Commonwealth countries and saying, `Can we have an agreement, a framework, that deals with the flow of people?' The eighth country that is not signatory to the protocol is Indonesia. The Prime Minister had the perfect opportunity with his dealings with Megawati and the discussions in Bali on people smugglers recently when the circle could have been squared with them as well. We say: get the international arrangements; stop the flow; close the gate, if you like. You also need a cop on the beat. That is why you have to come to grips with the coastguard.Then we have to have circumstances in which, if people still get here, they are processed expeditiously. That is the basis for a lasting framework, Minister. We are prepared to cooperate in developing it. We know the ideas and we have the direction. What we want is for you to sit around the negotiating table and work through it with us. These amendments that I am moving today provide the basis for it. If you are serious about getting speedy passage, adopt them and then work with us towards a lasting solution. I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to condemn the Howard Government:(1) for the haste with which this legislation has been introduced without the Government providing any policy justification for such haste, and for the apparent intention of the Government to prevent appropriate debate;(2) for deceiving the Australian people during the last election campaign by claiming that asylum seekers threw children overboard and that asylum seekers on the Tampa would not set foot on Australian soil;(3) for continuing the deceit by its failure to admit that its announcement of a 1,200 person detention centre on Australian soil at Christmas Island means the so-called Pacific Solution is a complete failure;(4) for pretending during the election campaign and since that its so-called Pacific Solution is a solution for Australia in relation to asylum seekers;(5) for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers money on its so-called Pacific Solution and for failing to ever publicly disclose the amount so wasted; and(6) for enacting legislation to support the so-called Pacific Solution which is so flawed the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has had to manipulate visa arrangements to avoid Departmental officers being liable for people smuggling charges;and calls on the Government to disclose(7) to Australians the cost of the so-called Pacific Solution;(8) how many asylum seekers have been brought to Australia from Manus Island and Nauru already;(9) how many of the asylum seekers the Government plans to bring to Australia; (10) what is the maximum period any of the asylum seekers who are found not to be genuine refugees will be in Australia;(11) how many countries have volunteered to resettle those found to be genuine refugees;(12) how many of those found to be genuine refugees will be resettled in Australia and how many genuine refugees will be left without a resettlement place; and(13) how many asylum seekers whose claims have not been upheld can realistically be returned to their home countries or third countries and, in particular, how many Afghans the Government will not be able to return until the situation in Afghanistan further stabilises;and, having disclosed the full facts, calls on the Government to work in a bipartisan way with the Opposition to achieve a comprehensive long-term solution to the issue of asylum seekers; andto provide:(a) for a proper time limited safe haven arrangement for Afghans, like the arrangement used for the Kosovars, and(b) that those asylum-seekers from Manus Island and Nauru who the Government returns to Australia, holds in detention and fails to return to their home or third countries for a period exceeding six months have the right of appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal consistent with the process introduced by the Government last year, provided that during the six month period the asylum seeker has cooperated with the return process”.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr H.A. Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.10:52:001314Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I am pleased to hear about the Labor Party's commitment to close scrutiny of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002. I am intrigued because this bill is really nothing more than a technical amendment of limited life. It is extraordinarily straightforward and commonsense, and it is something that I think we all agree with, yet we are promised close scrutiny. What is the scrutiny involved in having a legal device that allows transitory persons to be brought to Australia for medical reasons, if that is necessary, or for legal reasons such as appearing in court cases? That is about it; there is nothing more in the bill. Yet we are going to have this extraordinarily close scrutiny of something that is very straightforward. I would have thought that the Labor Party would have been more interested in talking about workplace relations reforms or economic management—the big, No. 1 issues in the country today—but we are not seeing that. This bill is part of the government's tough but fair approach to unauthorised arrivals.My community in Townsville and Thuringowa wants strong leadership, reassurance and confidence in the government, and this government is not going to let it down. The community recognises the importance of governments having values as a basis for policy. The government has the view that we determine who comes to Australia. It is as simple as that. If it is to be otherwise, then Australia is in strife. On that basis, the government has introduced, and had passed, several pieces of legislation relating to unauthorised arrivals. There has been strong support in the community for those actions. I often reflect on people who have attempted to come as unauthorised arrivals and on the places they are trying to take—trying to steal—from decent and genuine refugees. There are some in Australia who seem to think that it is okay for people to pay a people smuggler to try to come into Australia, and that they can come from other safe places to take the place of a person who is not safe. Why would Australians support that notion? I do not understand it. It seems that many members of the Australian Labor Party support that kind of notion. I do not; the government does not; and we are not going to see people—who are largely Pakistanis—attempt to come into Australia by paying a people smuggler. I am pleased to see that the government has worked very hard on this issue.I believe that there has been an absolute disconnect between what the media and the opposition want to talk about and what mainstream Australia believes is important. The government is not going to be diverted from its leadership in this country by the static and noise that we hear continually coming from the media and the opposition. We do have values; we have those values as the basis of a policy; and we will make sure that this issue is appropriately addressed. The Howard government's stand against these unauthorised arrivals is working. Not a single boat has arrived over the last three months. Am I wrong, minister? 0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—It is four months.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I thank the minister. Not a single boat has arrived over the last four months.Opposition members interjecting—HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—The opposition says it is because it is the monsoon season. But what was the situation last year and what was the situation the year before? Last year there were 15 boats with 1,075 illegal immigrants; they managed to get here. A year earlier, 20 boats landed with 1,439 people.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—During the monsoon season?HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—That was during the monsoon season, Minister.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPHK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Exactly, yes, Minister. I am very pleased to see this indication that the government's policy is working effectively—and with the support of mainstream Australia. Meanwhile, I am pleased to see that Indonesia is finally arresting people smugglers and promising us more cooperation. Of course, Afghanistan has agreed to take back unauthorised arrivals. The government is working with other countries. It is working in the pipeline area and being proactive, doing everything that it can to discourage these unauthorised arrivals and make it difficult for them to try to buy their way into Australia.The legislation that we are considering today is, in effect, an adjunct bill. It is a follow-on from earlier legislation. It is a bill that specifically applies to only two countries: Papua New Guinea and Nauru. The people who currently have, or are seeking, protection in Nauru and PNG are being assessed according to UNHCR conventions and protocols. The government has foreseen a situation in which these particular people may need to be brought to Australia because of some medical condition. But we want to make sure that, once they come to Australia, they then cannot apply onshore for some sort of visa. We want to make it clear what the position is so that these transitory persons will be barred from applying for visas onshore. But surely you could not refuse to accept legislation that allowed for the circumstance of a transitory person having to be brought to Australia for medical reasons. You could not oppose that, and surely the Labor Party will not oppose that. Similarly, you may need to bring these people to Australia to give evidence in a court case against people smugglers, and surely you could not oppose that commonsense piece of legislation.This bill does allow people entry into Australia but stops access to our protection system while they are here. I observe, however, that it cannot stop—and would not seek to stop—access to the High Court when these people are in Australia, but it certainly does stop access to the normal opportunities that are available to others if they are onshore. I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that the ALP will not cooperate with us regarding this bill unless we pass the two amendments that have been proposed. How could that be? How could that kind of a threat be made in this parliament when the bill that is proposed is just a commonsense, simple, straightforward, life limited bill and nobody could have any objection to it? And yet the Labor Party is threatening the government that it will not pass this commonsense legislation unless we pass its two amendments. I think there is a pretty clear answer as to what the government's position might be on that.The government, as I understand it, will have a further amendment—and it is extraordinarily straightforward as well. Its simple purpose is to look at the proposed definition of `transitory person' and to clarify that a person who has been assessed as a refugee is not a transitory person. It is simple, straightforward commonsense, we would all agree. Yet there is all this thunder and lightning from the opposition about that sort of thing. I am very pleased to be part of a government that does have a set of values, does develop specific policy from that set of values and does show strong leadership in the community, and I can guarantee to this parliament that the Howard government and the minister will continue to show that strong leadership in this country.11:04:001316Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—We all know this is not the start to the parliamentary year that this government wanted to have. What has happened since parliament resumed? The parliament of course has been dealing with the `children overboard' affair, where we know that no children ever went overboard but the truth very quickly did. This parliament has also been dealing with the Treasurer's casino—Costello's casino—where the government managed to lose, through lack of competence, $4.8 billion. And then of course there has been the Michael Wooldridge fiasco, with government money being used—HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr Lindsay—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under standing order 81, I ask that the member be brought back to the matter of substance in the bill.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I think she was just starting off the speech. There is no point of order.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—It is all on a theme—a theme we see with the Wooldridge matter, with the losses of $4.8 billion, with the `children overboard' affair, and with what we have seen this week, which is the start of the unravelling of the so-called Pacific solution. The theme of all of these matters that are besetting the government is a problem of competence and a problem of honesty.Firstly, I turn to the problem of competence in relation to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002. The member for Herbert, who spoke before me, obviously has the government's rhetoric on asylum seekers down pat. Unfortunately, I do not think he troubled himself to read the legislation, because, if he had, he would understand that this bill has been required to patch up legislation that the government moved last year. We have asylum seekers under the so-called Pacific solution on Manus Island and on Nauru. They fall, for legal purposes, into two classes: those referred to under current legislation as `offshore entry persons', and those not caught within that definition. One might wonder what the difference is. An `offshore entry person' is a person who touched Ashmore Reef or Christmas Island after they were excised from the migration zone. For that category of person, the current legislation provides that, if they were brought to Australia for any purpose—whether it be a medical evacuation, whether it be because they were required to give evidence in people-smuggling trials, whether it be for any other purpose—they would be barred from making an onshore Australian protection claim. Then there is another set of asylum seekers, and they are `persons who were intercepted at sea'. They never touched Ashmore Reef; they never touched Christmas Island. The most celebrated of those in the media are the persons who were on the Tampa, but there have been a number of other `at sea' intercepts. The simple reason we have this bill is that when the government drafted and brought before the parliament late last year its package of legislation in relation to asylum seekers, it forgot to deal with this class of person—the class of person who was intercepted at sea, the class of person who does not fall within the definition of being an `offshore entry person' and, consequently, the class of person who, if they were brought to Australia, would be able to make an onshore protection claim.So we are dealing with this legislation to patch, put a bandaid on, the so-called Pacific solution. The government would not have required this patch or bandaid if they had dealt with the matter appropriately in the first instance, but they failed to. Why did they fail to? We all know, and the Labor Party has consistently said, that the so-called Pacific solution was more about getting a solution to get the government through to election day, and for however long they could sustain it beyond election day, rather than being a comprehensive long-term solution to the issue of asylum seekers. The fact that it was conceived in haste, that it was implemented in haste and that its primary purpose was for electoral advantage rather than being an appropriate and proper public policy instrument in dealing with the question of asylum seekers is now very clearly starting to show. We have seen two things this week with the unravelling of the so-called Pacific solution, and the member for Herbert clearly has not understood the significance of these. The first of them is the government's announcement to construct a 1,200-person detention facility on Christmas Island. I put the quite simple proposition that, if the so-called Pacific solution is working—if the so-called Pacific solution is deterring further arrivals—why would one be building a 1,200-person detention facility? Unless the government has simply taken leave of its senses and decided to start constructing buildings which will be perpetually empty, one would have to assume that it is engaging in this construction project because it expects further arrivals. So the so-called Pacific solution, on the government's own plans, is not working—it is not deterring further arrivals—and the government is making provision for significant numbers of further arrivals.Then we have this legislation which makes crystal clear another part of the unravelling of the so-called Pacific solution. The public imagery that the government has always used in relation to the so-called Pacific solution is that these asylum seekers would never, under any circumstances, set foot on Australian soil. That has been what the government has always claimed—that has been its whole imagery. The government engaged in the so-called Pacific solution because it was going to be tough on the question of who came to Australia and it was going to keep asylum seekers off Australian soil and put them on Manus Island and Nauru.We know from the time of the Tampa—and let us remember that this legislation actually applies directly to the people who were on the Tampa—that the Prime Minister was very clear about this question. Let me refer at this point to a story that was carried in the Weekend Australian around the time of the Tampa crisis. It was headed `PM weighs his anger in stormy seas'—using what I think, from looking at these headlines, was probably a little bit of a mixed metaphor. In any event, the first two paragraphs of this article say:John Howard strode into The Australian's Parliament House office late on Wednesday night, bristling with nervous energy. “That boat will NEVER land in our waters—NEVER,” he emphatically told a small group of reporters.The politician—whose career is a testament to his stubbornness—and, I might insert at this point, not much else—appeared to be operating on pure adrenalin at the end of one of the most dramatic days of his prime ministership. Howard's eyes bulged, his face reddened and he shifted restlessly as he spoke.All of us, I think, would be quite grateful that we were not there witnessing this incident.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What a sight!83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—What a sight—and one can only pity the group of reporters that was subjected to this display. But this was the imagery: we will keep these people away from Australia. The Prime Minister was so excited about it that he reddened and his eyes bulged. He was always going to keep these people away from Australia.Of course, this was not the only statement that he had ever made on the question. He was asked by presenter Neil Mitchell on radio 3AW:Is there any circumstance under which you would allow them to land in Australia?The Prime Minister responded:Our position is that they should not be allowed to land in Australia.And on and on it goes.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—Never, ever.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—Yes, I am reminded by my colleague that when the Prime Minister makes a promise, like the `never, ever' promise, then the most likely outcome, as the Australian people know, is that the complete reverse is about to happen. What we know from this legislation before the House is that, true to form, when the Prime Minister is out there saying that over his dead body will asylum seekers off the Tampa gain access to Australian soil, more likely than not the complete reverse is about to happen. This bill tells us that the government wants legislative authority to allow the complete reverse to happen. This bill is legislative authority for the government to bring the Tampa asylum seekers, and other asylum seekers who are intercepted at sea, onshore. I started my parliamentary contribution on this bill by saying that the theme of the last two weeks has been one of incompetence and deceit. As I indicated earlier, the government could have dealt with these matters at the end of last year. Can I now say that, if they are going to deal with these matters now, they should make it perfectly clear that they are doing this because they are intending to breach the promises they made to the Australian community that these asylum seekers would never come to Australia. Of course, the Australian people are capable of weighing the worth of the word of a Prime Minister who gives assurances of this nature and then seeks legislative authority to breach those assurances.I now come to what the Labor Party's position is on this bill. I would like to address that in some detail. The Labor Party understands that people who are currently held on Nauru or Manus Island and who fall into the category of not being covered by the current legislation—that is, that they were intercepted at sea and that, currently, if brought to Australia, they could make onshore protection claims—might from time to time require to be medically evacuated to Australia. As we understand it, that has happened on at least one occasion from Nauru, and on that occasion the government engaged in a fiction of giving that person a special entry permit that was timed to expire at midnight on the day they arrived. They entered Australia lawfully so that the department could not be accused of people-smuggling, but as at midnight that night they were in Australia unlawfully so that they could not make an onshore protection claim. Presumably, there were some farcical arrangements about keeping the asylum seeker in question incommunicado for the period up until midnight so that they could not make an onshore protection claim. One can only speculate what would have happened if the plane had been delayed, landed after midnight and the department of immigration itself had been responsible for unlawfully bringing someone into Australia. That could well have happened. We know, of course, that medical evacuations have occurred under those circumstances.In relation to this piece of legislation, Labor accepts that there is nothing about the happenstance of being involved in a medical evacuation that ought to affect the substance of someone's legal rights. We understand that legislation is therefore required to prevent someone who is medically evacuated to Australia from making an onshore claim. We take the same view in relation to persons who might be brought to Australia to give evidence during people-smuggling trials. There is nothing about the happenstance of being required to be a witness in a trial of any nature that ought to change the legal position of that asylum seeker in relation to making an onshore protection claim.Labor accepts that, when processing is fully completed in Nauru and on Manus Island, there will be numbers of people who will be found to be genuine refugees and that some of those genuine refugees will be found long-term homes in third countries—that is, there will be other nations on the planet who will step forward and say they are prepared to accept and look after those genuine refugees in the long term. Labor accepts that, if such persons needed to be transited through Australia on the way to their long-term home, they ought not be able to make an onshore protection claim during that transit. At the end of the day, we understand that the 1951 refugee convention is not about asylum seekers forum shopping as to which developed nation they would like to go to and that, if they have a place where they are going to be safe and secure, they ought not be able to make an onshore claim in transit to that place.Then we come to the category of persons who are found not to be genuine refugees. Labor understands that, and has always understood it. In government Labor implemented a system whereby such persons were removed from Australia, either to their country of origin or to a third country in which they had a right to live. Labor has always understood that. The way in which the government occasionally tries to characterise us as not understanding and not being prepared to implement such a policy is really all about electoral misrepresentation and nothing about the truth. We accept that people who do not pass the test of being a genuine refugee need to be removed. We all know that in some circumstances removals happen quickly, and in some circumstances they are very difficult. In the positive suggestions that are contained in our second reading amendment we are saying that, if such persons who are not genuine refugees were brought back to Australia and held in Australian detention centres pending removal, and if the government is for some reason unable to effect that removal within six months, despite the asylum seeker cooperating with that process—so we are not in the business of saying anybody should be rewarded for non-cooperation—that person should be able to have their claim assessed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. We want to be absolutely clear about this. We do not want the clock started again on the processing. Processing of these asylum seekers has happened in Nauru and in PNG. Some of that processing would have been done by UNHCR and some would have been done by the immigration department. We do not ask for that processing to be done again; rather, we ask that asylum seekers who are in that situation—who are in limited numbers—where the government has not been able to remove them get to complete the processing they would have been entitled to had they come to Australia at the outset; that is, that they go to the Refugee Review Tribunal.I know that speakers in this debate on the government benches will be up on their feet saying, `Labor wants to engage in endless rounds of appeal; that's the sort of thing that Labor always supports.' I want to make it clear to government members before they make those claims—which, of course, would be completely untrue—that they are completely untrue. We are saying through this amendment that the very limited number of asylum seekers who find themselves in that position—that is, their claims have been rejected, they have been brought into Australian detention and the government has been unable to remove them for a period in excess of six months, despite their cooperation—should get to complete Minister Ruddock's appeals process; that is, the appeals process that he introduced into legislation last year. If government members want to characterise Minister Ruddock's appeals process as one that has a cycle of endless appeals and that is inefficient and incompetent, can I suggest to each of them that they had better have that discussion with Minister Ruddock before they come into this place and make their speeches.I now come to the second and very important positive initiative in our second reading amendment. We all know that many of the asylum seekers presently in Australia, on Manus Island and in Nauru are persons who come from Afghanistan. Why did they come? Some came because they were fleeing the Taliban; some came because they were fleeing other sources of persecution; many came because the nation was unstable. We know that Afghanistan is involved in a war in which we have fielded troops, a war against terrorism. We know that Afghanistan is the most mined nation on earth. We know that the new government is struggling to stabilise the nation, and we know that there are major infrastructure problems and major problems with food, shelter and meeting peoples' medical needs.For persons from Afghanistan who are currently in Australia, it means there will be a time when most of them can go home. Some of them will be found to be genuine refugees because they were persecuted for reasons other than the Taliban regime. I am not speaking about that class of person. I am speaking about the people who, although they have been found not to be genuine refugees, cannot return home in the short term because of the situation in Afghanistan but will be able to return home at some point. I am sure all of us in this House would hope that that point is soon, that Afghanistan stabilises quickly—within six to 12 months—so that the people who are there, and the people who return there, can rebuild their lives in safety and peace. That would be the wish of all of us. But, until that happens, we do not believe that the Australian government should engage in forcible returns of people from Afghanistan. We believe that the government should enter a proper, time limited safe haven arrangement for those persons and allow them to remain in Australia for the period of time that it will take their nation to stabilise and to be in a position to receive them. This is the sort of arrangement that we entered into for the Kosovars, which was an arrangement that was welcomed—indeed, celebrated—by the Australian people. We see no reason why the reception of the Australian people to such an arrangement ought not be the same—that is, it would be welcomed and celebrated. We have indicated in our second reading amendment that we want to work in a bipartisan way with the government in coming weeks to make sure such an arrangement happens. Labor's position on this bill is a principled and positive position. Two major positive initiatives have been put forward in the spirit of genuine bipartisanship. We are saying to the government that it wants this legislation urgently, and we have two good ideas about it that ought to be accepted. (Time expired)11:24:001320Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—I noted the intervention by the member for Herbert in the debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002. I am always reminded of my father's description of a few colleagues in state parliament as `strangers in paradise'. In his contribution, the member for Herbert described it as `just a technical amendment'. Let us get serious. This legislation severely affects the lives of many people. It affects their legal rights and it intervenes in our relationship with our neighbours. It is far from technical. Quite frankly, I do not know whether the member for Herbert is aware of what the fundamental, driving motivation behind the legislation is.In moving this second reading amendment today, Labor seeks to add to a number of initiatives on detention policy and the issue of entry into this country which I think should broadly appeal to the middle ground of the Australian people. Over recent months, Labor has been saying that something should be done to release the children in detention, because it creates a sense of unease in the Australian people. They might want some controls in place, they might want the bona fides of people investigated and they might want people held for a reasonable period of time until we can explore these issues, but they have a sense of questioning unease about 10- and 12-year-old children being held in detention for long periods of time.Labor has also said that there should be government control of these centres. When private corporations are motivated by money and self-interest, you really cannot be sure that they do not cut corners and treat people very improperly for the dollar. Why is the government terrified about the media knowing things about these detention centres? Shouldn't we give the media some access so that the Australian people can get a view of what is occurring? Labor has said that the government's initiative with regard to an offer of compensation for people to return home should be extended to other nationalities. It should not be extended only to Afghanis. There might be Iraqis, Iranians or Palestinians who would take up this offer. Most particularly, the offer should be extended to people on temporary protection visas—the numbers of whom are growing every month and becoming a larger problem for both the government and the Australian people.In the past few months, Labor has come up with a series of initiatives that represent a reasonable alternative. I, for one, do not subscribe to the views of a small minority of people in this country who run around decrying the Australian people as xenophobic, racist et cetera. This is a very complex issue. Governments of both varieties have grappled with it for over a decade. We have a significant international movement of people. As of January 2001, the UNHCR had identified 21.8 million people as being of concern. That number includes 12 million refugees, eight million internally displaced persons, 900,000 asylum seekers and 800,000 refugees who had return to their place of origin. Nearly 8½ million people of concern were in Asia. Such is the dimension of the problem that the UK Home Secretary and others have actually asked whether the international conventions should be looked at. It is a massive international problem. I am not saying that the form of detention that the Leader of the Opposition has reiterated the need for in recent weeks and months should be abandoned. Obviously we do need processing controls. But today's amendments move towards a sensible middle-ground compromise to very complex problems. Another thing that concerns me—and I do not think other speakers will be going to this matter—is our relationship with our neighbours in the Pacific and the impact that this is having on them. It is interesting to note that some of the countries that have been suggested as being desperate enough, financially strained enough, to beg us to take these people—Kiribati and Palau—are not signatories to the 1951 convention and neither is Nauru. It is interesting to note their experience with refugees and whether it is appropriate that you have this Australian facility on their lands—a clear indication of virtual colonialism—because of their financial desperation. But how experienced are they themselves in dealing with refugees? The senior legal officer of Nauru—Solicitor-General Kerry Smith—when talking about the proposal to have refugees there first said that she could put them to `work on public projects' and that it was a `perfect opportunity to build the islands up'. That demonstrates Nauru's knowledge of refugees and how they should be treated—they should be shoved out there to dig up grounds and put up buildings for Nauru. This is a real issue. Australia's Prime Minister, indulges in simplistic, patriotic `sloganising' and says, `We will do nothing about greenhouse and climate change. We will let our neighbours eventually sink into the ground, thereby creating a very new and very strong immigration impact on our country.' Long term, these people are going to be coming here. The Prime Minister says that Australia will not take any responsibility or do anything about climate change but, on the other hand, he is running around the Pacific to countries that are desperate, basically compelling them— let us be realistic about it—with a gun at their head to take this Australian problem.It is interesting to note that the $30 million offer to Nauru is 18 per cent of the total Pacific islands budget for foreign aid. Regardless of whether that money is going towards 26 houses, or petrol and diesel bills, that country has no experience in regard to refugee policy. Nauru is not a signatory to the convention. In financial desperation, it is doing Australia a favour. This is part of the problem. The government should be out there trying to persuade countries in our region to become signatories. Part of the problem we have in this country is that, unlike Europe, the countries around Australia are not signatories. Do we see much government activity to try and get them to sign? No, we do not. The fundamental issue that is driving the real motivation behind this bill is not, as claimed, to let a few people come here for medical treatment. It is not to have five or six people come into this country to be witnesses in regard to people-smuggling activities. It is equally not to deal with people who are in short-term transit to Finland, Ireland or wherever. They are not the real motivations behind the bill. The minister knows that; it is a pity the member for Herbert has not been told. The real motivation behind this bill is the reality that in the next few weeks large numbers of people are going to be told, `Sorry, Australia has rejected your refugee claims; they are not bona fide.' What is going to happen then on Nauru and in other places? Are they going to accept them willingly? Are they going to wave their hands and say, `Thank you very much'? Of course they are not. The government has a very real problem as to what they are going to do with these people.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Send them back.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—Well, unfortunately, the minister says the government cannot do that because not only do we have a lack of diplomatic relations with Iraq but we have the Syrian government deciding, in recent months, that it will not take Arabs without proper travel documentation. We have difficulties with Iran. Yes, we might be able to send a few people back to Sri Lanka; we might be able to get a few people on a plane back to Turkey, but in reality we have vast numbers of people who will never be able to go back to the country they came from or claim to have come from. This is what this bill is all about: bringing vast numbers of them back to the Australian mainland. We have heard earlier a variety of speakers saying that the Australian Prime Minister, frothing at the mouth, rushed into the press gallery boasting that these people were never going to set foot on Australian land. They are going to set foot on Australian land. That pre-election commitment is going to be repudiated. Large numbers of these people in the next few months are going to be put on planes back to this country and the government has a very real problem in regard to their legal rights. We are dealing with this legislation because it is unsatisfactory. Ten days into the new parliament we are faced with legislation of a very serious nature to change people's rights because it was drawn up in the short term in panic. It was rushed through for short-term electoral imperatives. That is why it is having to be dealt with again now. Or is the government saying it had no vision—a government which says so many of these people are fraudulent, that they have corrupt claims? Is it saying it never envisaged a problem with them? No—it knew there was going to be a problem but its legislation did not properly deal with it.The September 2001 legislation that we now have to amend, as in so many other areas of government activity, had three fundamental changes: firstly, it gave powers for authorised officers to board vessels for people that are seeking unlawfully to take people to Australia and to take those vessels to a place outside Australia; secondly, it presented a bar on unauthorised persons arriving at an excised offshore place—namely, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Ashmore Island and Cartier Island—from being able to lodge an onshore visa application; and, finally, it gave the power to transfer those people to places such as Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Those changes were passed with Labor support notwithstanding our doubts about the long-term sustainability which we are facing today. The so-called Pacific solution is not going to be a Pacific solution; it is going to be an Australian problem. The government has failed again to properly inform parliament of the full details of those arrangements and we have had to utilise a Senate committee, which is currently investigating the `Pacific solution'. It will investigate the nature of the negotiations leading to those agreements, the nature of the agreements reached, the operation of the arrangements and the current projected cost. One thing that the government is not too forthcoming about is the cost of this alternative to the Australian taxpayer. The government presents an image of financial difficulties for people on the street in regard to having these people in Australia, or their absorption into society—whether they will get jobs, whether they are employable, or whether they will cost us money in AMES. But they are not too forthcoming to the Australian people about what this cost will be. We know, as I have said, that Nauru is being paid off with the offer of $30 million. Obviously, that is only one of many costs. Yesterday the minister announced that a further detention centre is to be built on Christmas Island. The media statement referred to it as:The first purpose-designed and built permanent immigration reception and processing centre on Australian territory.It is to accommodate 400 people in the short term and 1,200 by the end of this year. Once again, the government did not see fit to inform the parliament, which represents the Australian people, of the details of the announcement. In the last day or so we have seen not only an unwillingness to tell parliament exactly what is occurring on Christmas Island but, in regard to terrorism and other measures, incompetence in drafting, incompetence in presentation to parliament, incompetence in delivery by ministers of their material to this parliament and, as I say, an unwillingness to tell the Australian people exactly what is happening on Christmas Island. Mr Tuckey—who is infamous after recent investigations into the use of charters: he is very inclined to use these taxpayer-funded planes—hopped on a plane to Christmas Island to make the big announcement. He thought it was more important to big-note himself by flying to Christmas Island and making a big announcement up there. They were not as forthcoming here in Canberra, the national capital, in regard to what was going on. There are a number of looming deadlines on these matters. Nauru's deadline is May. The media has repeatedly quoted indications from the Nauru government that they wish the arrangements to end as soon as possible. I should say that this issue is causing trauma in Nauru. Two members of the opposition Nauru First Party were suspended as public servants when they dared to question this policy. Because of the way Nauru operates, they were put out of their jobs for a while. There have been a number of surveys of people on the island expressing disquiet about the whole thing, so there is pressure there.Those on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea will shortly receive, as I said, the first instance decision on their protection applications. They will have a limited opportunity to put in some submissions, which will, of course, only be of any value if there are significant additions to the material already received. Then we will see how many protection applications are successful, how many successful applicants will be granted an Australian visa and how many will be resettled in other countries. We understand on that front that the government is having some success in placing these people in a number of other European nations. Let us hope that people are resettled and that they do get a new life. Finally, we will be interested to see what arrangements are made for those whose protection applications are unsuccessful.The government have made four major changes that allow the government to bring a transitory person from an excised offshore place to Australia for a temporary purpose. They are very good on a variety of other definitions, but they do not define `temporary purpose'. That leads one to question exactly what the motivation is. I say the real motivation is their knowledge that many people will be in Australian detention centres for many years—they will not be coming in for a day or two before they get on a plane to Helsinki or Dublin—while this government tries, and I hope they are trying, to negotiate their return to their country or a third country. That is what is really motivating this legislation: the government does not want to give those people any legal rights.I think that probably the vast majority of Australian people are concerned when they see people utilising our legal system for as long as eight or 10 years, fighting cases, having children here and establishing longer claims for residence. However, Labor is saying that probably the vast majority of people think that, if someone is actually physically on our land—and the government has tried to stop this—if they are physically brought to this country, maybe we should give them some minimal rights.What Labor is proposing is not that they start all over again, back at their first application—that has gone, we say; they have had that go—but that they should be treated just like anyone else who has landed here and they should at least be given access to the Refugee Review Tribunal. We are saying that once they are here for six months, not six days or six minutes, they should be given that access. Quite frankly, I reckon that, while we could debate that maybe they should be here for a longer period, there is a positive for people who believe in hastening process. We know RRT decisions take a while, so if they are here for six months, let us get it on, get it decided and get to the end of their legal rights—not wait a year and then maybe reach a stage when the government have finally got around to picking up the phone to Teheran or Baghdad and negotiating their return to those countries, and they are still fighting cases. That is the first thing that Labor is suggesting here today.The other point is the question of the Afghans. We know that many people have launched claims on a situation that no longer exists. They came here saying that the Taliban are baddies, they are discriminating against women, they persecute the Shiah minority, they treat Uzbeks and Tajiks badly, and they have a variety of claims that were around the Taliban's existence. The Taliban, obviously, does not run downtown Kabul these days. Equally, Kabul, Herat and Kandahar are not exactly Brighton or Hastings either. There is a legitimate argument that the current situation in Afghanistan is very unstable. As with Kosovo, it would be reasonable that these people be given safe haven and protection in this country for a period of time, until we see what occurs. As I say, many of their claims are now doubtful. They will be rejected because the current coalition, although led by a Pashtun, consists of a variety of ethnic minorities. There is probably an increased case for Pashtuns to claim they might be persecuted in the future. The grounds for those claims have disappeared but—obviously, to my mind—we cannot send them back in the current situation.We had the experience of the Kosovars, where people were allowed into this country for a set period of time and then, when the situation was improved, they were sent back. That is a good alternative. The Australian people were supportive of it. They were accepted into communities very strongly. We suggest this again—that there should be a limited time that these people are allowed to stay here.Labor today says that the real motivation behind this legislation is essentially to stop people, who will possibly be here for years, from having any legal rights. The government knows that there is a critical problem around the corner. There will be rejection letters; people will be unhappy in Nauru; people will be unhappy in Manus. Can those places sustain the outbursts of anger; will the guards and the detention centres be able to hold the line; will people be killed? The government will bring these people back to Australia knowing that they will be here for a very lengthy period of time.I reiterate: Labor says that the solution to this matter is essentially support of large measures of the government's bill but an acknowledgment that we must give these people minimum rights, given the long period of time they will be here, and that we should provide a safe haven for those Afghans who are technically rejected because their applications are not bona fide in the current change of environment. They should be given a period of time in this country until the situation settles.11:44:001324Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—It was said of American servicemen in Australia during the Second World War that they were overpaid, oversexed and over here. Of those three things, it was only the last that really mattered, and the same can be said of the issue of asylum seekers. While ever they are somewhere else, while ever they are not over here, they are not a problem. But sooner or later they will land in Australia, and then they become a problem for the government.Last August, when the Prime Minister was playing the Tampa issue for every vote it was worth, he drew a line in the sand, but he knew, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs knew and everyone with half a brain knew that sooner or later those asylum seekers were going to set foot in Australia. So the line in the sand has had to be redrawn. Instead of a line across the Indian Ocean, it is a circle drawn in the sand around the Woomera detention centre. In earlier amendments, the government has already removed Christmas Island and Ashmore Reef from the map of Australia. We are now going to have a series of black holes, parts of Australia that are not parts of Australia, where we can put these non-persons into cold storage.The bill amends section 46A of the Migration Act so that non-offshore entry persons currently held in Nauru, and future asylum seekers intercepted at sea and taken offshore, cannot engage Australia's protection obligations and make applications for a protection visa. Such asylum seekers are defined as transitory persons. `Transitory persons'—there is a term that would have made George Orwell very proud.The reason for this legislation is that the government's Pacific solution is unravelling. I can hear the chorus of people across Australia all saying, `I told you so.' We must remember that the Pacific solution was the brainchild of the former Minister for Defence, Peter Reith, and of course it was never meant to be a permanent solution. It only had to hold together until after 10 November—the day the federal election was held. The government could be seen to be hairy chested when it came to dealing with asylum seekers. It could hold the line in the sand, and when it all started falling apart the minister would be well settled into his new career. However, no-one in government at the time was honest enough to admit that sooner or later the applications for refugee status would be processed and at least some of them would be found to be genuine. Minister Ruddock, the day of reckoning has arrived! Like Dusty Springfield and the Treasurer, he might have been a wishin' and a hopin' and a prayin' that the asylum seekers would disappear off the face of the earth, but they did not; they are still over there. But now they are coming over here—at a convenient time for the government, of course. Do not expect those asylum seekers granted temporary protection visas to arrive next week—remember, not while the parliament is sitting; not until a week or so later, after the football season starts. That is when we will see the first arrivals and there will be no welcome like that for the Kosovo refugees. We will not see too many government members taking advantage of photo opportunities like they did when the Kosovo refugees arrived. No, the arrivals will be here in the dead of night and far from the prying cameras of the media. Those whose applications have been refused will be whisked off to detention centres and hidden away behind razor wire. These transitory persons will join the remaining onshore asylum seekers in the happy environments of Woomera and Port Hedland.However, all we have here is another stopgap measure. The minister is like the little Dutch boy and the leak in the dike. First he puts his finger in the hole, then his hand and then his whole arm—one thing after another that does not fix the problem but which puts off the day when finally you have to admit that your whole plan has come to nothing. It is interesting to ask what is going to happen to the 300 or so Iraqis and the 100 or so Afghans that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has found to be genuine refugees. Remember that the minister has always said that the standards that the UNHCR applies are much tougher than the Australian laws and that was why the asylum seekers were being sent to Nauru in the first place. What has the minister got to say now? He thinks he has found places to take about half of them. The last I heard, the only offer was from Ireland and that was for only 30, and perhaps a few to Norway where the Tampa is registered. I happen to recall the situation of people determined by the UNHCR to be refugees in Indonesia. According to a report from the Refugee Council of Australia:Refugees granted refugee status in Indonesia are not permitted to remain in the country. The agreement between the UNHCR and the Indonesian government is that resettlement places will be found for them. This however is problematic. In just over two years since the screening began, less than 20 of the almost 500 people who have been granted refugee status have been resettled.So what has been Indonesia's experience in finding places to resettle people found to be genuine refugees? It has settled all of 20 in two years, and how many did Australia take? The minister is very silent on that question. I wonder if the 500 refugees were mentioned at the conference in Bali last week. I wonder if the Prime Minister discussed their fate with President Megawati when he was in Indonesia last month and I wonder if the Prime Minister really feels sorry—those words that he finds very hard to say—for those found to be genuine refugees but who gave up waiting and drowned on their way to Australia.The minister must be the supreme optimist because he wants us to believe that he has offers to take about half the number found to be genuine refugees. The government must have cashed in all its diplomatic chips to get that result; it must have called in every favour we were ever owed. As I just quoted, Indonesia has found places for only 20 out of 500 refugees in two years. Indonesia, a country with massive internal problems and with a much lower standard of living than Australia, cannot get developed nations to accept genuine refugees, but Australia can. Of all the things that I feel ashamed of in the way that Australia has handled this matter, that is the one that shames me most—along with the fact that this government's Pacific solution has been such a waste. Consider that we will spend something like $450 million on a few thousand refugees, all to satisfy the government's politically motivated agenda, and compare that with the situation in Iran, where there are 2½ million refugees, mostly from Afghanistan. And what do the developed nations give to support those refugees? A measly $60 million, about one-eighth of what we have blown on the Pacific solution. But we will now give $21.5 million to assist Afghan refugees. That is about 1.7 per cent of the $1.3 billion cost that Iran faces to support those refugees. That is what makes me ashamed of this country's policy on asylum seekers.But what about the remaining 200 refugees? Minister, you will just have to swallow your pride and accept them, but we do not expect you to be waiting out at the airport to greet them like you have in the past. They will get their temporary protection visas, but they will get precious little in the way of settlement assistance, and they cannot get their wives and families to join them. Their families will have to risk a voyage in a leaky boat and spend months in a detention centre, and even then they may not get to join their husband or father.For those detained in PNG, they can expect to know their fate in a month or so. As most of this group are from Iraq, they will present the government with another problem. If about 300 of this group are not granted temporary protection visas, what will the government do with them? Last year, 91 per cent of asylum seekers from Iraq were granted temporary protection visas, so we have not had such a big problem with this group. But the government knows that it is almost impossible to return these people to Iraq, the country at the top of the list of President Bush's axis of evil. I doubt that Nauru or PNG will be happy to keep these people, so they will be brought here to be detained indefinitely in some remote part of Australia. I wonder what Orwellian title the minister will dream up for this unfortunate group.There are of course other reasons for this amendment. When people detained in Nauru or PNG require medical treatment they need to be brought to mainland Australia. This would normally entitle that person to apply for a protection visa. This measure may actually save a life by reducing the paper shuffling that would otherwise occur. It is an essential change. But I have heard of an incident involving a woman being transferred from Christmas Island to PNG. The woman became critically ill during the flight while the plane was over Darwin. Despite the medical emergency, the plane returned to Christmas Island. It worries me that a life may have been put at risk and the woman denied better medical treatment in Darwin all because, had the plane landed in Darwin—and we have to remember this—the people on board may have been eligible to apply for protection. This amendment does not deal with this possibility and I expect we may yet see further amendments as our experience increases.I began this speech by saying that the core of this problem is the fact that asylum seekers are over here. This has meant that the government has only been able to look at the matter in a series of measures which deal with each issue as it arises. In short, it has blundered from one crisis to another. The government has focused on sending a message to asylum seekers, but there is nothing to suggest that the message is getting through. Last year—and we remember this—we had the government releasing a video showing Australia as a place swarming with snakes, crocodiles and sharks in an attempt to deter asylum seekers. This series of measures, including the extended detention of asylum seekers, are clearly aimed at getting some sort of message back up the grapevine to refugees overseas. This approach assumes that asylum seekers have selected Australia as their destination. The government seems to have a picture of refugees sitting in their lounge room watching TV and, after seeing Paul Hogan promise to throw another shrimp on the barby, deciding to come to Australia. This is simply not the case. In a study by the Refugee Council of Australia involving people working closely with new arrivals it was found that: a significant proportion had little idea where they were going until they actually got on a boat to come to Australia; if Australia was chosen as a destination, it was on the basis of cost—it is cheaper to come here than to get to Europe; where family links have been involved, this has actually occurred as a result of the government's policy on TPV holders—preventing them from sponsoring wives and children to Australia; and the main objective of asylum seekers has been to seek freedom, democracy and safety, not financial advancement. The so-called message that the government is determined to send is definitely not getting through.To go back to the story of the little Dutch boy and the leaky dike, the only workable solution is to fix the dike, and that is a big job. Until you do that, all you can do is blunder on from one quick fix to another. The government are just blundering on from one quick fix to the next. This legislation is just another quick fix; just another bandaid.When the Tampa first arrived on the scene, the then opposition leader offered the government full cooperation in finding a solution to this problem—but the government wanted to play politics with the issue. Today, the Leader of the Opposition offered cooperation in finding a lasting solution—no more bandaids; a lasting solution. It seems, from the comments of members opposite, that the government wants to keep playing politics with this issue. The government is not interested in a long-term solution and, while ever it continues with this approach, we will come back to this parliament time and again to put in another quick fix.When the Prime Minister said last August that the Tampa asylum seekers would not set foot on Australian soil—it was in the media—we knew he would have to eat those words. Now, as we plug up the holes in the dike, we keep telling the government that its approach is wrong. Until this government sees some commonsense in dealing with this issue and while ever the wheels keep falling off its political solution, we will be saying— and we and the Australian people will have pleasure in saying—`We told you so.'12:01:001327Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00— Madam Deputy Speaker Corcoran, before I start my speech on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment to the Speakers Panel. I have already heard excellent reports of your chairing in the other chamber of this House. I am sure the people of Isaacs are very proud of the contribution that you have made here in parliament.I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and in doing so I wish to condemn the government for not only its treatment of asylum seekers but also its inept approach to dealing with the issue. Early last year, the Prime Minister said he would do whatever he had to do to win the election—and that is exactly what he did, and that is why we are here today. It was the people in boats fleeing from the most horrendous conditions possible that this Prime Minister, this Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and this government chose to use as their tool to achieve their victory in last year's election. I find that very sad, and I think it is pretty tacky.It cannot be argued that the government sought to pursue the issue of boat people or asylum seekers from any fundamentally sound philosophical, economic, safety, health or policy perspective. Rather, it was driven wholly and solely by the desire to win the election. During the election campaign, asylum seekers and boat people were vilified to a degree that would make Goebbels blush. Not once have this government been prepared to acknowledge the fact that asylum seekers are human beings. They are not creatures, they are not animals; they are real, live people—just like them. Never before in Australia's history has this issue been politicised in the way this government have politicised it, purely for the purpose of winning an election. They created fear and, once they created that fear, they tried to con the Australian people into believing that they could solve the problem—and unfortunately we are here today because their attempts to solve the problem and deal with the issue have been flawed. In considering the legislation and the amendments before us in the parliament today, I think it is really important to look at the overall issue and to recognise the fact that Australia is a nation of boat people and that that started with the First Fleet. Since that time, there have been many people who have arrived in Australia on boats—and generally this issue has been treated very differently from the way this government sought to treat it.In 1838-39, hundreds of German Lutherans came to Australia; in 1938-39, there were 6,500 Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany; in 1941-45, we had thousands of Asians fleeing Japanese aggression; in 1947-53, 170,000 European victims of war and oppression came to Australia; in 1975, there were 1,800 East Timorese, following the Indonesian invasion; and in 1975-85, there were 95,000 Vietnamese refugees. There was concern in the community at that time, too, but the approach by government was very different from the approach that we have had today. In 1989, we had 20,000 Chinese students who were permitted to stay after Tiananmen Square; and, in 1999, we had the 4,000 Kosovo refugees who were given temporary sanctuary in Australia and who have been spoken about in some detail in our amendment.Unfortunately, the approach that this government has taken, as I said, has been very different to the approaches of the past. This government has politicised the issue and it has attempted to vilify asylum seekers, and this has led to the amendment we are considering here today. The original legislation that the government pushed through the parliament in September 2001 was flawed. Why was it flawed? It was flawed because it was designed around creating the maximum impact it could on the Australian people in the lead-up to the election. It was flawed because it did not consider all the issues and the implications of that legislation. It was flawed because it was based on deceit. It was flawed in the same way as was the information that the government actively promoted during the campaign—that asylum seekers were throwing their children overboard. It was all about the vilification and the dehumanisation of asylum seekers. It was all about winning an election at any cost.I just refer to that issue of how the government promoted the proposition in the community—one which has since been proved false—that asylum seekers were throwing their children overboard. That is one of the worst examples of what a government can do. It really shows that this government will stoop to any level just to remain on the other side of this chamber. It is very important that, as members in this House, we have a commitment to honesty and integrity. What happened in relation to the incident concerning the reports of asylum seekers throwing their children overboard is reprehensible. I honestly do not know how some members of this government can live with the knowledge of what they have done, or sleep at night.There are many reasons why this government has so hastily introduced this legislation into the House. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, this was only introduced yesterday and we have been told that it has got to be rushed through the House today. That hardly gives us the opportunity for adequate debate on such an important issue. This is not the first time that this has happened this week. Yesterday we had the anti-terrorism legislation pushed through the House—a group of five pieces of legislation which really have very serious implications and are very important. I know that I and many other members on this side of the House had our names down to debate that legislation, but we were unable to debate it simply because this government is not about debating issues that are of such importance to our community as this legislation is—as was the legislation that went through yesterday.When we consider that we are having this legislation pushed through in under 24 hours, it is important that we look at the fact that this is only the third week this parliament has sat since the last election. The election was held on 10 November, as all members and all Australians know, and you could hardly say we have got effective government here in Australia. We are having legislation pushed through the House without adequate debate and a parliament that is rarely sitting. We are sitting again next week and then, for the next seven weeks, parliament is in recess. I would argue that this parliament should be allocating more time to important pieces of legislation like the legislation we have before us today, and should allocate more weeks for sitting. This demonstrates that this government does not respect the democratic process and is not about open and transparent government. Otherwise, we would have had more time allocated to this debate and to the debate that took place yesterday. In considering this legislation I think we have to look in a bit more detail at how this government has deceived the Australian people over the last 12 months. One of the greatest deceits that has taken place is the deceit that the so-called Pacific solution the government introduced in September last year would stop asylum seekers coming to Australia. It was the answer; it would stop any asylum seeker from the Tampa ever landing in Australia. This legislation admits that the government has failed. It also shows that that type of legislation does not work. When you rush through legislation and you do not look at the consequences or the human implications—which this government has not done—you end up with legislation like that which was introduced in September last year, legislation that must be brought back to the House in the way that this legislation has been brought back today.When I talk about the Pacific solution, I also have to ask how much money has been spent. My understanding is that it has been an enormously expensive exercise, one that has actually been quite a drain on the government's budget, a budget that was supposedly in surplus. It really worries me that we are now are facing the consequences of this blow-out in the budget and we are looking at having massive cuts to programs that affect ordinary Australians' lives each and every day. That is not good enough. It is certainly not good enough for a government to waste hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers' money in the way that they have on this so-called Pacific solution.The government stands condemned for introducing legislation that was flawed to the degree that this legislation was. The government stands condemned not only for that legislation but also for its treatment of asylum seekers. It stands condemned for its lack of ethics. It stands condemned for deceiving the Australian people. It stands condemned for what it has done to democracy in Australia. It stands condemned for politicising the public service and the defence forces over the issue of throwing children overboard. It stands condemned for lowering the image and opinion of politicians in the community by its deceit. It stands condemned for distorting the process of government in Australia and for failing to deliver open and transparent government to the Australian people. It is time to end the deceit. It is time for the government to put some sanity back into the debate by accepting the opposition's amendments.12:16:001329Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002. This legislation specifically refers to non-offshore entry people who were intercepted at sea—such as in the Tampa case—and who have never set foot on any part of Australia, including those areas excised from the migration zone. There are some 1,159 people in this category who are being held for processing on Nauru. Asylum seekers who reached Australian migration zones prior to the legislation which was passed in the previous parliament could utilise Australia's protection obligation under the 1951 convention and make application for a protection visa. They had appeal rights to the Refugee Review Tribunal and also other legal rights.Under legislation passed in the last parliament, offshore entry people who came to Australia cannot engage Australia's protection obligations or make application for protection visas. However, that legislation did not refer to the position of non-offshore entry people. Why did the legislation not mention non-offshore entry people? Because this class of refugee did not exist before the arrival in our waters of the MV Tampa. Therefore, an asylum seeker who is not an offshore entry person but, rather, a non-offshore entry person could, if they came to Australia for any reason, apply for a protection visa. Why would they come to Australia? For medical treatment, to give evidence in a court case against people smugglers, or to transit through Australia on their way to somewhere else—these are just three examples of how non-offshore entry persons could in fact gain entry into Australia. This bill closes that loophole that the government created when it created the Pacific solution—or the Pacific non-solution, as we now see the case to be. In dealing with this new class of non-offshore entry people, primarily on Nauru, it is estimated that around 10 per cent of Afghans and 40 to 50 per cent of Iraqis will be found to be genuine refugees. Resettlement places are being sought for these refugees internationally. It has been estimated that there are places for approximately half of those expected to be granted refugee status. The problem lies in that around the globe there are thousands of people who have been approved as refugees by the UNHCR but who are still stuck in refugee camps because places in countries like Australia have not been found.What will happen to those on Nauru who are found to be genuine refugees but who are unable to find a place to call home? Will Australia continue to house them behind razor wire on Nauru? The government has made it very clear that its intention was that none of the Tampa people would ever set foot on Australian soil—but, of course, this has turned out to be a false statement. If they were at Woomera and were found to have a valid claim for refugee status, they would be resettled into the community. Those aboard the Tampa and the other boats intercepted may very well remain behind the razor wire indefinitely at Australian taxpayers' expense.The ALP, in our second reading amendment, call on the government to work in a bipartisan way with the opposition to achieve a comprehensive, long-term solution to the asylum seeker issue which is tough on border protection but also compassionate, and that a proper time limited safe haven arrangement for Afghans similar to that used for the Kosovars be implemented, given the majority of Afghan asylum seekers cannot return home because of the war on terrorism and the continuing instability in their home country. Those asylum seekers from Manus Island and Nauru who are returned to Australia by the government, and whom the government intends to hold in detention for a considerable period of time due to its inability to return them to their home or to a third country, should have a right to appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal—which would be consistent with the process introduced by the government last year.This legislation is just another example of `policy on the run.' The government made some very hasty political decisions last year which were designed not for solving the asylum seeker issue but for winning the election. It is now forced to back-pedal and make ill-conceived policies on the run. Again, we have a situation where a bill is introduced into this place with no time to consider its wider implications and even less time to debate the issues that are raised. For that alone the government should be condemned, but it deserves to be condemned for much more. The issue of immigration and refugees is a complex and complicated one, with valid arguments on all sides of the debate. There are no quick fixes and no simple answers to such a complex issue. We will get nowhere near solving the problems if we speak in sound bites and catchphrases, or bow to mindless and populist bigotry.Despite the efforts of some people to rewrite history, this was the major issue in the 2001 federal election campaign. It is now seen that this expensive Pacific solution introduced by the Howard government does not work. How do we know it does not work? For a start, this piece of legislation tells us that the government now realises the monumental error that it made on that occasion. The short-term political fix, designed with no other outcome in mind than winning the election, is now an expensive albatross that is hanging around the government's neck. The federal government's successful use of wedge politics during the 2001 election campaign has increased Australia's apprehension about immigration. I feel quite strongly about this because I think most people in this House do support our immigration program. However, there are always some people in the community who are not quite relaxed about that program. Unfortunately, far from making Australians relaxed and comfortable, the Prime Minister deliberately set out to play on people's fears and insecurities in order to make them far from relaxed and anything but comfortable about this issue. Labor has now got the opportunity to put forward its own policies on the refugee issue in the calm that comes outside the frenzy that the federal election campaign was fought in. We will balance our commitment to social justice with the view of many of our constituents—in the pubs, clubs, lounge rooms and workplaces of our nation—who have reservations concerning immigration and particularly refugees. Those concerns, I believe, have been fuelled by the policies of the government, particularly during the last election campaign.Many Australians are worried and would argue, rightly so, about our social infrastructure—such as health and education—and our ability to cope with large influxes of new people. This is not the first time that we have seen large influxes of refugees to our shore. The great postwar migration boom brought thousands of people to our country. There was a feeling then of apprehension amongst the general population as we referred—and I clearly remember this as a young person—to these people as balts, reffos and dagos. Time and hindsight has taught us that our fears were baseless yet we are having the same debate, with the same arguments and the same fears, again today. Why? We as a nation are again being asked to respond to the people who have been dispossessed by war and natural disasters. As the lucky country we should be prepared to respond to the needs of these people.It is clear that most people support tough border protection legislation—there is no doubt about that—and the Labor Party is strongly in support of that position. But the bandaid solution to the refugee issue implemented by this government prior to the election has now proved to be expensive, inhuman and completely unworkable in the medium to long term. Hurried legislation frantically trying to close a loophole here or a loophole there, because they could not take the time to do it properly the first time around, just shows this government for what it is—a government without a clue.Legislation like this does nothing but further demonise a group of people who simply do not deserve it. It also does nothing to solve the real issue surrounding illegal people in Australia. We must be realistic enough to accept that there are thousands of illegal immigrants who come to Australia, originally legally—such as students, tourists and the like—whose visas have expired. These people have, in some cases, married in Australia, have set up businesses and now have school-age children. There are many thousands more of this type of offender than there of actual boat people, but the government conveniently forget this in their attempts to demonise those who arrive by boat.The Prime Minister wants to take us back to the golden ages of the 1950s. Well, fair enough. But the 1950s was when we took in refugees from all parts of the world and built our modern nation on the hard work of those refugees. This is a complex and complicated issue and anyone who tries to tell us in a 20-second sound bite that there is a quick fix is trying to sell you the Harbour Bridge or the beach views in Alice Springs.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Hear, hear!MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—Woomera should be mothballed. Our detention centres need to be run by the government and not by a private company from the USA. The running of privately owned prisons for profit does everything that is unAustralian. Women and children should be removed from behind the razor wire—do I hear a `hear, hear' there?—not simply because to keep them there goes against our international treaties on human rights that we have signed, but because it is quite simply the right thing to do, the compassionate thing to do. We need to protect our borders and have strict guidelines for accepting people into our community, but we must also balance this with a commitment to compassion and understanding. Leadership is about leading, not following. For the better part of 50 years the leaders of our nation have pushed the cause of multiculturalism in a bipartisan way. Leaders of both sides of the political fence have stood strongly against the bigots and the fearmongers. They have often done the unpopular because it was the right thing to do. That was until the last election. Fifty years of leadership were thrown onto the scrap heap when this government, led by this Prime Minister, gave in to the bigots and the fearmongers and played the racist card. It was a political masterstroke and it won them the election. But at what cost? The cost was our international reputation and a divided nation at home. The cost is being counted in legislation such as this—legislation on the run by a government which does not think or act properly in the first place. I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.12:28:001332Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The bill providing for the transitional movement of certain non-citizens is testament to this government's pandering to the electorate on the issue of asylum seekers and so-called border protection. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002 would be unnecessary had the government fulfilled its moral obligations in the humane and compassionate treatment of human beings seeking asylum—fleeing from some of the most oppressive and dangerous regimes in the world at the moment—and allowed these people to land in Australia and have their claims fairly considered instead of being shipped around the Pacific in a cynical vote grabbing exercise that, far from providing any solution, has posed further problems and costs, to which the existence of this bill attests.According to the Financial Review of 14 February this year, the Pacific solution, or the Pacific problem, will cost around $480 million this financial year—almost half a billion dollars on a solution that is so full of holes it actually needs legislation to patch it up. If asylum seekers were allowed to land in this country and be processed here, we would not need legislation to allow them to be brought in when they are sick—and with the risk of malaria from these Pacific containment camps, the numbers could well be very high—or, indeed, when they are needed as witnesses in people-smuggling trials or for transit home to a third country. We would not be here debating that bill if these people were here as they should be in the first place being properly processed.This bill is not just a matter of providing the legal framework for the movement of non-citizens or `transitory persons', as the bill calls them—how about `fellow human beings' as a legal term—in and out of the country. The bill shows the Pacific solution for what it is: a waste of time and money. What a waste of innocent people's lives and a degrading of those people and of our international `fair go' reputation—all for votes and the continuation of bad policy. The bill is designed to patch up a policy that has gone badly astray. While the Tampa shame and the resulting Pacific solution may indeed have deterred asylum seekers from trying to enter this country, can the government sit with a self-satisfied smirk and believe that the job is over and that the people who seek to come here are more and more someone else's problem?In a research paper prepared by our excellent parliamentary services on the 1951 refugee convention, a number of problems with that convention's modern-day applications are detailed. While it is acknowledged that there is an inequity of outcomes between camp and convention refugees, with priority being given to those present in a country on the basis of their mobility, surely no-one could argue that the very fact that asylum seekers find a way and a means to flee their country, or country of first asylum, should rule them ineligible for assessment. One other problem highlighted in the parliamentary paper is the gross disparity between what Western countries spend on processing and supporting asylum seekers and what they contribute to the UNHCR for the world refugee effort. Is it any wonder that refugees would bypass the camps of Peshawar to find their way to a third country, even by boat, and even paying their passage? Our lack of commitment to a credible UNHCR solution is another case of `out of sight, out of mind'—except when the heat is on, as was the case late last year when an extra, but, in the scheme of things, very small, contribution was made by Australia to the processing of people in their country of first asylum. It suits the politics of this debate to continue to use the terms `illegal' and `unlawful'; indeed, they are included in our laws. In my book, people can never be illegal; only what they do. We should ask ourselves why people fleeing the Saddam regime or Iran—or those with continuing valid fears about their likely fate in Afghanistan post-Taliban—are dubbed illegal. As the government has recognised with this bill, and plans to construct a detention centre on Christmas Island, the only humane and moral way to treat these people is to manage and process their claims on our own soil. That should always have been the solution pre- and post-Tampa. That processing in our onshore detention centres at the moment is a disgrace. I am told that, of the 187 Iraqi asylum seekers in the Woomera camp, one has been rejected as a non-refugee while the remainder have been awaiting their primary status decision for an average of 10 months. In the United Kingdom, as I understand, it such people are by law permitted to be held for 10 days, during which time a primary decision must be made.There are currently about 1,500 asylum seekers in Pacific solution camps on Manus Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island and Nauru. The Pacific nations among those have been bribed to take on our problem. It is South Pacific colonialism and paternalism all over again: beads handed out for services rendered. Added to those 1,500 people are about 2,500 in detention on mainland Australia. That is about 4,000 all up. Let me compare that with the problem of asylum seekers elsewhere in the world. The poorer countries of the Middle East, Asia, Africa and eastern Europe are carrying the bulk of the world's refugee burden. Iran has an estimated 1.8 million; there are about 1½ million in Jordan; there are two million—probably heading towards three million—in Pakistan; there are half a million in India; and there are 200,000 in Thailand. That is just for starters.If we are to continue to condemn the tyrants of the world and if we are to continue to support America's war against terrorism, then the flip side is our responsibility to the victims of that oppression. While people-smuggling and trading in misery are to be condemned and rooted out, the victims of those regimes are still victims, whatever their means of travelling. It would be interesting to know what reaction there might be to a boatload of asylum seekers picked up off north-west Australia who arrived under their own power aboard a boat they had bought and crewed themselves. Would they be any braver or more desperate than those who take their chances on a leaky fishing boat out of an Indonesian port? Indeed, what might be our reaction if boatloads of people flee Zimbabwe in the weeks and months ahead? I see this morning that the non-indigenous population in that country—those with British and European roots—are considering their options. What priority might those people take in such circumstances? Would they be detained in camps until their status is determined?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—That is disgusting.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Why is that disgusting?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—That is disgraceful.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Why?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—You are attempting to bring race into a debate that is all about law and order.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—I am not.10000Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms A.K. Corcoran)—Order! The honourable member for Calare will address his remarks through the chair.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—I am talking about equity of access to the process.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—This is a law and order issue and it has nothing to do with race.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—It is not about law and order. It is a humane issue. You described the Pacific solution as a disgrace, did you not, a moment ago?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—I described you as a disgrace for the way you brought race into this discussion. KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—It is not a matter of race; it is a matter of equal treatment of people under our obligations internationally. The Australian Financial Review this week published figures from the ANU seriously challenging claims that Australia has a generous refugee intake. The figures show Australia ranks about 32nd in the world in the number of refugees it hosts, accepting three for every 1,000 in the community.The report, from the ANU's Department of International Relations, authored by Ms Thuy Do, says that Australia is the only country that has a policy of mandatory detention. The report refutes claims by the minister that Australia accepts the second largest number of refugees per capita after Canada. In fact, we may be third among the 10 countries with formal refugee resettlement programs for which an annual quota is set. However, a much larger number of countries accept refugees and asylum seekers and do not specify a quota, according to the report. In fact, we fall to 32nd on the list—with the top three refugee-hosting countries being Pakistan, Iran and Germany. The House will note that the first two are at the epicentre of the current war on terrorism. Iran has been targeted as part of the `axis of evil', yet we would cast asylum seekers from these parts of the world as `illegals', `unlawfuls' and `queue jumpers' and cast them into outback detention centres where the trauma of their experiences is being exacerbated by many months of incarceration and an assessment process that could at best be described as glacial.Prior to Tampa, prior to the hysteria of the past 12 months, we were processing asylum seekers and at least providing temporary protection visas. About 90 per cent of those people from Afghanistan and Iraq were being approved for such status. What has changed? There has been a quite cynical exploitation, I would suggest, of these people for political purposes. The Prime Minister will be guided by mainstream Australians when the refugee issue is in the polls and on the talkback, but he will not be swayed by the mob—as he calls it—when it comes to issues of leadership and principle inherent in processes like the Dr Hollingworth matter. These are seen as double standards for purely political reasons.This bill is designed to extricate the government from part of the dilemma created by its Pacific solution: the dilemma of our long-term damage in the eyes of our Pacific neighbours—being seen as being ready to dump refugees but failing to acknowledge something like the likelihood of environmental refugees, down the track, from Tuvalu. These are double standards that are well-recognised in the Pacific and things that we will not be able to extricate ourselves from in any hurry.The 70 per cent support—or whatever it is at the moment—for the government's current policies is not a measure of the 100 per cent support out there for strong border protection. It is a 70 per cent largely built on fear and ignorance. It is a measure of how much work needs to be done to lead our people and our country into understanding that we have a rich resource in offering haven to those who flee the cruel regimes of this world—regimes our soldiers are now fighting, and dying in the process. The first step is to dismantle our inhumane and discredited detention program.12:41:001334Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00—Firstly, I commend the member for Calare for his contribution, despite the outbursts and interjections from the minister at the table. It should have provoked within him some thoughts about the direction of government policy and the recent history of government policy.The Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002 is, as has been described, a submission to the failure of the government's policies and the Pacific solution. It is the government throwing up their hands and saying, `We got it wrong.' The reason I want to raise that aspect of things is that, during the course of the last election campaign, after the initial border protection legislation was introduced, there was discussion by members of the opposition, including me, that this Pacific solution strategy, which was implemented through that legislation and through other legislation to do with protecting our borders, would have to be revisited and that in fact the Pacific solution would unwind. I am sure you recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we were almost described as traitors by the government for even suggesting such a thing. What in fact happened, of course, was that we rightly said that we would see how this legislation operates and that we think it will need to be reviewed. Indeed, I said in this place and outside this place that I thought the legislation was flawed, that the strategy was flawed and that it would need to be reviewed. What we are doing today is revisiting the legislation, because it was poor legislation in the first instance, as it comes to pass, because now we have introduced into this parliament proposals which are designed to remedy the problems which have surfaced and which should have been foreseen by the government in relation to their original legislation. Under the proposal before us today, the bill will amend section 46A so that, in addition to applying to offshore entry persons, it also applies to the non-offshore entry persons currently held in Nauru and to future asylum seekers intercepted at sea and taken offshore. In this bill, these three categories of asylum seekers are defined as `transitory persons'. Amending section 46A in the way proposed enables the current non-offshore entry persons in Nauru to be brought to Australia without enabling them to engage Australia's protection obligation and make application for a visa unless the minister exercises his discretion to enable them to do so. Of course, it means we have got these people who were never going to come onshore, into this country and an acknowledgment—which should have been there in the first instance but was not—of the inevitability that the initial policy was flawed, that there was always going to be a case where these people, or at least some of them, would need to be brought onto Australia's shore. Then we had, earlier this week, an announcement here in the parliament by the minister responsible, and a visit to Christmas Island on the 11th by the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government to announce the establishment on Christmas Island of a permanent detention facility.When the government announced their proposal to build a temporary facility on Christmas Island there was acknowledged concern then by the Christmas Island community that this would not be appropriate and that what the government needed to do was re-examine their strategy. There was a suggestion then of the need for a permanent facility, which of course the government did not acknowledge. Indeed, I had conversations at the time with the community on Christmas Island. I put to them the proposition of whether they would accept a permanent processing facility on the island for these people, and they indicated that they would. I am sure that the government should have been in a position at the time to have had the same discussions with those people in that community and to have established for themselves, as I established, the willingness of the community to host a permanent facility of some description.But of course we did not get those discussions. It was not until Minister Tuckey flew to Christmas Island on a VIP aircraft earlier this week that the Christmas Island community became aware of the government's proposals. There had been no discussions or dialogue with the community about their intentions to establish a permanent facility on the island. Leaving aside the fact that there was an inherent belief within the community that such a thing was desirable, the fact is that the government did not bother to communicate, did not bother to consult and did not bother to negotiate with the island community on this very important issue.So the minister arrived on Christmas Island to explain to the community that the government is going to give them—a very small community—a detention facility which will host 1,200 people. The interesting thing about that of course is that we will effectively see a doubling of the island's population as a result of the establishment of this facility. Subsequent to Minister Tuckey's visit this week—and, indeed, on the day that he was there—I spoke to people on Christmas Island who indicated that they had major concerns about the way in which this whole process was operating. It is of no surprise to me that the people on Christmas Island, as I said earlier, indicated their general support for the notion of a permanent facility but also grave concern at the lack of consultation—let alone negotiation; we will leave that right out of the window. There has never been an attempt by this government to sit down cooperatively with the people of Christmas Island and explain what the intention of their policy is. There was no attempt to negotiate an outcome; they have just imposed an outcome. Whilst the people of Christmas Island were willing to accept a permanent facility, there had been no discussion at all about what the community obviously thought might be important issues, such as how much it will cost, what it will entail, how it will be designed and what the employment opportunities available to them will be out of this process. All of these things had not been properly thought through. Minister Tuckey, when he was on the island, was unable to inform the community about these major important questions.At the end of the public meeting, people were asked by the administrator on Christmas Island to put their hands up if they supported the idea and then to put their hands up if they opposed it. Apparently, as I understand it, one or two people put their hands up to oppose it. Of course, what a stupid question! There had been no process of discussion, consultation or negotiation. What he was asking them to do was give the government the green light for something that was unknown—at least in its detail. As I said earlier, the community expressed a desire to me as early as September last year to accept a permanent facility. Why couldn't the government have sat down with the people of Christmas Island, brought them into the picture and said that they intended to establish a permanent facility on the island in the future, that they would like people's input into that process and that they would sit down and work with people to establish what potential employment and business outcomes there were for the community and how people could take advantage of them. There was none of that—and of course they are none the wiser as a result of Minister Tuckey's visit.I will not pursue that subject just at the moment, but it is of a piece with the way in which the government have contemptuously treated the Christmas Island community since the first announcement of the border protection legislation—when they were included with Cocos Island as part of the exclusion zone so that unauthorised entrants would not have the same rights on Christmas Island as they would on the mainland. But the point remains that, despite what the government might like to think at times, Christmas Island is part of Australia. Establishing a 1,200-person facility on Christmas Island says `game, set and match'—it is all over for the Pacific solution. They intend to process these people in the future on Christmas Island. Is it or is it not part of the mainland? What were the words of the Prime Minister when he was walking around the press gallery here trumpeting the solution to the Tampa crisis? He said, `These people will never set foot on Australian soil.' What we have come to see is inevitability—what everyone knew at the time—that they would in fact set foot on Australian soil, and they will.What we also saw—and it is an issue that I think is of major importance to the Australian community—was this government, in September and October in the lead-up to the election period, deliberately playing the dirty and filthy game of gutter politics and trying to put a wedge into the Australian community on the issue of migration, particularly over these unauthorised entrants. And I have to say that they were successful. We are now seeing a revisiting of that policy—them saying that the policy construct which they built at the time was flawed. We saw the Prime Minister, in this chamber and outside of this chamber, demonising these asylum seekers, these unauthorised entrants; arguing that they had thrown their children overboard; and living the lie, up until election day, in refusing to acknowledge the fact that children were not thrown overboard—refusing to accept the advice of senior military personnel who had said to the government that children were not thrown overboard and wanting us to believe that, somehow or other, he was ignorant of this fact. I do not believe him, and I do not think the Australian community believe him. It is important to reflect just for a moment on the article in today's Australian entitled `No children thrown in sea, says captain'. I will quote just a section from this article. The article shows how the photos were misused in a sense—well, we know they were misused; there were 393 of them, or something. We know how they were misused by the government deliberately, and particularly by former Minister Reith, who was advised that no children were thrown overboard; yet, when interviewed by the media he accused an interviewer of questioning his integrity and the integrity of the defence forces, after he had been advised that no children had been thrown overboard. He asked, `Are you saying you don't trust the Defence Force or the advice the defence chiefs are giving me?' He knew that he had been advised that no children had been thrown overboard. They stuck to the story until election day. Now their cover has been blown because, as we know, Commander Banks, the fine captain of that vessel, has said:I made some remarks - they were on the record.I received some information and was then confused. I sought guidance from my operational commanders ... and we sought to clarify what was some confusion and I believe that was clarified by October 10 ... at no stage did I say children were thrown overboard.It was clarified by 10 October, which, of course, was the day that former Minister Reith made the accusation. The article goes on:Commander Banks said he told his superiors that pictures released to the media as evidence children were thrown overboard were an incorrect representation.This raises very serious matters, because if he told his superiors that no children were thrown overboard and they did not pass that advice up the chain of command they were derelict in their duty. But we know that they were not derelict in their duty, because they did pass the information up the chain of command, to the point where the acting Defence chief advised the government, advised former Minister Reith—with a witness to this conversation—that it did not happen and that children were not thrown overboard. Then we had Mr Reith say in front of a Senate committee, `I wanted to check with the chief.' The chief was away at the time and the acting chief had advised him, but that was not good enough. He made a real patsy of the CDF.The Defence Force have operated appropriately at all times. They properly passed the information up the chain of command. The chain of command passed it on to the government and the government refused to act on it. That is very clear. Instead, they pilloried these unfortunate people and played the dirty game of wedge politics. Now we are revisiting the legislation, because it is flawed. We are seeing the unravelling of the Pacific solution. I was on Christmas Island just a few weeks ago and let me tell you: if the government believe it is a sustainable policy to have one of our warships, one of the frigates, permanently stationed off Christmas Island and that we can afford to continue to do it, how wrong they are. Of course, the Defence chiefs know how wrong they are. We know already. We have soldiers from the Robertson Barracks in Darwin being trained as boarding parties and put on these frigates. How inappropriate a use of Defence Force personnel is that? We know, as the government know, that neither the people in the Navy nor the people in the Army who are involved in these exercises want to do it. Never mind the fact that they have operated bravely and courageously and gone well beyond the call of duty in terms of their response to the unfortunate incidents that involved the SIEV4. They acted courageously and very bravely.I have seen all the photographs that show how bravely they acted. But that is not their core responsibility. Their core responsibility is the defence of Australia. Their core responsibility is doing what they are doing elsewhere in the world. But we are seeing them misused and abused by this government. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier in his contribution, we are seeing institutions of state being undermined by this government and the conventions of administration undermined by this government almost on a daily basis. The whole notion that we should have any collective responsibility from the government over the `children overboard' issue has been thrown out the window, as they have allowed the CDF to hang out to dry. They refuse to allow ministerial advisers who are in the coterie of people who understood what was going on and advised the government of what was going on to sit in front of a public committee and answer questions about their involvement and the involvement of the government. What does that say to us about accountability and transparency in government? What does that say to us about the way in which they have abused the defence forces and the Public Service generally over this issue and the way in which they have misused the defence forces and the Australian Public Service for their own cynical, political purposes while they were playing the filthy, gutter game of wedge politics? It has come home to roost: we are now seeing the unravelling—it is inevitable—of the whole Pacific solution as the government come to recognise the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in this tawdry exercise and as they come to recognise the impact upon the budget of the inappropriate use of our defence forces and the stupidity of some aspects of their proposals.There can be no doubt that the opposition is firmly committed to supporting legislation which provides appropriate mechanisms to deal with unauthorised entrants into Australia and there is no doubt about our concern to protect our borders. Do not have us pilloried in this place or outside of this place—abused as if we were traitors—because we happen to question the methods used by this government and their approach to these issues. Why shouldn't we question these issues? Isn't it appropriate to raise our concerns? I note that they are adequately and well articulated in the amendment which is before the chamber which goes to 13 points where the Labor Party points out to the government the flaws in this legislation and the flaws in their approach to this general policy issue. I urge the House to support the Labor Party amendment.13:01:001338Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00— Firstly, in speaking to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002 today, let me reinforce the comments made by the member for Lingiari in relation to Christmas Island, which of course is in his electorate. The population of Christmas Island had already indicated to their local member at the start of this business that they were willing to look at having a detention centre established on Christmas Island on a permanent basis. To have no negotiation whatsoever with the people of Christmas Island, to have them in a limbo where Christmas Island was utilised on a transitory, non-continuing basis, to have all the disruption associated with that and then to willy-nilly fly a minister in there to say, `Well, now you are going to get a facility of 1,200 people, doubling the population of the island. Put your hand up if you want it or not,' is a complete abrogation of the responsibility of the relevant ministers in regard to the negotiations and talks that they should have with the people of Christmas Island.The member for Lingiari is absolutely correct in condemning the govern-ment because of the manner in which they have so disdainfully treated his constit-uents. It is not that difficult for a minister to sit down and talk with the member's constit-uents and to lay out the government's con-cerns in regard to an excision zone. It would not be that difficult for either the minister for immigration or the minister for territories to speak to those people in Queensland and other states where there had been an indication by the government previously that they were going to set up new detention centres—one of those being my colleague the member for Oxley. They are still in limbo; they do not know what is going to happen in their areas and whether or not detention centres will be set up at all or whether this new, unheralded decision in regard to a permanent detention centre on Christmas Island will obviate the need, as the government sees it, for other new facilities which had already been announced.I can understand the impact of having a detention centre in one's electorate, because I have one in mine—the Villawood Detention Centre. The purpose that that served, rightly, as a detention centre as part of immigration policy throughout the period of the Labor government was for the proper uses of the department of immigration to detain people while it was necessary in order to determine what their status was and then, for those people who had to be repatriated to there originating country, to do so from the facility. In regard to my electorate and the Villawood Detention Centre, most of the people who are there—indeed, almost all at the present time—are there because they were either apprehended in the community or apprehended at the airport. Part of the absurdity of the argument that we have seen since prior to the election is that the focus has been on the question of people on the Tampa and on other boats that came unheralded to Australia: those boats under the control of people smugglers where they attempted to gain access to Ashmore Reef, Christmas Island or other areas in Australia for the purpose of bringing in asylum seekers—those people having paid. But the reality is, government on government— for this government since 1996—that the vast majority of illegals in Australia, the vast majority of asylum seekers, are those people, and there are two different categories, of course, who have come into Australia by aeroplane, primarily through the port of Sydney. They have flown into Melbourne as well and they have flown to Brisbane, but mostly the main gateway to Australia, Sydney, is the facility that people have used. Some people have come in on valid visas and have then overstayed those valid visas, therefore becoming prohibited noncitizens.Rightly, this government—as did the Labor governments under Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating—rounded up those people who were not properly in Australia and, after determining their situation, repatriated them back to their countries. If they did not go willingly, they were up for an absolute five-year exclusion if they attempted, once back in their originating countries, to apply to come to Australia—and rightly so because they had broken our immigration laws. We have in the order of 80,000 people in the categories of overstayers or people who have come into the country by plane seeking refugee status. The people-smuggling part has only been a section of it. In terms of dealing with the fundamentals and the problems of the situation, there was a simple comparison made before. During the Hawke and Keating governments, over a period of 13 years we had a significant problem with people coming by boat—in the order of 3,000 individuals. Our governments undertook to repatriate those people as quickly as possible after their situation was determined while they were in detention camps within Australia. We undertook a program particularly in regard to people coming from the southern provinces of China where the minister, the government as a whole and officials from the department of immigration undertook direct talks with the regional governments in southern China and also with the government in Beijing in order to sort out the problem. The reality is that those 1,000 unsuccessful asylum seekers were returned to southern China at a limited cost to the government—something in the order of $3 million. In fact, it was a people-smuggling racket. So it is possible to solve these problems if you go about them in the right way.Prior to the last election, what we saw— and what we still see with this government— was a government completely incapable of handling the situation that faced them regarding people-smuggling, and people-smuggling by boat via Indonesia. More than 11,500 arrivals have been able to come in. Boat after boat after boat has arrived in Australia. Extra detention camps have had to be opened. In those detention camps—no longer operated by the Australian Protective Service, by Commonwealth employees, but operated under contract to a private company—where there have been outbreaks, riots and disturbances, where the wire has been ripped down, where the place has been torched, where people have broken out, escaped, into the desert in Woomera's case, and then had to be rounded up, we have seen a total, complete and utter shambles of an attempt by this government and its agencies to deal with the situation. For this government to have been rewarded with its re-election on the basis of what it proposed to do in regard to the MV Tampa and the people who were on that boat is utterly scandalous. The government misrepresented the situation, and we see part of the product of that within this bill today. This bill is an attempt to touch up the situation the government faces. It deals with one category of people—non-offshore entry persons. You only have the people on the Tampa, the Aceng, the Ratna-Mujia and the Sumber Bahagia who were intercepted at sea and then taken to other countries. You do not have the situation of the people who were taken to Manus Island and Christmas Island or the people who were dealt with after the laws in relation to the excision zones came into effect. I have no problem whatsoever with having supported last year the incorporation of excision zones into the Migration Act. We voted for that, and I think it was a sensible approach to that current situation as one of the weapons you would use to solve the problem. It was open to the government to open a full permanent detention centre on Christmas Island, because Christmas Island is part of the excision zone and Ashmore Reef is part of the excision zone; they are close, and are proximate to the major source of those people coming by boat, those being brought by the people smugglers coming out of Indonesia. It was a novel and innovative but effective way to make it far more difficult for people to come to Australia by boat. I think that part of it has worked reasonably well.But the government's problem is with the Dodgy Brothers job they did in relation to the Tampa—the speedy overreaction and the attempt to bring in legislation, a bill before this House which would have allowed all of the people on the Tampa—every one of the asylum seekers and every one of the people who were actually the foreign crew of that boat—to be killed, slaughtered, without any action under Australian law to put a person who would have done that killing before an Australian court and prosecute that person for murder. That was the key fundamental problem with that bill, and that is why we rejected it. We put up a series of amendments that would have made that bill better. When the bill was finally passed, our amendments were incorporated in that and there was a more workable situation.The key problem the government have here is that they have people overseas. As the Leader of the Opposition said, they have people at camp Manus and camp Nauru. The people have been sent on the Pacific trip to those places, which are detention centres. But they have been sent there because the government was looking for a way out of the problem they had. They were also looking for a way to engineer a win in the election. The government have some difficulty, and that difficulty is that there are certain circumstances in which these people need to come to Australia, despite the fact the government promised they would never set foot in Australia. So this is the first great public backdown of this government in terms of the utterly unsustainable approach they took prior to the last election. Further to that, the minister, in his second reading speech, indicated that he would be bringing forth an amendment. That amendment specifically says that this:... does not include a person who has been assessed to be a refugee for the purposes of the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol.We have had no explanation in the minister's speech. We have had no explanation—because this came in so late—as to why the excision of people who have been accepted as refugees would take place. I cannot understand it.What the minister is trying to do in this bill comes under three headings: there may be exceptional circumstances where people have medical conditions and need to be treated and they could be treated in Australia; they might be witnesses in a criminal trial; and they might transit through Australia, either to return to their country of residence or to a third country for resettlement— that is in the bill; it has not been taken out. I can only guess that the people being returned to their country of residence are those people who will not be accepted as refugees. But the purpose of this bill also includes allowing people a transitory visa in order to be taken to a third country for resettlement. Surely, doesn't that mean people who have been accepted as refugees under the refugee protocols?I would be happy if the minister would actually give us an explanation for this: if those on Manus and on Nauru who are granted refugee status are not going to transit through Australia, what are they going to do? Will they be flown directly from those places to where their point of resettlement is? I would like a significant answer to that because I think it actually stands against what the minister is trying to achieve within this bill. So there may in fact be another amendment to this bill later on to deal with that problem, unless I am mistaken. Secondly, in terms of a significant series of questions about this, section 46B of this bill is very interesting. There are a number of different categories dealt with in the bill as to the exceptional circumstances through which people would come. But there is a specific provision with regard to people who are in Australia on a transitory visa. We know the general part of 46B. It says:(1) An application for a visa is not a valid application if it is made by a transitory person who: (a) is in Australia; and (b) is an unlawful non-citizen.Fine, but at (2) it states:If the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by written notice given to a transitory person, determine that subsection (1) does not apply to an application by the person for a visa of a class specified in the determination.Okay. This is if people are coming in for medical reasons or they are coming in to give evidence in a criminal trial against people smugglers, for instance, or if they are of the other, middle, category of people who are being transited through Australia to be sent back to the originating country or who have gained refugee status and are being transited through Australia—although the amendment the minister has given indicates that they will not be allowed to actually run on a transit visa. It is in the minister's power to make a determination that those people in Australia could apply for a visa.In that case, what is the situation that we face? If someone who is on Nauru or Manus Island at the moment and is subject to the provisions of this bill happens to be in Australia on a transit visa, the minister can make a determination, if he so chooses—and he is not compelled to do so—that that person can be allowed to apply for a valid visa. If that actually happens, if the minister determines that is the case, subsection (4) of 46B says: If the Minister makes a determination under subsection (2), the Minister must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a statement that: (a) sets out the determination; and (b) sets out the reasons for the determination, referring in particular to the Minister's reasons for thinking that the Minister's actions are in the public interest.So far so good. If those determinations are made, subsection (5) indicates:A statement under subsection (4) must not include: (a) the name of the transitory person; or (b) any information that may identify the transitory person;If you have got someone on Manus or Nauru transiting Australia and the minister makes a determination—he may make none, but it is in his power under this and is not compellable—and decides to lay before the parliament the reasons for making such a determination and why he thinks that is in the public interest, then the name and any identifying information are to be excluded from that. The minister argues in his second reading speech that this is in line with the non-compellable actions through the rest of the Migration Act. Minister, I would like to know if this is in line not just with those non-compellable aspects but also in terms of the identity and the name of the person, which you have argued should be suppressed on the basis of privacy.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—It is. If you look at the statements—they are tabled now—none of them identify the name of the party.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Thank you, Minister. That is partly answered by the minister's interjection. My query in relation to that went to this: the minister assures us that none of those people on Nauru or Manus Island who might come to Australia on a transit visa could be converted into someone who could apply for a valid visa and therefore stay in Australia and save the government some embarrassment by their not being so named. I trust that that is the case, based on what the minister said. 0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—If someone had serious asylum claims—10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr P.A. Barresi)—The member for Blaxland has the floor.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Thank you, Minister. In your reply I would be interested if you expanded on that. I have a concern in regard to this because it is not obvious in this that that is not a mechanism for pulling it away and starting again in relation to people who are supposedly not to have a chance at all.If we go to the broader determination in regard to this, it is a Dodgy Brothers policy thought up on the brink of hundreds of ships coming into Australia. It is a policy designed to entirely mislead the Australian electorate in terms of the people on the Tampa, their situation, and how the government would hold out any future refugees. I am sure that the majority of people in Australia had the impression—and the government wanted to give them the impression—that no more refugees would be coming to Australia and that not only this class of people but also everyone else was being held out. That was the popular perception—that the Labor Party was going to let millions in but the government would stop the whole show.The reality is that, in 5½ years of government—at 12,600 a year—in the order of 65,000 refugees have come into Australia. It may be news to the population at large after the election but this government is still committed to a refugee program, as it is committed to an immigration program. If it were to be in government for another 5½ years, on the current trend you would expect another 65,000 or so people to come in on the refugee program. The manner in which this was presented to the Australian people gave them the impression that it was stopping the whole show. The fact that it was being stopped in relation to boat people—and this impression was demanded to be put forward—gave the impression that it was going to stop all the refugees. Slowly, people will wake up to that.During the campaign the fact that the government had brought in 65,000 refugees and had every intention to do so in the next 5½ years if it were still in government was not dealt with. The hastiness and the lack of preparation in dealing with this matter are evident within this stop-gap bill. (Time expired)13:21:001342Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I want to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002. I want to raise some general questions as well as to look specifically at some of the provisions of the bill. I want to start by making a statement of some principle; that is that, in my view, the government's policies on asylum seekers—if I can put it somewhat poetically, although I feel this very strongly—are poisoning the nation's soul. We have seen an eruption of that poison in recent days in a variety of events.I support Martin Luther King's view of this: that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. I think a great many right-thinking Australians understand that. Others who perhaps have not thought about it too carefully yet are beginning to understand that. They are beginning to understand that hatred is a powerful, destructive force, and unleashed on any group it can attach to almost any other minority group or individual who by their very existence may already discomfort certain sections of the community. Given my responsibility for indigenous people, I understand how easy it is to shift these hateful attitudes towards asylum seekers to indigenous peoples, homosexuals or people with mental illness, and vice-versa. We unleash this hatred at our peril.I have to say the Prime Minister and the responsible minister, who is in the chamber, have none too subtly encouraged hateful attitudes and negative stereotyping of asylum seekers. I have to say that the Prime Minister has also done it in relation to indigenous people, but the most recent target has been asylum seekers. The fallout is obvious to anyone who cares to look, although there are plenty of people who are apparently in denial and are refusing to see the evidence of their senses.I was amazed when a friend of mine drew attention to a letter in the Age newspaper. I do not have the exact date because he did not clip it at the time, but it was in mid-January of this year. I have confirmed that the person who signed this letter exists, so I have no reason to disbelieve her. It is a young woman who visited this parliament. She said: Last year I visited Parliament House in Canberra as part of a school politics excursion. Our class bumped into Philip Ruddock in the corridors, and we were allowed to ask him questions. I asked why it was acceptable to put these genuinely suffering refugees in poor conditions out in the desert.Out of the mouths of babes!0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—The conversation was totally and absolutely misrepresented.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—I am reading the letter. I am saying no more than this letter. This young 17-year-old woman visited this parliament and bumped into the minister in the corridor and her account of the events is as follows:He moved closer to me, in what I felt was a means to intimidate me, and coldly said: “Well, would you want these people living next to you?”That is the letter to the Age from a young woman who I know exists, so it is not a fantasy. I have not spoken to her directly, but her letter is an example of what discussion is taking place in this country. The minister may seek to deny it. It is on the public record and I have no reason to disbelieve that young woman's description of the encounter.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—Well, you do, because you have heard it from me.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—Minister, I don't have reason to believe you on this issue. 10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr P.A. Barresi)—The member for Fremantle will refrain from responding to the interjections.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—Going on just about any evidence that he has provided to this parliament over the last several years, we have seen from this minister and from the Prime Minister repeated use of propaganda techniques.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—That is an unmitigated slur—you have no reason to say that.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—The minister is offended, but he has unleashed in this community a powerful sentiment of hatred and discrimination. He is not the only one responsible for this, and I know that it at times finds fertile ground. But that example, which the minister denies, is unfortunately not atypical of the sorts of things that were said during the election campaign and subsequently.We have heard from this government on many occasions, in this House and elsewhere, attitudes that should frankly be repudiated by the minister, not encouraged by him. The effects are evident everywhere. Why do you think Neville Roach resigned from his position?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—You should read why he resigned—not for the reasons that you say.10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister will refrain from interjecting.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—He resigned for a very similar reason. He resigned because ultimately he had thought these matters through, but the straw that broke the camel's back was when his wife was subject to racial vilification. Why was she being subjected to racial vilification? Because the government has encouraged that view in the community; it is now regarded as acceptable.I give you another example, Minister, of the results of your actions, the results of the propaganda techniques you have used in this community against the interests of asylum seekers. But it is spreading to many other people as well, as this example shows. This man contacted my office recently. We checked his story, and it seems to check out, because he did in fact make a complaint to the police, which he subsequently withdrew. This man had someone park their car on his lawn. He told me: `I asked him to go out and to remove it from my lawn.' The fellow, he said, responded: `No worries, I'll move it in five minutes.' My constituent said that the tone he was using indicated that he would not move his car. He says:(Although I am 15 years in this beautiful country, I could not lose my strong accent, and his ironic tone indicated this)The altercation escalates. Twenty minutes later, the gentleman goes out and again asks this person, who is working in the area, to remove his car. He is told again that he will eventually move it. My constituent later approaches him again, but it is the same story. This gentleman thought he would give him some privacy and time, and maybe it would help him do the right thing in a way that would not hurt his ego. He continues: ... so I took my dogs in the car and left for an exercise. After ½ hour, when I came back his car was still on my lawn. So I tried to reason him, to move his car, but his response was you bastard you are throwing your kids over the board in the water. His stupidity paralysed me and I started to yell at him and asked his workmate ... to explain it to him, and make him move the car from my lawn.Finally he moved to his car but before sitting in it he rubbed it in again that “you bastards are throwing the kids overboard.I opened the door on the passenger side of his vehicle and asked him to repeat it loudly in front of witnesses ... Then I closed the door angrily over his stupidity, and was moving towards my home, when he jumped out of his car ... grabbed a shovel from the back of the UTE and rushed after me, hate and insanity radiating out his eyes.I stopped and warned him, `if you hit me, you are going to end up in jail'—He continues:... my comment stopped him for a moment he was considering his move, and with the shovel at this stage like the soldiers while attacking with a bayonet on. He hit me couple of times in my chest with the handle of the shovel and turned it the other way, and took a big swing with the sharp blade at my neck. Fortunately I stepped back and he only injured my neck with a surface cut ... on the left side of my neck.That is the consequence, Minister, of the game that you have been playing with the minds and souls of the Australian community. The recent election was dominated by fear and xenophobia, and this bill seeks to feed into that—the fear of strangers, the rejection of others—again. We all know that similar attitudes and prejudices have attached to other waves of migrants to our shores. There are plenty of people who will tell you of their treatment at the hands of those who were already here. But in the past, governments have tried to discourage that. They have worked with the communities to diminish those racist feelings and those discriminatory attitudes.Look at the behaviour of this gentleman and many others like him—because there have been many reports of the escalation of these kinds of incidents in our community, and the government has turned their backs on them. It raises significant questions for public policy. How should we react to racially based anger and hostility? In my view, it is the responsibility of all members of this parliament never to encourage it. That is not about censorship; it is simply about decency.The racism that has been encouraged by this government is not just a belief system— it does not just stay in people's heads, it is not just something they think about on the way to work—but it also influences behaviour, producing discrimination and, as I have indicated and as others will tell you, sometimes violence against those groups who are believed to be outsiders, inferior or different. It is used to justify in many cases the domination of some groups and the disrespect for other groups and their cultures, as we have seen. With the connivance of the present government, we are apparently encouraged to believe that, unique in the world, Australians are incapable of racist behaviour or attitudes and that somehow anyone who attempts to shine the light on these abuses is un-Australian. I would argue to the contrary that those who seek to prevent such examination are condemning us all to a blighted future.The government clearly calculates that there is electoral advantage to be had in accommodating these views, and indeed in encouraging and inflaming them. I hope that I am wrong about the sympathies and values of my fellow citizens—and I believe at heart that I am. I think that given half a chance they would do the right thing. I have had a lot of heartfelt appeals from my constituents that the government should desist from these destructive tactics. What the government has done, rather, is appeal to our basest motives: fear, envy, prejudice, the desire for revenge and hostility to the outsider. These techniques have a long and very dishonourable history and they never benefit the community, although they may favour the fortune of political parties. One of the reasons the government have engaged in collective tantrum throwing over criticism from the United Nations is that they cannot stand to have the obvious pointed out. What has emerged from this government internationally is an isolationist and jingoistic response on social and ethical questions. They say, `Don't let the UN look at what we're doing.' They repudiate people who criticise as not knowing what they are talking about at the same time, ironically, as we are exhorted to accept the global imperatives of the international market. It is okay for money, but not for people. From being a nation which was held in esteem internationally for its commitment to, and progress in, human rights and its willingness to assist other less fortunate nations on the road to improvement, we are fast becoming one of the nations which need assistance to meet our obligations to our own citizens. The shame of having the head of Amnesty International here looking at Australia in detail! They do not do that lightly; they do not do it because there is no problem.What offends me is that while saying and doing all of these things the Prime Minister in particular has wanted to claim a mantle of decency and compassion, and is angered when anyone accuses him of having another agenda. We saw a similar outburst from the minister a moment ago. `We don't do that sort thing; we're not responsible for any of this,' he says. What he is saying in code to those who share his views is: `There is no need for you to feel any pangs of conscience or to worry about your relations with asylum seekers, migrants or other minority groups. See, I think these things. I'm the leader of this country. I think like that, and no-one would dare criticise me.' Well, I do.The minister here tells me he has never lied. He says he has never said anything about these issues that is not true, in this parliament or anywhere else. He says that he has never exploited these sentiments. The Prime Minister will say the same thing at the drop of a hat. He asserts—and he often uses these words, and we think he protests too much—that he is a decent man and beyond reproach. It is a constant refrain here in question time, on talkback radio and whenever you hear him speak about these things. I am sorry, Prime Minister, but you are not. Anyone who does what you have done does not deserve the description of a decent man. That is not the behaviour that we should be able to expect of a leader of any party of any era, and no amount of protestation that your intentions are good will disguise the fact that your actions are not.As I have indicated, the result of all of this propaganda, of the unleashing of these forces of hate and discrimination, is evident for everyone to see. This government apparently does not care about the damage it is doing to our society. An enormous amount of work will need to be done to repair the fabric of decency in this society once this government leaves, because sadly we have seen no indication that it intends to desist.Before I speak about some of the details in the bill, I have to say that I am very disappointed that, at the same time as we get propaganda about people fleeing oppressive regimes in various parts of the world, we have Colonel Gaddafi's son in Australia. The Gaddafi regime is one of the most oppressive regimes in the world—everybody knows it— and I doubt that many people ever get outside the boundaries of Libya. Colonel Gaddafi's son is in Australia taking part in a sex romp on the Gold Coast, according to this Courier Mail report, with an armed detail. Colonel Gaddafi's son, from one of the most undesirable regimes in the world—apparently part of the `axis of evil' as I understand the various interpretations of that—is here in Australia with an armed guard employing prostitutes on the Gold Coast. I wonder at the government's priorities.There are people sitting on Manus Island and Nauru and in detention centres around this country who have fled from despots like that. What do we do with those people? We put them behind barbed wire. I will just leave that out there. I am very interested in a government that can live comfortably with those things side by side. Maybe the Courier Mail have made that up, but they did in fact talk to the police, who confirmed—at least as far as I can see from that account—the events. I hope that the government will pull its head out of the sand and really investigate that case—spend a little more energy on the real enemies of decency and human rights and a little more compassion on the people who actually deserve it. The minister has seen the amendments to this bill that the opposition proposes to move. I will raise a couple of questions which I do not think have been touched on by others. One of the problems here is the definition of `temporary purpose'. It needs statutory definition, Minister. What is it? You have given some examples in the bill, but it is not at all clear what you intend. There is no guide to inform decision-making and there is no indication in the bill itself, as far as I can tell, that, for instance, regulations might follow to define what a `temporary purpose' is. As far as we can understand it, it will just be in the minister's head; he will decide what a `temporary purpose' is without any regard to a statutory basis for that decision.The other thing is that it excludes any court challenge to any matter on behalf of these so-called transitory persons—another interesting use of language! People are not `transitory', Minister; events are transitory, light may be transitory, but people are not transitory. `Ephemeral and short lived' is the meaning of that word. It is offensive to talk about people as if they were in the wind—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—It relates to their passage—XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—`Short lived' is the most accurate definition of `transitory'. People are not transitory; events are transitory.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—a short-lived passage.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—Why do you refer to people as things? `Queue jumpers', `transitory persons'—this language is poisonous.10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr P.A. Barresi)—The minister will not interject and the member for Fremantle will address her remarks through the chair!XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—It excludes any challenge to any matter on behalf of these so-called transitory persons. Who, for instance, is to assess what is `reasonable force'? There is no power at all to litigate to determine this question. What is `necessary and reasonable force'? Given the behaviour of Australian Correctional Management, that is a real worry. Who appeals on behalf of these `transitory people', as the minister likes to refer to them? The minister is denying this group, if they come into our country, access to normal legal protections. I think that is real reason for concern, given the behaviour of some of the guards in the detention centres.Another problem is that, if those refugees whose status has been confirmed by either the UNHCR or Australian immigration officials are held in detention in Australia, as they may be—I think as the minister has indicated—they have been found to be genuine refugees, they have come to Australia for a transitory purpose, and how that is defined we do not know—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—We don't call them refugees.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—Well, your bill provides for the possibility that people—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—There is an amendment on the table. If you had read it, you would know. It has been circulated; you should have seen it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister will not interject and the member for Fremantle will refrain from responding to interjections.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—The minister's bill provides for the possibility that people whose refugee status has been determined as valid may come to Australia for a temporary purpose which is not defined. There is no visa class created for these people—unless there is an amendment that I have not seen in the last 20 minutes—to give them some standing in the Australian community. So, technically, they must be detained, even though they have been found to be refugees. There will be, as far as I can see—and there is no reason to believe otherwise—some people for whom there is not a destination beyond Australia: a place has not been found for them in some other country although they have refugee status. If that is the case, Minister, as I understand it, you will be in breach and direct breach of the United Nations' convention on refugees.Again, we do not know how many people will fit into this category. One is enough. I do not believe we have been given enough information to know whether, of those people whose refugee status has been confirmed and who may come to Australia for a temporary purpose, that temporary purpose will last a week, a month, a year, two years or three years. If there is no place for them to go and the minister refuses to exercise his discretion to bring them into Australia then they are known to be refugees and they will be put beyond the law. That is part of the technique we have seen used by this government—to act without decency in regard to this group of people. As I said, it is poisoning the nation's soul, Minister, and you are at least partly responsible for that poisoning. 13:40:001347Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I acknowledge that it is very difficult at times for you in the chair to bring to order our speakers on this side of the House when they are in debate, but it does make it more difficult when the minister who introduced this bill into the House continues to interject and thus deny our people the right to form an opinion about the debate before the House.I think it is advisable to remind those who have just come into the gallery, exercising their democratic right to see the people's house in action, what the bill we are talking about is. We are talking about another mismatch by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs under the Howard government's regime. The bill is called the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002. Why have we got this bill before the House? We have this bill in debate before the House today because this minister and this government cannot find a solution to what is happening around the islands of the Pacific—what they label the `Pacific solution'. They have transited people from pillar to post around the islands, and yet they have been telling us and the public at large that that is going to be the wonderful solution, stopping asylum seekers from coming to Australia.I would like to remind everybody that at this very moment we have 356 asylum seekers on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea; we have 1,159 people in Nauru; we have 118 on Christmas Island; and we have 31 on Cocos Island. All of a sudden, the minister was saying that this is the solution. What we do not have as Australian taxpayers is the cost that is being incurred. We do not have a solution to the problem that has been created by this minister and this government. It has now become Australia's problem, and we are being ridiculed worldwide because of it.Regarding the bill the minister is trying to get through the House: under the Migration Act of 1958, as amended, the reference to offshore entry persons will, we know, cover those 356 asylum seekers on Manus Island. These are the people who landed on Christmas Island and were then flown to Manus Island. Those 118 who are still on Christmas Island and the 31 on Cocos Island will be covered under this category. The non-offshore persons are the asylum seekers who have been intercepted at sea. They are the people who have never as yet even set foot on the soil of Australia. Those 1,159 asylum seekers who are now being housed, as I indicated, at Nauru, fall under this category. Who are they? This is what we need to look at. They are the people we all remember from the Tampa. They are also the people who were intercepted on the Aceng, the Ratna-Mujia and the Sumber Bahagia. They are people who were intercepted at sea. What arose from that was that they were then transported to the relevant islands because that was going to be the Pacific solution. The minister's Pacific solution has become Australia's Pacific saga, and it has done absolutely nothing to stem the immigration problem associated with this country.I should be charitable to the minister, who is in the House. If his solution has not become an abject failure, why did this government announce on Tuesday that we need a new detention centre and that we are going to build it on Christmas Island to handle 1,200 people? We have been told repeatedly that the Pacific solution is the solution, that it is not a failure, that it is not a saga, that it is going to heal all the problems we have and that it is going to close the door on any individual attempting to gain illegal access to this country. Minister, please explain in your reply why the taxpayers of Australia are again going to be penalised with the building and construction of a 1,200-person detention camp on Christmas Island, because it is about time that the taxpayers of Australia were told the truth. Minister, given your many overseas visits—and I am not detracting from that; as the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, you should gain knowledge from what is happening overseas—you should acknowledge that we as a nation have become a laughing stock in the overseas papers around the world. Why have we become a laughing stock? What do they read about Australia? They do not read about our wonderful people; they do not read about our wonderful country and what we can do to attract tourism. They do not read about the growth of this nation and they do not read about our education system, our hospitals and our schools. They read about what we did with the people on the Tampa. They read about the riots at Woomera. They read about children being thrown overboard, when we now know that that was a `misleading of the truth'—I am not allowed to call it `lies'. I would never call it `lies', only a `misleading of the truth', even though we now know that the `children overboard' saga and the supposedly related photographs which were used in the lead-up to the last campaign by this government to repeat wedge politics in this nation were nothing but untruths. But that is what we read about in the papers of nations overseas. That is what we read about when family visiting us from overseas bring headlines from the countries in which they are residing and say, `Is this what's happening in Australia?' Minister, that is not good enough for us who are Australians and proud of Australia. The solutions that you are trying to provide to what you see as a problem are not good enough. Minister, you have got to at least take your blindfold off, start getting your act together and realise that we are not talking about statistics and numbers; we are talking about human beings. We do not shunt cattle from place to place, because then we would have the RSPCA telling the elected members of this parliament that we have to pay due regard to those animals. And yet we can shunt human beings from place to place and show no regard to what we are doing to them or to the expectations of decent people as to our actions as a government and an opposition.Minister, I would also like to know from your reply about the Pacific solution—and I know you are going to tell us that it is not a player—and why we have this bill before the House. The Australian people well remember the words of the Howard government when it stated that no asylum seeker from the Tampa would set foot on Australian soil. Is this the reason why we have to have this bill before the House? Is this what we are talking about when we talk about providing an amendment to the act—just in case we find that a number of the people from the Tampa, who are now being housed in other areas, will have to be brought back to Australia? Is this why we have to have the bill in place? Obviously, the solution has not been working.We are also told that the Pacific solution was a `real solution'—the one that is going to prevent any further asylum seekers from coming to Australia. Again I ask you, Minister, in your right of reply, to answer the question as to why you have rushed this bill before the House if then that was fact. Obviously, now it is fiction. If it were fact then, we do not need this bill now. Why do the taxpayers of Australia have to provide for the construction of more and more facilities? The minister and this government have to stop the rhetoric and the wedge politics. The election is now over, Minister. You have to come up now with what can be classified as solutions. This bandaid approach to this piece of legislation—and it encompasses a number of bills that are continually being amended—has to be improved by this minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, even in your position you would acknowledge that after six years we have to have a solution that will work. We have to have pieces of legislation that will be effective.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Let it through the Senate—easy.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—The member for Mitchell continually likes to interject—it must be allowing the minister to rest his voice. If the member for Mitchell would like to take me on in debate, I would welcome it. I am not new, as was the deputy speaker in the Main Committee yesterday who was subjected to abuse by the member for Mitchell in the way he behaved. If the member for Mitchell would like to take me on, I welcome it—any place, any time—particularly when I see a new deputy speaker in the chair and see the member for Mitchell behave in the way he did in the Main Committee yesterday. That is not acceptable, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, and I believe that you should bring him into line in future. If you will not, Sir, then maybe others will have to. Going back to the bill, this minister has repeatedly told us in this House and in numerous press conferences and TV programs that he has now found and provided the solution. I believe, along with all of us on this side of the House—and now along with the majority of the Australian population—that even he will have to admit that he has reached a stage where the bandaid has failed. Any mother knows that when a child slips over you put a small bandaid on a scratch, and that is a temporary thing because then it will heal very quickly. But if you fall over and break your legs or break your arms and realise you have to be hospitalised you do not bring out a bandaid; you bring out a proper solution to what is the health problem. But what does this minister do? He sticks another bandaid on that bandaid. By this stage the legs have dropped off, the arms are rotting away, the body has no trunk on it at all, and the minister says, `The Pacific solution is what we should have, and it has been a wonderful thing for healing, correcting and stopping asylum seekers coming to this country.' The only thing that has put a pause on asylum seekers attempting to come to this country at this moment is not the Pacific solution; it is not the fact that we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars shipping these people all around the islands; it is the fact that—guess what—it is the monsoon season. It is very difficult to take a little boat and go across the sea when the waves are 20 feet high. But it is not the weather that is stopping them; it is the minister's bandaid that has stopped them. He has provided it, he has fixed it up, and he has the solution. Minister, again I put this to you: if you have the solutions you do not need the legislation. If you want to bring in the legislation, at least be big enough to look at the amendments that we on this side of the House have moved. The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Simon Crean, got up in this House today—followed by our shadow minister—and said, `Look, we on this side of the House are prepared to work and cooperate with the government to find long-term solutions.' We have put into this bill a number of amendments so that commonsense will prevail. Even this government, as dense as it is at times, will have to acknowledge that the amendments to the bill do make sense. Maybe then the minister will not have to come up with mark V, mark VI and mark VII of the bill, and maybe then we will be able to see some proper legislation before the House. Until that happens, until we have cooperation, and until we have a minister ready to admit that what he has put into place up to today is an abject failure, as a nation we will not have solutions to the problems that we are debating here today. We will never find a solution unless we can have cooperation. Minister, if you are not prepared to acknowledge that you have failed, then you will not get solutions to your problems. If you also do not believe that you are facing abject failure out there in the community, go and speak to some of our Muslim women and their young children to see what has been happening to them. Go and see what has been happening with the hate in our area. I have fought something like 11 elections in three levels of government but never have I encountered what I did this last election. I really believe it was a race based election, but the government likes to say it was not. The feeling in the community put out there by this government has caused discrimination. That is something in 11 elections I have never experienced before. I am proud that I probably have one of the largest multicultural electorates in Australia. I also have some larger areas that have what we call a white Anglo-Saxon population. Those people, too, were horrified by what has been said on radio and in the press, by the problems that are being encountered because of misinformation and misleading facts, and then of course by what this minister tried to implement out there with both the `children overboard' and the Tampa. Well, Minister, as I said before, that is not a solution. This bill will not be the solution to your problems. We have to have far better understanding, far better cooperation. More importantly, we have to have commonsense prevail and have the amendments that we have moved acknowledged by the government and included in the act. I cannot commend the bill to the House. I can only say: wake up, Government, before it is too late. Take those blinkers off, make sure the blind start to see and make sure the deaf start to hear. One thing is for sure—fools will no longer be tolerated.13:55:001350Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—It is always a great pleasure to follow my colleague the member for Prospect. Hers is always a hard act to follow but I will do my best. There are a number of issues that centre around this particular legislative change and why the government is making it. At the core of what Labor is about is the idea that you can be strong on border protection but you can also be compassionate about people. That is something that is missing right at the heart of what this government seeks to do in all of its legislation. It has been a number of months now since the last election and we all know—I am sure people here in the gallery all know—just what the issues were at the last election. The government ran a very strong campaign based on one issue: that it was tough on border protection and border control because it needed to protect all of us from what was going to happen. The government went out there and perpetrated a number of untruths. But at the centre of all this was just one thing that it wanted to do: its solution to this whole problem, the so-called Pacific solution. This week we are seeing the death throes, the very last breaths of life, of that so-called Pacific solution. It was no solution right from the start. It was a failed policy. It was introduced in a rushed manner into this House. It was introduced on a false set of bases right from the word go.The government were not trying to solve any problems; they were trying to create an election issue that they believed they could win an election on. The evidence we have that this has failed is that only a few months after the legislation was introduced we are back in this House trying to fix up the mess the government created. We saw evidence yesterday of how messy it was, when the government embarrassingly had to come in here and withdraw their bills. Their bills were so shabby, so poorly drafted, that the government were trying to introduce new bills to rectify the problems they had created during the election campaign. The new bills are the same because the government did not give due process, due consideration or due debate to any of those bits of legislation. The imperative was not about a solution; the imperative was about winning an election. The imperative was: how do we scare people into believing that we have to rush all this stuff through so quickly before we get to the next election? I would like to draw a comparison about running out of time and needing to inform people. Child-care agencies across Australia are being hit with letters and slugged with debts that have been around for about two years, but the government was not going to tell them before an election. No, that could wait until after the election. But on this issue it needed to go in hard and fast, putting shabby policy—the so-called Pacific solution—in place. It cost all of us hundreds of millions of dollars. It has used our Navy as some sort of water taxi service to ferry people to and from islands and to move them off ships, at millions of dollars a day, for what it said was a solution. Remember what the Prime Minister said. He said that over his dead body would any person on the Tampa ever set foot on Australian soil. We all know that is false, because the reason the government is trying to rush legislation now is that those people on Manus Island and Nauru are on their way over here now. They are on their way here now because the legislation was bad. It was poorly drafted and the government knows it. That is why the government is back in here trying to rush legislation through again. I can tell you this, Prime Minister and Minister Ruddock: if you think that we are going to accept that you can rush and ram legislation through this place without due process for the people of Australia and for this parliament—and there needs to be solid debate on these issues—then you have another thing coming. Labor will continue to push to have this debate fully heard. We are not going to accept what you are doing just because you have stuffed up your legislative program.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I remind the member for Oxley of the obligation to address his remarks through the chair, so the term `you' happens to be marginally inappropriate. It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Oxley will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Ministerial Arrangements135114:00:001351Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Trade will be absent from question time today. The minister is attending the Australia-Indonesia Business Council meeting in Bali, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice1351135114:00:001351McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is to the Attorney-General. Does the Attorney-General have complete confidence in Justice Michael Kirby?1351Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—What I have to say about the allegations against Justice Michael Kirby I have said in a news release that was issued this morning. As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday in question time, Justice Kirby enjoys a fine legal reputation in Australia. While I understand the reaction, particularly within the legal profession, to Senator Heffernan's allegations, there can at the same time be no credible suggestion that the High Court as an institution is under challenge. High Court judges have both the right and the ability to address any personal criticisms addressed against them. Justice Kirby, through a media release issued by the High Court yesterday, has responded to the claims made by Senator Heffernan in his speech to the Senate on Tuesday night. Other than that, I simply refer the member for Barton to what the Prime Minister said in answer to the first question yesterday.135114:02:001351Hartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER00AMMCowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the government's response to the outcome of the presidential election in Zimbabwe?1351Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his question, and I know that this is an issue of considerable interest to members on both sides of the House. I note incidentally that two of our number in this place—namely, the honourable member for Griffith and the honourable member for Curtin—are both in Zimbabwe as members of the Commonwealth observer group. I have noted, as no doubt other members have, the announcement last night that President Mugabe had secured 54 per cent of the valid votes cast and won the election. I am also aware, as honourable members will be, of widespread concerns on the elections already being expressed by some observer groups and diplomatic missions, as well as indications from the opposition in Zimbabwe that they may challenge the election process and the outcome in the courts.I expect to receive the Commonwealth observer group report on the election within the next few days, and that will be supplemented by assessments made by the four Australian observers—the three parliamentary ones and Mr Grey, the Chief Commonwealth Electoral Officer.Earlier today I spoke to the Commonwealth Secretary-General in London, Don McKinnon, and discussed the likely receipt date of the observers' report. I expressed the view that, until that report was received and assessed, it would not be appropriate for either me, President Mbeki of South Africa or President Obasanjo of Nigeria to express a definitive national view on whether or not the elections had been conducted in a free and fair manner. I note a comment attributed to President Mbeki, which I warmly welcome, to the effect that it would be incorrect to comment now on whether the elections in Zimbabwe were `free and fair'. I hope to be in touch with the Nigerian President and the South African President after the report has been received. Then we will agree on a procedure to assess that report and, if possible, to reach a conclusion. Let me say this: I think I speak for everybody in the parliament when I say that it is a cardinal rule of the kind of society that the Commonwealth hopes to be that elections are conducted in a free, open and fair fashion. That will be a criterion of assessment that I will bring to my reaction to the report. I hope and believe that President Mbeki and President Obasanjo will do exactly the same thing, and I look forward to discussing the recommendations of that report with both of my fellow Commonwealth leaders.135214:06:001352O'Connor, Brendan, MPMr BRENDAN O'CONNOR00AN3BurkeALP00—My question is to the Attorney-General. Attorney, did the Prime Minister or Senator Heffernan raise Senator Heffernan's allegations about the judge with you prior to his speech on Tuesday night? If so, what advice did you provide to the Prime Minister or to Senator Heffernan, and what action did you take?1352Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I have been aware of Senator Heffernan's interest in the subject of his speech on Tuesday night for some time. I was not advised he was going to make the speech. I was not consulted. I did not provide any advice and I did not have any discussions with the Prime Minister about the matter prior to the speech being given. 135214:07:001352Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House of the latest employment figures for February which were released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today? To what extent are these figures due to good economic management and flexible workplace relations? Is the minister aware of any obstructions to continued job creation in Australia?1352Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Boothby for his question. I am aware of the latest statistics on employment. They are very, very encouraging news for the job seekers of Australia because they show that 950,000 new jobs have been created in the life of this government. Unemployment is down to 6.6 per cent. Trend employment is at an all-time high and the participation rate is at near record levels. What these figures, and other indicators, mean is that the job seekers of Australia can at the very least be cautiously optimistic abut their employment prospects in the months ahead. These figures reflect well on the economic policies of this government, but most of all they are a credit to the diligence and dependability of the Australian worker and the creativity and adaptability of Australian businesses. Governments and nations can never rest on their laurels over these matters. As a nation, we are always running for our economic lives. This government has an ongoing agenda for labour market and welfare reform which cannot be shirked if our children are to live in a First World country. Some elements of that agenda are currently in the Senate and I urge members opposite to be patriots, to stand up for Australia and not spoil us. I remind members opposite of the very wise words of the member for Hunter, who said about unfair dismissal laws:Well my wife constantly tells me she could afford to put on one person or would like to put on one person, but is fearful of unfair dismissals.The member for Hunter might be helping in his wife's business at the moment as she cannot afford to put anyone on because of fear about the unfair dismissal laws! He further said that all those perceptions are out there; all of them are founded. If members opposite shared this government's commitment to creating jobs, they would pass the government's fair dismissal bill.135214:10:001352Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, yesterday you advised the House in relation to Senator Heffernan's allegations that you had `earlier discussions with Senator Heffernan about this matter'. Prime Minister, precisely when did you speak to Senator Heffernan, and on how many occasions in relation to this matter, and at what stage did you advise Senator Heffernan not to raise this matter in the Senate? 1353Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not have anything to add to what I said yesterday.135314:11:001353Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer provide the House with an update on the international economy and how this compares with Australia's performance?1353Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question. I have already informed the House that in the year 2001 Australia's growth rate was 4.1 per cent, which was 10 times the average of the OECD. According to the Economist's poll, Australia is forecast to have the highest growth in 2002, nearly double that of Great Britain which is expected to have the second highest, and the highest growth rate again in 2003. The performance of the Australian economy has come about at a time when the United States has been in recession along with Japan, Germany, Singapore and Taiwan. It is a testament, I believe, to the resilience of the Australian economy: the first home owners scheme, low interest rates, the sunny optimism of the Australian consumer and the confidence of our businesses.As has already been mentioned, today's labour force figures show that employment, which is normally a lagging indicator, seems to have picked up at least over the last two months. Let me give the House some comparisons. In the year to February, employment growth in Australia was 1.8 per cent. In the same period, in the United States, employment growth contracted by 1.7 per cent; in Japan, it contracted by 1.5 per cent; in France, it contracted by 1.4 per cent; and in Germany it contracted by 0.2 per cent. Britain grew by one per cent, which was a little over half the growth rate here in Australia. I consider the most interesting part about today's labour force is that when the January figures came out showing originally about 100,000 jobs—and not many of us believed those figures and I think I warned the House that we should expect a substantial revision, and there was—it was revised down to 63,000 which, if you believe that figure, was still the strongest, I think, recorded during the series. Notwithstanding a 63,000 increase in January, in February—when you would normally have expected a decrease, it actually held and improved on the January figures with another 20,000 new jobs created over and above the 63,000. This is now supported by ANZ job advertisements and by other indicators which indicate that there seems to be some confidence returning to the employment market. I am sure both sides of the House will welcome the fact that employment is growing and unemployment is falling. Over the period this government has been in office, as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said before, a net new 950,000 jobs have been created—on average, 440 jobs a day. When the member for Fraser—who is yet to ask his first question on the economy as shadow Treasurer—was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, the average job creation per day between 4 April 1990 and 24 March 1993 was negative 212 jobs—that is, 212 jobs a day were lost during that period when he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer. So it is no wonder he has not asked any questions on either the economy or the labour force to date. But I think, in fairness, both sides of the parliament will welcome the fact that employment has grown and unemployment has fallen. Both sides of the parliament, I think, will welcome the fact that, after the huge tax reform that this government put in place in July 2000, not only has Australia grown but Australia has defied an international downturn and become the strongest growing economy in the world—something I believe that all Australians and both sides of the House will welcome.135314:16:001353Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given that Senator Heffernan's letter to Commissioner Ryan yesterday disclosed no new evidence, precisely what new evidence has or will Senator Heffernan draw to the attention of the New South Wales Police or any other relevant authority? Or hasn't he discussed that with you? 1354Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—That would be a matter for Senator Heffernan.135414:17:001354Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Acting Minister for Trade. Would the minister update the House on the government's diplomatic efforts to protect Australia's steel exports to the United States and Australian steel jobs? Is the minister aware of any alternate views on this issue?1354Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. I know he and all members on this side of the House are very proud of the work Australian steelworkers have done over recent years to improve the efficiency and the productivity of our steel industry. They produce high quality products at competitive prices. Members on this side of the House have been fighting for the steel industry in recent times in the teeth of an American decision to increase steel tariffs to 30 per cent.I can remind the House of what my colleague the Minister for Trade and the Prime Minister said some days ago, and that is that now up to 85 per cent of our steel exports to the United States will be preserved. That is not a perfect outcome, but that is an extraordinarily good outcome in the circumstances. It simply reflects on the strength of the lobbying by this government and the positive relationship that exists between Australia and the United States.I would have thought on an issue like this we, as a nation, would be united in our approach to helping Australian steelworkers. One of the most extraordinary revelations to me has been that officials from the Australian Workers Union have actually been taking the side of the United States on this issue, not the side of Australian steelworkers. The Victorian President of the AWU, Mr Mick Eagles—who, no doubt, is well known to many members on the other side of the House, some of whom are active members of the AWU—Opposition members interjecting—4G4Mr DOWNER—One of the interjectors, the member for Rankin, I know is proudly sponsored by the AWU. The Victorian state president of the AWU said of the American decision to increase steel tariffs: `Good on you, Yanks; we congratulate US steelworkers on these tariffs.' That was said by a leading figure, not a minor figure, in the AWU. The fact is that the AWU has been going to international meetings—in particular, the International Metals Federation meeting in Washington in 2000—fighting for countries like the United States to impose steel tariffs.Geoff Cooney, an AWU organiser and a close colleague of the above, said Mick Eagles was at this meeting. This was a meeting where trade unionists resolved to stop exports of cheap steel to member states. We are one of the exporters of cheap and high quality steel to the United States, and there is the AWU going to the United States and encouraging the United States to put up tariffs against our steel. The fact is that there are many members of the Labor Party here who are affiliated with the AWU and who have not dissociated themselves from the AWU campaign against Australian steel tariffs.I noted that the member for Flinders the other day said that the original US decision was a betrayal of faith. The bigger betrayal of faith is the betrayal by the AWU leadership against the workers at Western Port and Port Kembla. I think all members of this House would agree that this was a disgrace, but it is part of a pattern of utter confusion on the part of the Labor Party on this issue. The two countries which were completely exempted from the US decision were Canada and Mexico, on the basis that they had a free trade agreement with the United States.On 7 March, the opposition spokesman on trade put out a press release in the context of the increased tariffs on Australian steel. He said:If Mr Howard follows the US down the road of exclusive, one-on-one trade deals, he abandons Australia's proud reputation as a global free-trader, and he abandons Australian exporters. To continue these FTA negotiations with the US while Australian steel makers are desperately trying to avoid job losses would be demeaning for Australia, and send the wrong signal internationally. The opposite is obviously true: that the countries that had an FTA with the United States got free access to the US market, and here is the Labor Party on the one hand, with some of its leading lights in the AWU, saying that the Americans were right to impose these tariffs, and on the other its shadow spokesman for trade is running around the place saying, `Abandon free trade negotiations with the US.' What, abandon them because it will be good for Australian steelworkers? The opposition spokesman's electorate is in the Illawarra, and the foolishness of his press release will I am sure go down very badly—8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—You're a liar!4G4Mr DOWNER—with everybody except AWU organisers in the Illawarra.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham will withdraw that assertion. The member for Cunningham knows that there other forms of the House he can use.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—And I will take them. I withdraw for now.135514:23:001355Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. It refers to his answer yesterday in which he indicated that, in the discussions that he had had with Senator Heffernan about his allegations against Mr Justice Kirby, he had counselled him against any improper use of parliamentary privilege. Prime Minister, also today you have confirmed that Senator Heffernan has no new evidence to put before the New South Wales Police. Against this background, why won't you sack Senator Heffernan for ignoring your counsel and failing to put new evidence before the New South Wales Police?1355Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As was the case with a question asked yesterday, the supposition on which the question was based is erroneous. Therefore, no answer is required. Beyond that, I refer to the answers that I gave yesterday.135514:24:001355King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware of any further disruptions to air transport in Australia and, if so, what impact if any is this having on the travelling public?1355Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question and I regret to have to inform the House that I am aware of further disruptions to air transport in Australia. Yesterday I informed the House that unions associated with the provision of air traffic control services and with the work of air services generally, including Civil Air, the CPSU, the CEPU and the UFU, instituted strike action for four hours at Melbourne Airport. This occurred. It had a seriously disruptive effect. Around 40 per cent of the services into and out of Melbourne yesterday were, for some time, cancelled or not operated. There were disruptions all around Australia and in particular throughout southern Australia, which depends heavily on the Melbourne control centre to provide en route air traffic control services from that area. The most severe impact was on international, regional and charter operations. I believe that this was an irresponsible and selfish act on the part of the unions involved, one committed at a time when the aviation industry can least afford it. Notwithstanding this, the United Firefighters Union has indicated that it will be instituting industrial disruption at Melbourne Airport tomorrow and, again, I believe that this is totally unnecessary.The question has to be asked: what does Labor think of this? As I said yesterday, Labor and the unions have always said that they are very strong supporters of the Industrial Relations Commission. Commissioner Deegan has made it plain that this action is unnecessary, unwarranted and would in her words `have serious consequences,' and she recommended in the strongest language possible that they go back to work. The question has to be asked whether we have seen any leadership in this place from those opposite on this issue. I note that we have three former heads of the ACTU on the opposition front bench and on the opposition back bench. We have the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Batman and the member for Throsby. We would have hoped that they would have had some influence over the trade union movement but, no, they have had nothing to say—or at least I thought they had had nothing to say. Having expressed so much concern over the plight of airline employees in particular, I think it is worth noting for the benefit of the House that we did finally get a say last night from the member for Batman. He had something to say about the strike. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—A lot to say about you.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Yes, a lot to say about me yesterday—very little of it to do with policy. Very personal, it was, not much to do with policy. But in relation to this strike—DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—What happened to the nice side?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! The Treasurer!4K4Mr ANDERSON—That is what a previous great leader of the Labor Party would have called a wet lettuce!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Prime Minister is entitled to be heard in silence.4K4Mr ANDERSON—What the member for Batman did in the House yesterday was criticise me firstly because I `had the hide' to have a crack at air traffic controllers in question time and he went on to say it was because these people are prepared to stand up for their industrial rights. He supports the strike. He supports this industrial action despite the fact that the commission said that it is unwarranted, unnecessary and very strongly recommended that they go back to work.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman! There are other forms of the House.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman is warned!4K4Mr ANDERSON—What we got last night was a grubby and unjustified attack on one of the members—this is the other thing I wanted to raise—of the Aviation Reform Group, Dick Smith. I think this is worthy of comment because the member for Batman made out that there was some sort of conspiracy involved and that the Prime Minister and I had met with Dick Smith, which, as the Prime Minister will confirm, did not happen and has never happened. It is just a wild accusation. The member for Batman suggested that a dirty little deal was done for a coalition mate—that is what he said—because in the last election Mr Smith dared to publicly support the government.It is no secret that Mr Smith and I have had our differences, and nor is there any secret about Mr Smith's reason for backing the government's re-election. It was widely reported in the newspapers and Mr Smith repeated it on the radio. He said that he supported the government because, after the events of September 11, he felt the country needed strong leadership. He obviously did not believe the Labor Party could provide it.135614:30:001356Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister recently received correspondence from the Auditor-General in which the Auditor-General asked for details about the Prime Minister's planned inquiry into the Wooldridge House scandal, including the terms of reference, when the Prime Minister's report is to be completed and whether the Prime Minister's report will be made public? Prime Minister, what are the answers to the Auditor-General's questions? In particular, will the Prime Minister's Wooldridge House report be made public?1356Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is true that I have received correspondence from the Auditor-General and I will certainly cooperate in an appropriate fashion to facilitate the Auditor-General's report. As to the report from departments, I have not got that yet. I expect, on the latest advice I have, to receive it either late this afternoon or tomorrow. That is the latest advice I have. I will have a look at it over the weekend. As to the question of its release, I will make a decision on that after I get it. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I seek leave to table advice I have received from the Auditor-General on the Wooldridge House scandal.Leave granted.135714:31:001357Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6CanningLP10—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Would the minister advise the House of the government's plans to build a permanent detention centre on Christmas Island? Would the minister inform the House of the centre's progress and the level of support from Christmas Island people and their representatives?1357Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—As is now well understood, the minister for immigration, Mr Ruddock, recently announced in Canberra that the cabinet had decided to construct a permanent and purpose-built detention centre on Christmas Island. It was also decided at that cabinet meeting that propriety demanded, considering the unique circumstances of the people on that island, that I as the minister for territories should visit that island to give simultaneous advice to the people.That advice included my promise that to all extent practical local construction personnel on the island and the people of the island—particularly those in the underemployed sector, who happen to be primarily married women on the island—would be given priority in terms of employment once the particular facility was in operation. In that regard, I went as far as to discuss with the union, the Chamber of Commerce and others the appropriate training policies that might be implemented during the construction phase to make these people ready for that form of employment.I can report to the House that we first consulted with a public meeting of probably 150 people, who, with the exception of two people—and they identified themselves as one on one side of the political debate and one on the other and said they were opposed to such a centre—gave the centre very enthusiastic support. Having conducted that public meeting, I then had private meetings with the shire councillors, the Chamber of Commerce and the trade union.I am consequently very interested in those circumstances to have identified two other people who do not support this project, a project which could double the work force and the population of that island and give it some relief from its total reliance today on phosphate mining. You might be surprised to know that, considering the employment opportunities, the first person who is trying to undermine this process is the leader of the trade union movement on that island, Mr Gordon Thomson. The second is their local federal member of parliament, the member for Lingiari.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—That is a lie.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Furthermore, I have his press release.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari knows that that sort of interjection is outside the standing orders and he will withdraw. There are other forms of the House available to him. The member for Lingiari will withdraw without condition.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—I withdraw. Can I raise a point of order? The point of order is that he has made a substantial allegation about me which is incorrect. I ask him to withdraw.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari is being heard on a point of order.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—I regard his comments as offensive. He is totally misrepresenting my position. They are offensive to me and they are untrue.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari is aware that if he has been misrepresented there are forms of the House available to him at the conclusion of question time to deal with that misrepresentation.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, under standing order 76 the member has indicated that he regards the remarks by the minister as offensive and he has asked him to withdraw. It is a completely separate proposition from being misrepresented.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will check the Hansard record. I did not hear anything said by the minister that was outside the normal confines of language used in the House. For that reason, I obviously recognised the member for Lingiari and his point of order. At the conclusion of question time he has an opportunity to indicate if has been misrepresented. ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Burke will withdraw that allegation.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—The member for Brisbane.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Burke used to occupy the seat; I apologise. The member for Brisbane will withdraw that allegation.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—And did a very good job. I withdraw.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Mr Speaker, I refer you to standing order 75. I regard the words about me as offensive, and I ask you to ask the minister to withdraw.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—As occupier of the chair, I have required members to withdraw statements that have not always been required by previous occupants to be withdrawn—and there has been general recognition of that in an effort on both sides to raise the standard. I indicate to the member for Lingiari, in all sincerity, that I did not hear a word that would normally be regarded as offensive used. I am not in any sense attempting to be duplicitous, as he would be well aware. For that reason, I offered to check the Hansard record and come back to him. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am on my feet!IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—You certainly will in a moment! The member for Lingiari therefore has the opportunity to indicate where he has been misrepresented and, if I find an offensive remark has been used, I will require the minister to withdraw it. I do not recall hearing a word that would normally be outside the norms of the House.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, it is my understanding of past practice in this House that what is important here is that the member himself regards these matters as being offensive, not necessarily you. The fact is that, under standing orders 75 and 76, the member has asked that these matters be withdrawn—and if the member is honourable he will do so.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—As the member for Lilley, as Manager of Opposition Business, knows, what finally determines whether or not a matter will be withdrawn is the chair in its role as arbiter. I have endeavoured to exercise that as fairly as I can in this circumstance.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—I have in my hand a media release from the member for Lingiari—on it `contact Warren Snowdon' and a phone number. I challenge that member to point to one line in that that even says that he supports this project. It is a fundamental attempt to undermine this initiative to create jobs on Christmas Island, and he knows it.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 76, which states:All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members ...He has made those imputations directly, and I ask you to call him to order and to ask him to withdraw the remarks and apologise.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari is aware that, if he has been misrepresented, there are other forms of the House available to him. Has the minister concluded his answer?SJ4Mr TUCKEY—I have only one other comment. This also attacks the fact, considering the distances involved, that I used a VIP aircraft to travel to the island. This criticism comes from a member of parliament who, as a parliamentary secretary, hired a VIP aircraft to go to a dog show.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Members on my right! Treasurer! Member for Lindsay! Member for Brand!84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned.135814:41:001358Windsor, Antony, MPMr WINDSOR009LPNew EnglandIND00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given the national crisis that is unfolding in relation to public liability insurance and the demise of many charitable and voluntary functions, particularly in country communities, will you personally take charge of the proposed conference with the states and elevate the meeting to the status of a heads of government conference? 1359Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The member for New England points to an issue of very real concern to members from all parties in this place. There is a meeting of ministers, which will be chaired by Senator Coonan—and I have every faith and confidence in her ability not only to chair that meeting effectively but also to lead some outcomes from that meeting. I certainly do not rule out for a moment involvement of myself and the premiers and chief ministers in this; I have an open mind on other approaches that might be adopted.While I am on my feet, can I say that I think this is quite a serious issue for our community. I think it challenges some of the conflicting assumptions of modern society—and one of them is that, unfortunately, we have become far too litigious a society. There are many things about the United States that I would like to see us copy, but one of the things I would not like to see Australia copy is their overindulgence in litigation. As a former member of the legal profession and still a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, I lament the fact that the legal profession all around Australia some years ago abandoned some of the well-considered and time honoured rules of practice. I think the decision to allow lawyers to advertise was a disastrous mistake. I think the way in which many lawyers tout for personal accident business is a great pity, and I think everybody has to carry some of the blame.Some of the responses of the New South Wales government in particular in relation to this issue I compliment; I think the steps that they have taken in relation to the public hospitals are to be supported, and there are other measures that state governments can take. In the end, the problem of tort law reform is one that can only be tackled by the states. We can help, we can provide some leadership on it, but in the end they have the constitutional authority to reform the tortious laws of this country—and I hope that they examine those. But everybody carries a responsibility.I think we have to get a sense of perspective back into our lives. The idea that there should be an expectation of unlimited public accident coverage for a charitable event, against the possibility that somebody may be injured at that event, has brought a sense of unreality into our daily lives which I find quite appalling. I think one of the difficulties is that, because of the growth of this litigious mentality in our society, people's expectations have been ratcheted up, and we are all victims of it. I do not think there is one simple solution to this issue and there is not one simple level of government that can tackle the problem. I think we all have to work together. We have to scale our expectations down. We cannot simultaneously be a society that pursues individual rights and personal liberties to demented lengths but in the next breath expects to be able to conduct time-honoured charitable and volunteer activities without let or hindrance or any danger or threat of litigation. We cannot have it both ways, and society has got to decide where the balance is struck. Until it does that it is going to continue to grapple with this problem.135914:46:001359Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of how the government is continuing to reduce the tax burden on families? How have this government's policies created greater opportunities for all Australians, and allowed more choice for families in particular?1359Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his question. He would well know that helping families has been a cornerstone of this coalition government since 1996. We make no bones about that because we think that the family is the fundamental unit of our society and it deserves help from government. That is why we cut personal income tax rates. That is why we introduced the family tax initiative. That is why we introduced the family tax benefit part A and part B. That is why we really believe that one of the things you can do to help families is to keep home mortgage interest rates low. When you think of how families were struggling when the Labor Party had interest rates at 17 per cent—how families were being torn apart by that kind of pressure—how much better are they off with an interest rate which is six per cent and with a First Home Owners Scheme for young families to be able to take part in the Australian dream. This morning, we introduced legislation to deliver in full the promise that we made in the election campaign of the first child tax refund, otherwise known as the baby bonus. As the father of twins and expecting another, I am sure that the member for Sturt is very interested in the baby bonus. It will apply to a child born after 1 July 2001—or, if you already have children, your first child born after 1 July 2001—Prime Minister.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Thank you.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Did you say thank you?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Yes, I did.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—How about some of the people in the community who need the money?CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Prospect asks, `How about people in the community who need the money?' We actually think mothers with children do need the money. We actually think helping families is a good thing.7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for Prospect.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I suppose that there is nothing that would better illustrate the difference between Labor and the coalition than an interjection like that, suggesting that mothers with young children do not need help—they do.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the Treasurer not only under relevance but on my interjection that he wishes to comment on: I believe it is the women of this nation—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Prospect will resume her seat.84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Swan.84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie—My question is to the Minister for Ageing.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I interrupt the member for Swan. I think he will understand that he rose simultaneously with the member for Prospect. He may be unaware of that because she is seated behind him. For that reason, I presumed that he too had a point of order. I hope that he will accept that—as the member for Prospect is aware—he rose as she rose and that was the reason for the confusion.CT4Mr COSTELLO—This is something that goes to the women of Australia.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Thank you!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is warned.CT4Mr COSTELLO—This is available to the women of Australia—particularly those that have to go out of the work force and decide to stay at home and to bring up children—who, if they had been able to average their income over five years, would pay much less tax and, under the past tax administration, have not been able to take the advantage of that averaging system. Under this they can. They can claim back up to $2,500 per annum for five years in relation to their tax liabilities. Those that are not high-income earners get a guaranteed minimum of $500 in relation to that child—notwithstanding their tax position; even if they had not paid any tax before having their children—to help with the costs in relation to the children.You can say, `Well, $500 is obviously not the full cost of raising a child,' but it is the first time that a government has introduced a scheme like this, and it is certainly an advance on what was there before, because before there was no capacity to do this and to claim back your income tax or to be guaranteed the minimum payment. If the mother decides to go back into the work force, the benefit can be transferred to the father if the father stays at home and goes out of the work force as well. In addition to this, it will also be payable to children under five years of age who have been adopted. This is a policy to help families. This is a policy to do justice in relation to the tax system to working mothers who go out of the work force in order to look after their children. This is pro-family. This was put down as the centrepiece of the government's election platform. This was introduced today—it is on time, it is on budget, it is another promise delivered, it is something for the families of Australia. 136114:53:001361Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Is the minister aware that the government's Blandford review, designed to clean up the MRI mess created by Dr Wooldridge's scan scam, recommended a new MRI machine for Western Australia that has never been delivered? Is he also aware that Perth's Princess Margaret children's hospital does not have an MRI machine? Minister, is it correct that the $5 million your government allocated to `Wooldridge House' would be enough to fund an MRI machine at Princess Margaret children's hospital for up to five years?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will recognise the minister when those behind him exercise the courtesy of allowing him to be heard.1361Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I thank the honourable member for his question. It might assist the House if I can provide a few facts about MRI services in Western Australia. There are six Medicare eligible MRI units located in the Perth metropolitan area. A number of those are, in fact, quite close to the Princess Margaret hospital. Indeed, Perth has the second highest ratio of MRI services to population of all capital cities in Australia.Secondly, there is absolutely no impediment on the Western Australian state government providing MRI services at Princess Margaret hospital. The Commonwealth government has fulfilled its responsibility and has provided MRI services in Perth, close to the location that the honourable member refers to and at a higher ratio than any other capital city in Australia, except one. If the Western Australian minister, Mr Kucera, would like to provide some additional services from the funding which comes to him for health from the Commonwealth government, then he is quite able to do so. Instead of whipping up this ludicrous fear campaign, I call upon Mr Kucera to provide the service himself.136114:55:001361McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Could the minister explain to the House the advantages of the recent sale of National Rail and FreightCorp to the private sector? What improvement in efficiencies of the Australian rail transport system and the movement of freight will occur as a result of this sale?1361Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question, and I note his real interest in rail. He was one of quite a number of people from the parliament who attended the dinner last night in Canberra as a guest of the Australasian Rail Association. I note quite a number of their members in the gallery today. I trust they have enjoyed the experience of watching question time.There are significant advantages from the sale of NR and FreightCorp to the National Rail Consortium, made up by Toll and Patrick. In general terms I would say, as I have said here before, that we need rail reform and we need it urgently in this country. I would go so far as to say that it is now very late in the day, and if we are to secure a future for rail it has to be able to compete with road. It has not been able to in recent years, because essentially I think the model has been wrong. Governments have tried to run rail, and governments are not very good at running commercial exercises of that nature—unlike the trucking sector, which has been run by the private sector, where you have seen competitive pressures, the uptake of technology, and the constant improvement in efficiencies and productivity. We have not seen the same thing in rail. Yet, given rail's essential advantages in environmental terms and fuel usage terms and so forth, this is an outcome that the Australian economy cannot afford.We are now moving to a situation where governments are out of the business of operating freight trains and rolling stock, but are still owning and retaining tracks, upgrading those and controlling access in the same way that we do with roads—but then allowing the private sector to do it above rail. I very much welcome the consortium that has bought NR and FreightCorp for a very substantial amount of money. That in itself is a substantial capital injection for rail. They have promised a further injection of private sector capital if we can get the management regime right. That is the next issue. As I said in my presentation last night, if you look at what we have been able to achieve on the east-west corridor across the Nullarbor, rail now has 80 per cent of the freight, the transit times are coming down, the cost is coming down and it is a great success story. On the north-south corridor—Melbourne to Brisbane and points between and beyond—rail only has about 10 to 12 per cent of the freight, and it is continuing to lose out to road. The next big building block, then, following the sale of NR and FreightCorp is to secure a satisfactory interstate access arrangement for the Australian Rail Track Corporation of the New South Wales part of the interstate track. Then we can put a management structure in place which will recognise, as roads do, the fact that we are a national economy and not a state based one. I think this is an incredibly important next step, if it can be secured.I urge the New South Wales government—we are negotiating with them in good spirit at the moment on sensible grounds—to help us wrap that up. I urge those who are worried about their future in rail in that state to recognise that without reform there will not be a rail industry of any size in this country to work in. We have got to reform it—we have got to get it competitive with road to build a bigger rail industry. Roads will never compete and never cope with the freight task in the future; governments will never cope with the bills for upgrading the roads; and cities will never cope with the congestion on the east coast unless we get it right for rail. There will not be any jobs in it, anyway, because it will die. So this is a very important next step. I thank the honourable member for his question and I thank the ARA for their support for our endeavours. I think that, with cooperation and goodwill, in the next few months we can do what so many people in this place have wanted to do for so long—secure the future of rail.136215:00:001362Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is also to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services in his capacity as minister for regional services. I refer to reports released today by the Australian Communications Authority and PricewaterhouseCoopers regarding the death of a 10-year-old boy and the finding that his mother was unaware of her right to apply for priority service from Telstra and that her phone did not work properly for most of the time for the 12 days before his death. Didn't the Besley report recommend that action be taken to ensure that customers are made aware of their right to apply for priority? How do you explain the fact that 18 months have gone by and no action has been taken to ensure that customers be made aware of their right to apply for priority? Will you now give a guarantee to rural and regional Australia that you will not privatise Telstra?1362McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—Mr Speaker, in my capacity as representing the minister for communications, I wish to provide the House with a very considered response to this question because there has been a tragic accident. I wish to express my sympathy and that of the government—and, indeed, the parliament—to the Boulding family. The independent regulator, the Australian Communications Authority, has formally investigated and reported on this matter and the government's initial response has also been released.The investigation by the ACA shows that, whilst Telstra met its obligations under the universal service obligation and the customer service guarantee, a number of its internal policies and systems were deficient when it came to providing service to people with priority health needs. As a consequence, the government will be imposing a licence condition on Telstra to minimise absolutely the chances of a repeat of the recent tragedy affecting the Boulding family.The licence condition will require Telstra to fully inform both existing and new customers of their right to priority services in emergency health situations; provide clear assessment criteria and processes to be put in place to ensure that all Telstra customers with a genuine life-threatening health emergency have access to priority services; ensure a continuous phone service to the maximum extent possible for all priority customers—this will include providing a temporary phone service within 24 hours of notification, or 48 hours within remote areas, in the event that a connection or repair cannot be completed in that time frame—and provide a high priority for full rectification of a priority phone service, if it has two or more faults within a three-month period; and support and advice for customers about putting in place a reliable backup service. The licence condition will also require Telstra to report back to the government within one month on how it will upgrade its systems and processes to ensure that it meets all its obligations to priority service customers. Telstra will also be required to improve its processes for managing disruptions of this kind under the customer service guarantee regime. As part of its response to the Besley inquiry, the government asked the ACA to develop a network reliability framework for Telstra as the primary universal service provider. The ACA was asked to reconsider this framework following Sam Boulding's death. The ACA is finalising a multitiered framework to enhance Telstra's service reliability which includes: requiring reliability reporting on large service areas; requiring monitoring of smaller service areas to identify and fix network problems at a highly disaggregated level; as well as requiring monitoring and immediate fixing of individual services that do not meet an adequate level of reliability.In summary, the government is determined—as is the parliament—that all Australians will have adequate phone services, particularly those in highest need. The government would wish to once again extend its sympathy to the Boulding family and we thank them for their cooperation with the ACA during its investigation.136315:04:001363Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Minister, can you advise the House of the implications to the tourism industry with the expansion of Virgin Blue? What other steps are being taken to encourage tourists to Australia?1363Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—I thank the member for Dawson for her very keen interest in the welfare of the tourism industry. It is a very significant industry in her electorate, as it is throughout the whole of Queensland and, in fact, in a number of other electorates around Australia as well.The government warmly welcomes the investment by Patrick Corporation in Virgin Blue, obtaining 50 per cent of the company. It is very positive for the tourism industry for a number of reasons. Firstly, we warmly welcome more choice in aviation in Australia. We welcome more planes on more routes including, importantly, more regional destinations. The most significant impact of Virgin Blue's expansion in Australia is that it is providing a service—a low-cost, low-fare service—to many Australians who in other circumstances may not be able to afford to travel. So it is actually opening up a very important and prospectively large part of the tourism industry in Australia.The government stands prepared to help to expand the tourism industry in Australia. Our most significant inbound market is New Zealand. More than 700,000 New Zealanders visit Australia each year—some come over for the rugby, some come over for the cricket and I am sure they will be coming over for the Rugby World Cup now that it is being held in Australia. Over 90 per cent of the New Zealanders that visit Australia have, in fact, visited Australia before.WF6Danby, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports!DK6Mr HOCKEY—Overwhelmingly, a large number of them go back to the same place that they have already been. So I am pleased to advise the House that the government has launched a program of $800,000 in television advertising in New Zealand—as well as other marketing devices—to expand the market—WF6Danby, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports! DK6Mr HOCKEY—and to tell New Zealanders about the great outback and the member for Dawson's electorate—the Great Barrier Reef and the beautiful Whitsundays. The opportunity is available to go and target an important sustainable market for the Australian tourism industry.WF6Danby, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports is defying the chair. The minister has the call.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The government, in partnership with the aviation industry and the tourism industry, will continue to look at all opportunities to expand the pie and grow the opportunities for the tourism industry in Australia.WF6Danby, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne Ports!136415:07:001364Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing. Is the minister aware that on 13 October 2001 the then Minister for Aged Care, Bronwyn Bishop, issued a press release claiming:4,600 more places—that is, aged care places—will come online in the next three months.Minister, are you aware of the following question and the answer provided by your department to a Senate estimates committee:Did the Department supply the Minister's office with a briefing saying that 4,600 beds would come on line between September and December?(b) If not does the Department know where this figure comes from?Answer: (a) No. (b) No.Minister, is it not the case that the actual number of beds provided by your department to come online in the December quarter was just 1,263, or one in four of the number promised by your government? Isn't this just another case of your government saying one thing before the election and another thing after?1364Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—What I can say about aged care beds is that when this coalition came to government we were facing a shortage of 10,000 beds left by you when you were in government and reported by the Auditor-General when we came to government. You set yourselves—R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for Grayndler has asked his question, and the minister will be heard in silence. I invite the minister to address his remarks through the chair. It may be reasonable to observe that the chair is ageing but the reference to `you' is still seen as inappropriate!HK5Mr ANDREWS—The Australian Labor Party—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—Oh the Labor Party!HK5Mr ANDREWS—Yes, the Australian Labor Party set a benchmark for beds in 1986 that, when it left government in 1996, it had still failed to achieve. What we have done in two terms of government—and this is one of the great success stories of this government—is to increase the funding to aged care from $2.5 billion to $4.2 billion. Not only that—R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—You should be sacked!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Grayndler!HK5Mr ANDREWS—Unlike the ALP, we promised and made an election commitment in November last year that we will increase places to 200,000 by 2006. That is a real commitment to aged care and something which you are incapable of doing.136415:11:001364Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Can the minister update the House on proposed changes to workplace relations laws in Western Australia? How will those proposed changes affect small business in my electorate of Moore? 1364Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—I thank the member for Moore for his enthusiastic question. The member for Moore raises the issue of the proposed workplace relations changes in Western Australia and their implications for small business. It will not be news to this House that the proposed bill will strangle small businesses, including the small businesses in his electorate of Moore. As one example of the proposed changes, under the proposals the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission will be given new powers to force a third party, such as a contractor, to abide by the unfair dismissal laws. For example, if one of the pubs in the electorate of Moore engages pub security through a labour hire firm, it is unhappy with the quality or the activity of the security, and it asks to have those people removed, the Western Australian Industrial Relations Comission can order the pub to employ that security directly whilst the unfair dismissal claim is being considered. It is like ordering a third party to employ someone if they have an unfair dismissal claim in progress. The Labor Party often says that the unfair dismissal laws do not have any implication for business. If you want to know what the Labor Party really stands for, the current unfair dismissal laws do affect small business, and the proposals in Western Australia are a taste of what the Australian Labor Party would do in government. I asked the restaurant and catering association to give me a rundown of some of the examples of the impact of the current unfair dismissal laws—the same laws the Labor Party will not let us change to help to protect small business. They gave me the example of a restaurant in the inner city. That restaurant had an unfair dismissal claim made against it even though the company had not terminated the employee. Even though there are threatened dismissal provisions under the act, this employee had received notice that a redundancy had to take place for financial reasons. The kitchen in the restaurant was overstaffed, so the company was going through the consultation process. The claim was lodged to forestall the redundancy process legitimately being undertaken by the restaurant.I give another example: in the Hunter region in New South Wales, a company terminated an employee after several memos outlining the unacceptability of their performance. It necessitated at least three visits to Newcastle for the pretrial matters and a hearing of one day. The restaurant is at the outskirts of the region. It necessitated similar trips to the commission at Newcastle by the member. It also required an advocate to go to the establishment from Sydney to take evidence from the witnesses.In 100 per cent of the cases recognised by the restaurant and caterers association, the threat of unfair dismissal had changed the way in which the operators managed staff. Forty-six per cent said that it would stop them hiring staff, and 70 per cent said it would encourage them to hire casual over permanent staff—00AN2Jackson, Sharryn, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Hasluck is warned!DK6Mr HOCKEY—I am pleased to table all the examples and further evidence of the fact that the unfair dismissal laws which the Labor Party put into place and which are having an impact on jobs, the unfair dismissal laws which the Labor Party seeks to protect, are costing jobs in small business. If we want to know what the Labor Party does in government, have a look at what is happening in Western Australia in the electorate of Moore, in the electorate of Stirling and in all the other electorates in Western Australia, because at the end of the day the Labor Party is opposed to jobs and it is opposed to small business jobs.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice136513651365Mr COSTELLO,MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yesterday I was asked a question about performance bonus pay for members of the Treasury, which I said I would get further information on and come back. I have asked the Secretary to the Treasury to prepare a list going back to the 1980s in relation to performance pay. He tells me that performance pay was not introduced until 1992-93. He also tells me that the head of an agency—that is, the secretary of a department—signs off on performance pay, and, in relation to secretaries, their performance pay is signed off on by the Prime Minister. That being the case, I do not believe ministers sign off on performance pay at all, for anybody. I table a list of performance pay going back to 1980, as I indicated I would do yesterday. Questions to the Speaker1366136615:17:001366McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, could you advise the House whether there is any proposal before you for the use of the old Qantas office space in the public area of the building and, if so, what is the proposal and when will it be implemented?1366SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Watson for his question. The President and I are looking at the whole question of space allocation in this building. There is no specific proposal for the Qantas space, but there are a number of considerations. I could not in fact elaborate on any of them because they are all at the consideration stage.136615:17:001366Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, on Tuesday this week, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister for a response to a question he took on notice on 18 February about which members of his staff received the 13 photos from the Department of Defence. You will recall him taking this question on notice, answering in relation to three members of his staff and requesting further information from the Department of Defence. Mr Speaker, could you approach the Prime Minister on behalf of the House for the answer he has received from the Department of Defence on both this question and the one asked on 18 February?1366SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Lilley as the standing orders provide. I thought, from listening to the Prime Minister, that he had partially answered that question, but if there are other details I will seek them from his office.136615:19:001366Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—My question also is to you, Mr Speaker. As you would be aware, Mr Speaker, it has been determined that three new House committees will be set up, dealing with matters concerning the following portfolios: Ageing; Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; and Transport and Regional Services. This is on top of the other House committees that were existing in the previous parliament. Has any new money been appropriated to set up these committees—for the secretariats, for example? If not, have you made approaches to the relevant departments with regard to the allocation of necessary funds?1366SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The whole question of the funding of the Department of the House of Representatives is currently part of the budgetary consideration. I have spoken to the Clerk about the allocation of resources to the committees and he is to come back to me with a response.Personal Explanations136615:19:001366Dr MARTIN,MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?8I4Dr MARTIN,MPDr MARTIN—Yes.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.8I4Dr MARTIN,MPDr MARTIN—Thank you. In response to a question concerning the United States government's decision to place a 30 per cent tariff on the import of Australian steel, in apparent contravention of their commitment to free trade, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said that I did not support an Australia-United States free trade agreement. I do support such an agreement, but not at the expense of Australian industries and Australian jobs, particularly those of my electorate.Questions to the Speaker1366136615:20:001366Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—My question is to you, Mr Speaker. You will remember an earlier inquiry I made to you about your and the President's decision to refuse His Holiness the Dalai Lama access to the Great Hall. I understand that today the Senate passed a resolution asking you and the President to allow the Dalai Lama to speak in the Australian parliament as he has spoken in the European parliament and the US Congress. As the result of the majority of the Senate passing this resolution, are you and the President considering your position? 1367SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I respond to the member for Melbourne Ports by indicating that the President is—I think I am right in saying—currently in the United Kingdom as part of the Jubilee celebrations for Her Majesty, so I have not had an opportunity to discuss it in depth with her, but I see no particular reason why the House should be influenced by resolutions passed in the Senate.136715:21:001367Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. During question time today, there was a disturbance in the gallery following an answer from the Treasurer. My question to you is: why was that person not removed from the gallery under standing order 310, which we have seen applied in the past, particularly in relation to Aboriginal people?1367SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—My response to the member for Charlton is, of course, that my action was entirely consistent with what has been the action of occupiers of the chair in the past. Were there a disturbance that was disruptive in the gallery, action would be taken by me, as it has been taken by my predecessors.Personal Explanations136715:22:001367Mr SNOWDON,MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?IJ4Mr SNOWDON,MPMr SNOWDON—Yes, I do—in a heinous fashion.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.IJ4Mr SNOWDON,MPMr SNOWDON—During question time, Minister Tuckey produced a press release, a copy of which I have here. He said that somehow or other this press release inferred that I did not support the establishment of a facility for refugees and asylum seekers on Christmas Island. In this press release I said, among other things:This announcement has come as a surprise to the community. While not opposed to the building of a facility, islanders want input to maximise benefits for the struggling Christmas Island community.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member must come to the point on which he has been misrepresented.IJ4Mr SNOWDON,MPMr SNOWDON—I have; I am just trying to explain. In addition, had the minister heard the debate on the migration legislation this morning, he would have heard me articulate clearly that I had discussions with the people of Christmas Island about this very issue, proposing such a facility, in September and October last year. I seek leave to table the press release.Leave granted.Questions to the Speaker1367136715:24:001367Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I refer to recent events in the other House. You may recall that Speaker Martin convened a working party to examine a code of conduct for members of parliament. In the end the framework of ethical principles for members and senators presented in June 1995 was very broad. Do you consider that this code for members of parliament still meets the prevailing community standards and expectations that the public now has of us? Will you give consideration to establishing a new informal working party to examine the adequacy of the current code and what, if any, changes may be appropriate? Will you advise the House of your decision?1367SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will discuss the matter with the President of the Senate and I intend to engage the member for Cunningham in those discussions. I will advise the member for Chifley of my decision and take it further if he wishes.136715:25:001367Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, I ask whether there are any proposals to change the staffing structure within this chamber at the attendants' level from permanent to part-time staffing. If there are proposals in that area, could we find out why they have been considered? 1368SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am not aware of any such proposals. As I understand it—and, I emphasise, `as I understand it'—there are a number of part-time people employed within the chamber. I will take up the matter with the Clerk, whose prerogative it is to determine what are the employment priorities.136815:25:001368SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On Tuesday, a number of members raised concerns about distribution arrangements for the Notice Paper, including whether the Notice Paper could be distributed by email to all members as an alternative to members accessing it on the web site.Unfortunately, a mass email distribution of the entire Notice Paper to all members would impose a significant load on the parliamentary email system. However, upon an individual request, the Table Office will arrange for a copy of the Notice Paper to be sent to a member's email address each sitting, subject to the parliamentary email system being able to accommodate such a distribution arrangement.I stress to members that bookmarking the site for the Notice Paper would provide access as conveniently and directly to an electronic copy of the Notice Paper as would an email message. The Table Office can assist in bookmarking the site for the Notice Paper.I remind members that ample stocks of hard copies of the Notice Paper are available from the whips' offices, the Table Office and the chamber. It is not necessary for members to print out the Notice Paper in their offices each day. If they wish to do so, however, the Help Desk—on extension 2020—can assist in setting printers to print on both sides.I also remind members that, if they wish primarily to check for the status of an unanswered question on notice, a document with a full listing of all outstanding questions on notice, updated daily, is available on the web site.Committees1368136810000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I present a schedule showing the allocation of annual reports of departments, agencies, authorities and companies to general purpose standing committees and certain joint committees. A copy of the schedule will be incorporated in Hansard.The schedule read as follows—40th PARLIAMENTSpeaker's ScheduleAllocation to Committees of Annual Reports of Departments, Agencies, Authorities and CompaniesStanding Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander AffairsAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry PortfolioTorres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryAttorney-General's PortfolioHuman Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and TradeImmigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs PortfolioDepartment of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs* Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CommissionAboriginal Benefit AccountAboriginal Hostels LtdAboriginal Land Commissioner, Northern TerritoryAnindilyakwa Land CouncilAustralian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander StudiesCentral Land CouncilIndigenous Business AustraliaIndigenous Land Corporation**National Native Title Tribunal***Northern Land CouncilRegistrar of Aboriginal CorporationsTiwi Land CouncilTorres Strait Regional Authority* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs and to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration ** Referred also to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land FundStanding Committee on AgeingHealth and Ageing PortfolioDepartment of Health and Ageing*Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Community AffairsStanding Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry PortfolioDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryAustralian Dairy CorporationAustralian Fisheries Management AuthorityAustralian Horticultural CorporationAustralian Landcare CouncilAustralian Pork CorporationAustralian Wheat Board Australian Wine and Brandy CorporationCotton Research and Development CorporationDairy Adjustment AuthorityDairy Research and Development CorporationDried Fruits Research and Development CouncilFisheries Research and Development CorporationForest and Wood Products Research and Development CorporationGrains Research and Development CorporationGrape and Wine Research and Development CorporationLand and Water Resources Research and Development CorporationLandcare Australia LimitedMurray-Darling Basin CommissionNational Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary ChemicalsNorthern Territory Fisheries Joint AuthorityPig Research and Development CorporationQueensland Fisheries Joint AuthorityRural Industries Research and Development Corporation Sugar Research and Development CorporationTobacco Research and Development CorporationTorres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority*Western Australian Fisheries Joint AuthorityWool InternationalWheat Export Authority* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander AffairsForeign Affairs and Trade PortfolioAustralian Centre for International Agricultural Research** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and TradeStanding Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the ArtsCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts PortfolioDepartment of Communications, Information Technology and the ArtsAustralia Business Arts FoundationAustralia Council Australian Broadcasting AuthorityAustralian Broadcasting CorporationAustralian Communications AuthorityAustralian Film CommissionAustralian Film Finance CorporationAustralian Film, Television and Radio SchoolAustralian National Maritime MuseumAustralian Postal CorporationAustralian Sports CommissionAustralian Sports Drug Agency Bundanon TrustFilm Australia LimitedNational Archives of Australia and National Archives of Australia Advisory CouncilNational Gallery of AustraliaNational Library of AustraliaNational Museum of AustraliaNational Office for the Information EconomyNetAlert LimitedPublic Lending Right CommitteeQuestacon-National Science and Technology CentreScreenSound AustraliaSpecial Broadcasting Service CorporationTelstra Corporation Limited Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public AdministrationFinance and Administration PortfolioDepartment of Finance and AdministrationCommissioner for SuperannuationCommonwealth Grants Commission (ComSuper)CSS BoardParliamentary Retiring Allowances TrustPSS BoardRemuneration TribunalPrime Minister and Cabinet PortfolioDepartment of the Prime Minister and CabinetAustralian National Audit OfficeCommonwealth Ombudsman (incorporates Defence Force Ombudsman, Tax Ombudsman and ACT Ombudsman)*Management Advisory CommitteeOfficial Establishments TrustPublic Service and Merit Protection Commission* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and TradeTreasury PortfolioDepartment of the TreasuryAustralia and the International Monetary FundAustralia and the World BankAustralian Office of Financial ManagementAustralian Bureau of StatisticsAustralian Accounting Standards BoardAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission*Australian Loan CouncilAustralian Prudential Regulation AuthorityAustralian Securities and Investment CommissionAustralian Statistics Advisory CouncilAustralian Taxation OfficeBoard of TaxationCompanies and Markets Advisory CommitteeCompanies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary BoardCorporations and Securities (Takeovers) PanelFinancial Reporting CouncilForeign Investment Review BoardLife Insurance Actuarial Standards BoardNational Competition CouncilPayments System BoardProductivity CommissionReserve Bank of AustraliaRoyal Australian MintSuperannuation Complaints Tribunal* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry and ResourcesStanding Committee on Education and TrainingEducation, Science and Training PortfolioDepartment of Education, Science and Training*Australian National Training Authority**Australian Research Council*Council of the Australian National University* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace RelationsTransport and Regional Services PortfolioAustralian Maritime College** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional ServicesStanding Committee on Employment and Workplace RelationsEmployment and Workplace Relations PortfolioDepartment of Employment and Workplace RelationsAustralian Industrial Relations Commission & Australian Industrial RegistryAustralian National Training Authority*Centrelink**Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation Comcare AustraliaDefence Force Remuneration Tribunal***Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace AgencyNational Occupational Health and Safety Commission**Office of the Employment AdvocateSeafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation AuthoritySafety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Training** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs *** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Standing Committee on Environment and HeritageEnvironment and Heritage PortfolioDepartment of Environment and Heritage*Australian Antarctic Foundation*Australian Greenhouse OfficeAustralian Heritage CommissionBureau of MeteorologyDirector of National ParksGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park AuthorityNational Cultural Heritage CommitteeNational Oceans OfficeWet Tropics Management Authority* Referred to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories (re Australian Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic Territories)Standing Committee on Family and Community AffairsEmployment and Workplace Relations PortfolioCentrelink*National Occupational Health and Safety Commission** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace RelationsFamily and Community Services PortfolioDepartment of Family and Community ServicesAustralian Institute of Family StudiesHealth and Ageing PortfolioDepartment of Health and Ageing*Australia New Zealand Food AuthorityAustralian Hearing Australian Institute of Health and WelfareAustralian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation**Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety AgencyDirector of the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment SchemeGenetic Manipulation Advisory CommitteeHealth Insurance CommissionMedibank PrivateNational Food AuthorityNational Health and Medical Research CouncilOffice of Professional Services ReviewOffice of the Gene Technology RegulatorPharmaceutical Benefits Pricing AuthorityPharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration TribunalPrivate Health Insurance Administration CouncilSocial Security Appeals Tribunal* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Ageing** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Science and InnovationImmigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs PortfolioDepartment of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and to the Joint Standing Committee on MigrationStanding Committee on Industry and ResourcesAttorney-General's PortfolioAustralian Customs Service** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional AffairsForeign Affairs and Trade PortfolioExport Finance and Insurance Corporation** Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and TradeIndustry, Tourism and Resources PortfolioDepartment of Industry, Tourism and ResourcesAustralian Industry Development CorporationAustralian Tourist CommissionIndustry Research and Development Board*Joint Coal Board National Standards CommissionPooled Development Funds Registration BoardSnowy Mountains CouncilSnowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Science and InnovationTreasury PortfolioAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission*Productivity Commission** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public AdministrationStanding Committee on Legal and Constitutional AffairsAttorney-General's PortfolioAttorney-General's DepartmentAdministrative Appeals TribunalAdministrative Review CouncilAustralasian Police Ministers' CouncilAustralian Customs Service*Australian Federal PoliceAustralian Government SolicitorAustralian Institute of CriminologyAustralian Law Reform CommissionAustralian Security Intelligence Organisation Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)Commonwealth Law Enforcement BoardCopyright Agency LimitedCriminology Research CouncilCrimTrac AgencyDirector of Public ProsecutionsFamily Court of AustraliaFamily Law CouncilFederal Court of AustraliaFederal Magistrates ServiceHigh Court of AustraliaHuman Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission**Insolvency and Trustee Service AustraliaNational Crime AuthorityNational Native Title Tribunal***Office of Film and Literature ClassificationOffice of Parliamentary CounselOffice of the Federal Privacy Commissioner* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry and Resources** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land FundPrime Minister and Cabinet PortfolioCommonwealth Ombudsman*Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and TradeStanding Committee on Science and InnovationEducation, Science and Training PortfolioDepartment of Education, Science and Training*Anglo-Australian Telescope BoardAustralian Institute of Marine Science Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation**Australian Science, Technology and Engineering CouncilAustralian Research Council*Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and Training** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Family and Community AffairsIndustry, Tourism and Resources PortfolioIndustry Research and Development Board** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry and ResourcesStanding Committee on Transport and Regional ServicesTransport and Regional Services PortfolioDepartment of Transport and Regional Services*Airservices AustraliaAlbury-Wodonga Development CorporationAustralian Maritime Safety AuthorityAustralian Maritime College**Australian Rail Track Corporation LimitedAustralian River Co. LimitedBankstown Airport LimitedCamden Airport LimitedChristmas Island Casino Surveillance AuthorityCivil Aviation AuthorityHoxton Park Airport LimitedInternational Air Services Commission Maritime Industry Finance Company LimitedNational Capital AuthorityNational Office of Local GovernmentNational Road Transport CommissionStevedoring Industry Finance CommitteeSydney Airports Corporation Limited * Referred also to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Education and TrainingJoint Standing Committee on Electoral MattersFinance and Administration PortfolioAustralian Electoral CommissionJoint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and TradeAttorney-General's PortfolioHuman Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional AffairsDefence Portfolio (including Veterans' Affairs)Department of DefenceDepartment of Veterans' AffairsArmy and Airforce Canteen ServiceAustralian Agency for International Development (AusAID)Australian Military Forces Relief Trust FundAustralian Safeguards Office (nuclear non-proliferation)Australian War MemorialDefence Force Retirement and Death Benefits AuthorityDefence Housing AuthorityJudge Advocate GeneralMilitary Superannuation and Benefits Board of Trustees No. 1National Treatment Monitoring CommitteeRepatriation CommissionRepatriation Medical AuthorityRoyal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences TrustRoyal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust FundRoyal Australian Navy Relief Trust FundVeterans' Review BoardEmployment and Workplace Relations PortfolioDefence Force Remuneration Tribunal** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace RelationsForeign Affairs and Trade PortfolioDepartment of Foreign Affairs and TradeAustralia-China CouncilAustralia-France FoundationAustralia-India CouncilAustralia-Indonesia InstituteAustralia-Japan FoundationAustralia-Korea FoundationAustralian Centre for International Agricultural Research*Australian Trade CommissionExport Finance and Insurance Corporation*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Industry and ResourcesPrime Minister and Cabinet PortfolioCommonwealth Ombudsman** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional AffairsJoint Standing Committee on MigrationImmigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs PortfolioDepartment of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs*Migration Review TribunalMigration Agents Registration AuthorityRefugee Review Tribunal* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and to the Standing Committee on Family and Community AffairsJoint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External TerritoriesEnvironment and Heritage PortfolioDepartment of the Environment and Heritage* (re Australian Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic Territories)Australian Antarctic Foundation** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Environment and HeritageTransport and Regional Services PortfolioDepartment of Transport and Regional Services*National Capital Authority* Referred also to the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land FundImmigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs PortfolioIndigenous Land Corporation*National Native Title Tribunal*** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs** Referred also to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional AffairsDocuments1374Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.28 p.m.)—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Adjournment1374Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.28 p.m.)—I move:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 19 March, at 2 p.m., unless the Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.Question agreed to.Matters of Public Importance1374137410000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Grayndler proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The need for the Government to address the crisis in aged care and provide appropriate services for an ageing Australia.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—15:30:001374Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—This is a government that is characterised by deceit. In aged care, the government has no beds, no nurses, no plan and no shame. We have seen evidence of how this government has been prepared to lie and cheat its way to election victories. We saw today in question time a response from the minister—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Member for Grayndler is aware that the term `the government lies' is not desirable. I ask him to desist.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—I withdraw the remark and say that the government has been prepared to say untruths. We actually gave the minister the opportunity to correct the record by asking him in question time today whether he was aware that his own department had told us that, in spite of the fact that the former minister had said that there were 4,600 beds coming online, fewer than one in four has materialised. We asked the department where this figure came from. The answer we were given was that they had no idea. This is a government that is prepared to simply make things up in whatever portfolio. In the area of immigration we were told that children were thrown overboard. In the area of aged care we were told that all these beds were coming online, but the government cannot say where those figures came from.The government has produced one in four of those beds. But it was not a mistruth conducted just by the former minister. The Leader of the National Party, Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, has also been caught out. During the election campaign on 19 October he said that 632 beds were expected to open before the end of the year. That is a very precise figure. In fact we have found, from the answers we were given last night, that the figure is only 484. We know that this is a government that has not got a single area of aged care right. When the current government came to office in 1996, the Prime Minister said that older Australians would be one of his priorities. All too quickly we understood what that meant. It meant that in the first Costello budget a half a billion dollar cut—a $500 million cut—to the area of aged care was slotted in there.The system has been in crisis ever since. This is not one of those areas of abstract debate. This is an area that has a real impact on the lives of older Australians, those people who care for older Australians and the families of older Australians. The shortage of beds is not the only tragedy in aged care. Currently, not one area of the government's aged care program is working—not one measure, policy or action this government has taken has improved aged care services. When the coalition came to power there was a surplus of 800 aged care beds. Now there is a deficit of at least 6,500 beds. Not only has the government taken away these beds; it has taken away dignity from older Australians. Only the government's ministers believe there is no crisis in aged care, and we know that there have been four of them in six years—it is the revolving door portfolio. The only positive thing we can say about this minister to give him credit is that he is not Bronwyn Bishop.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The member will refer to members by their seat.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—The former minister was sacked by this government. If aged care is not in crisis, why has minister, after minister, after minister been replaced by the Prime Minister? They are being replaced because the system is in crisis. The current minister may well be more personable than his predecessor—and, I think that is probably correct—nonetheless, there has been no change. The current minister has not foreshadowed a single piece of legislation before this parliament. This is the agenda of the current minister—a blank page. Because of his ideological obsession with stem cell research, he actually does not have the time to do the job that he is paid for.I want to go through the areas of aged care and look at what the situation is. Firstly, there are the waiting times. The blow-out in waiting times under this government, which was 29 days in 1998, grew by more than 10 days a year—up to 55 days in 2000. So what did the government do—and why do I use that figure and not a more up-to-date figure? I use that figure because, as a response, the government did not try to fix the problems; they just stopped giving us the figures. When we asked at Senate estimates hearings last week what the current situation is, they said they did not know. They knew that the figure was 55 days up to the year 2000, but now, all of a sudden, they do not know. They have no idea. That is quite extraordinary. But what is more extraordinary is that they do not call them waiting lists anymore. Under this government they are now called entry periods. Once again, language is being used and abused in order to hide the crisis in the system.If we look at the numbers of nursing staff and aged care staff, we can see there is a shortage of at least 5,000. We know that the sector has difficulty in recruiting and retaining registered nurses. We know that there is a lack of wage parity between aged care nurses and their public hospital counterparts. But there has been no response whatsoever from this government. These people are working in difficult circumstances and under enormous pressure caring for older Australians, and what do they receive from this government? Contempt—what they receive is an administrative system in which every single nursing home has to do an estimated four hours of paperwork every day for the Resident Classification Scale. This is an administrative system which has been set up to do nothing more than claw back the funding which was given to nursing homes—$90 million has been budgeted for in savings, year after year, in order to cut the funds that the government has to contribute to the nursing homes. If you got rid of that four hours of paperwork in each nursing home, you could give back four million hours of care each year to look after older Australians. For the current financial year, there is an estimate of $44 million and, in 2003-04, a target of $51 million—once again, the priority of this government is to save money rather than to fix the problem.We know that there is a problem with the complaints system: we know that there is a public perception that the complaints system lacks independence and transparency—and, of course, it is a former Victorian Liberal minister who is in charge of the show. There is no accountability whatsoever. Complaints go in, and nothing comes out. We know that no surprise inspection took place for over two years. We know that there is story after story of human tragedy. The most recent is at Mosman Park Nursing Home in Perth, where 40 to 60 maggots were tunnelling into the leg of an elderly Australian. How did the minister find out about this? We had a departmental briefing, and I asked his chief of staff when the minister found out. They found out from the 6 o'clock news. That is how they found out—when a worker in that facility blew at the whistle, and it appeared on the TV news that night. This is a government that simply does not care about aged care. We then come to phantom beds. The phantom minister himself tried to take the heat out of this issue by releasing a press release in which he said that there were 13,300—phantom—beds allocated to nursing home operators which were not operational. Of those, 2,816—almost 3,000—were allocated more than two years ago. More than two years ago they were allocated but there was no delivery on the ground. What was the minister's response? This is from the minister who under the system funds every individual in there. What did he say? In the Herald Sun on 24 February, he said:This situation is unacceptable and we want to find out where the beds are, who has them and what their reasons are for not making them operational.Well, that is your job, Minister. You should know where they are. Your department should know where they are, because you fund them. It is an extraordinary admission by the minister that he just has no idea. Surely it is the minister's job to know exactly what the situation is.We come to certification. Conflicting advice has been given by the department to operators, so that they do not know whether they are coming or going. They simply do not know what certifications standards they are required to meet, and there is a complete lack of transparency in the aged care bed allocation process. I was up in the member for Capricornia's electorate last week. In Rockhampton, the providers told us that they were simply bewildered by the decision-making process with regard to the allocation of beds. The funding formula is considered by all in the industry to be fundamentally flawed and not reflective of the actual costs faced by operators.The aged care system is in crisis. But what have the government done? They have now adopted the Strategy for an Ageing Australia to try to take attention away from the aged care crisis. The Strategy for an Ageing Australia was actually intended to be released in 1999 for the International Year of Older Persons. Four ministers and $6.1 million later, a document has been released twice—once by the former minister and once by the current minister. That document does not have one spending commitment, not one time line, not one specific policy.But there is a difference between the two documents. We outlined yesterday how much it cost. During the election campaign the former minister released this document—or tried to release this document—in spite of her advice from the department that it was against the caretaker conventions, at a cost of $42,000. Once again, taxpayers funds were used to fund an election stunt by a desperate minister and a desperate government. The difference between the two documents is that one has a photo of the former minister and a different foreword, and the other one has a photo of the new minister. But the one with the photo of the former minister was nine times more expensive to produce than the current one. There is another difference in the document: in the former minister's document, she said in the foreword:As well, I wish to recognise the expert advice we received from the multidisciplinary expert advisory group and the business mature age work force advisory group. Contributions from the business sector, industry bodies, academia, community organisations and individuals also helped to inject valuable community debate into the national strategy development process.What she was saying was: `We've done all this work. We've consulted the sector. Here's the document.' But the new minister has made a change to the foreword. He says:As a first step—a first step!—I am delighted to announce the next phase in progressing the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia by using this strategy as a springboard to engage with the community on the issues of ageing.The end of the process has become the beginning. It is groundhog day. We are back again! Bear in mind that this document was released about a month ago, and the International Year of Older Persons was 1999. Four ministers later, in 2002, we have the minister putting out this document. The minister has made himself so unaccountable that we have phantom beds and we have a phantom strategy. We also have a phantom minister, because he does not have press conferences when he allocates beds. He produced a press release which said that prerecorded interviews are available for radio, because he would not want to answer a question from a radio interviewer about whether the beds would actually appear. This is a government that has no strategy, no idea, no plan. (Time expired)15:45:001377Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—If there was ever an indication of the shallow superficiality of the ALP, then it was that contribution from the member for Grayndler. If there was ever an illustration of the lazy, negative, carping, whingeing attitude of the member for Grayndler, then that was a good example of it in his contribution today. When he was appointed the shadow minister, I was told by a senior member of the New South Wales ALP, `The only thing that Anthony knows is how to tip a bucket,' and he said, `Don't worry because it is always a small one.' This is an illustration of negativity when we look at what has been said. The only thing that the member for Grayndler can say about aged care in this country—and he repeats it as his sort of mantra, ad nauseam—is this constant recall to crisis. In other words, the sky is falling so far as aged care in Australia is concerned. Let us look at the record of the Australian Labor Party and the record of the coalition as far as aged care is concerned. In 1994, Professor Bob Gregory undertook a major survey of the state of aged care in Australia—this is after more than a decade of the ALP in government. Amongst other things that Professor Gregory found, 13 per cent of nursing homes did not meet the relevant fire authority standards, 11 per cent of nursing homes did not meet the relevant health authority standards, 70 per cent of nursing homes did not meet the relevant outcomes standards and 51 per cent of nursing home residents were living in rooms with three or more beds. That was the state in which Professor Gregory found residential aged care in Australia after more than 10 years of Labor government. The quality of nursing homes had been allowed to deteriorate right throughout that period of more than a decade. The Labor Party knew that there was an urgent need to do something about aged care in Australia but they failed to act. They commissioned a report by Professor Gregory that indicated that it needed a massive capital injection and a major injection of funds. What the Labor Party had done 10 years previously in 1986 was to set a standard for the number of places in aged care facilities in Australia for people aged over 70. That was meant to be 100 places per 1,000 people in Australia aged over 70. By the time they lost government in 1996, 10 years after having set that standard, they had failed to meet the standard themselves. The record of the Labor Party so far as aged care is concerned is absolutely appalling. By comparison, the coalition has moved to correct that and is continuing to move to correct that. We have announced more than 40,000 new places, including 14,000 places which were announced in January of last year and more than 9,000 new aged care places in the most recent aged care round which I announced a few weeks ago. That includes, amongst those 9,000 places, some 2,500 high care places which, in the old terminology, means places that are available for people who need nursing home care. The Auditor-General discovered at the end of Labor's term of 13 years in government that there was a shortage of 10,000 aged care places in Australia. We are now correcting that and, if you look at the number of places that have been allocated that we are bringing on stream, we are exceeding that mark of 100 places per 1,000 people aged over 70. In addition to that, this government has done something in response to the community which is extremely important. If you ask older Australians what is one of the things which they desire, they say that they want to stay in their own homes or units as long as they possibly can. I know that from older relatives of my own, and I suspect we all know that from people that we come in contact with. There is a natural understandable desire on the part of older Australians to be able to stay in their own homes or units when that is appropriate. We have been attempting to address that particular issue. We have done that through the creation of community aged care packages. Over the last six years, we have increased the number of community aged care packages from some 2,500 when we came to government to some 25,000 today, and we are continuing to increase that so far as our funding goes into the future. If you take this in the broad context of aged care in Australia, in 1995-96, the Labor Party when in government was spending $2.5 billion—$2,500 million—on aged care. We are currently spending some $4.2 billion—$4,200 million—on aged care, a substantial increase. I will shortly come to the commitments which we have made in relation to aged care over the next few years. The honourable member mentioned this question of beds that had not been built. He does not explain, to the parliament and to the people of Australia, that this parliament put in place reforms of the aged care system to overcome the massive deficiency that he and his party left in place when we came to government. We put in place reforms that do a number of things for aged care. Firstly, we established a standards and accreditation agency. Where was the standards and accreditation agency when you were in government? Where was it? It did not exist at all. And you have the gall to come in here and complain about a system that we had the courage to put in place so that people can be assured about aged care standards and accreditation. 10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The minister will address the chair.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—We went from no standards and accreditation agency to having one here in the first place. That is the first thing which we did. Of course the honourable member will not mention that because all he wants to do is to say to the Australian people, `The sky is falling in so far as aged care is concerned.' The second thing we did was put in place a complaints commissioner, and that means that so far as Australians are concerned—R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Who is he?HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—I should not reply to his interjections but it is like getting dorothy dixers. We have got a whole series of people right around the country who are there to take complaints. There is a hotline to take complaints. That is a system which is a report to parliament and a system whereby people can have their complaints in relation to aged care investigated and, if need be, mediated. What was there when the Labor Party was in government? No complaints commissioner whatsoever. So Australians who are concerned about any aspect of the operation of aged care at the present time can simply ring a hotline and make a complaint, whether on the record or anonymous, about any aspect of aged care in Australia. R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—A former Liberal.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler!HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—The honourable member knows that. He is absolutely ashamed of the record of his previous government—R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler! If he would like to hear the end of this debate—HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—That is the second thing which we did in relation to aged care. If one wants to make a comparison between this government and the previous government regarding aged care—R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler will not give advice to the chair.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—Mr Deputy Speaker, he is just yapping away here. That is all we get from the member for Grayndler—yap, yap, yap. The member for Grayndler is yapping away here, saying `The sky is going to fall in and there is a major crisis in aged care', and he is not prepared to admit constructively what has been done—R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler! I am reluctant to warn you, but I will. HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—and work towards a better future, which Australians want in relation to aged care.R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned!HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—As I said, he knows nothing but tipping a little bucket over people.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPHK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—And not even the member for Batman wants it. In relation to aged care, we have also promised a series of reforms, and that we will continue to build upon what we have sought to achieve over the last two terms of government. I was saying earlier that this parliament put in place a system which allows a period of two years from the time an allocation of beds or places is made for a provider of aged care to bring them on line. That recognises the fact that town planning approval must be sought and, in some cases, local residents object to aged care facilities being built within their near neighbourhood. It also allows for state government approval for water and all the other allied services to be provided. It provides for a period of 12 to 15 months, which is reasonable. As the honourable member for Dunkley pointed out, these are often multimillion-dollar developments, so a period of 12 to 15 months is allowed for the building of these residences.This parliament provided for a period of two years to bring aged care facilities on line. I have discovered that there are some beds which have been allocated beyond the period of two years. As I indicated to the parliament in the last sitting fortnight, I am looking into why those beds have not been brought on line. In fact, I have been told that, since I made the announcement about looking into this, just in the last few weeks an additional 238 provisional allocations have been brought on line. But I am advised that, if necessary, the department will take action to withdraw any of those beds which are not brought on line in a timely matter—again something which the previous government had no understanding about and no ability to address. We are addressing it—something which the party of the honourable member for Grayndler, when in government, simply did not do.In addition to this, we realise that there is more to be done. We have an ageing population in this country and we are on the threshold of one of the most dramatic demographic shifts so far as Australia's history is concerned. That shift is when the great bulk of the population—the baby boomers—begin to retire in the next few years and become the retired generation of Australians. One can envisage that, in 15 to 20 years, naturally we will have a much greater older population of Australians. That is why we understand that there is more to be done; that is why we have taken the moves that we have taken and put in place the programs and policies, which I have identified, to make up for the shortfall that the Labor Party left us. I fully recognise that the community wants more done in relation to this, and that is something which we have done.In last year's federal election program, we announced that we would increase the number of aged care places in Australia from a current figure of some 168,000 to 200,000 places by June 2006—an increase of over 30,000 aged care places. That is a specific commitment we have put in place to meet the demand of an ageing population in Australia. In addition, we will provide an additional $100 million in capital funding in order to assist new and existing homes, particularly those in rural and regional Australia and in outer urban areas of Australia, to assist them in meeting their building certification standards—something which the honourable member for Grayndler spoke about, but he did not indicate anything about what we proposed to do in relation to that.Thirdly, the coalition is determined to improve the overall quality of our aged care homes. Accordingly, we have promised to increase the residential care subsidies by a significant amount of $200 million over four years, pending the outcome of a review of pricing arrangements so far as residential aged care is concerned. In addition, $28 million will be invested by the coalition over the next four years to encourage more people to enter or re-enter aged care nursing, especially in rural and regional Australia. We will also provide $20 million to assist small aged care homes to train their aged care staff, fostering the highest possible standards of residential care. All in all, this is a proud record of the government on aged care. The government inherited from the Australian Labor Party a situation where there was a gross shortage of places—identified by the Auditor-General to be a shortage, left by the Labor Party, in the vicinity of 10,000 places. We have sought to address that and to take this further in terms of what we plan to do over the next few years so that we can continue to address the issues of an ageing Australia.This is in the context of this government adopting policies and saying, as the Prime Minister did during the election campaign, that dealing with the issues of ageing is one of the three major measures of this government during this term of office. Other issues obviously relate, for example, to the balance between work and family for many Australians. That is something which the Treasurer was speaking about in an answer to a question today on the importance of measures such as the baby bonus legislation, which was introduced into this parliament today and which this government plans to introduce to care for Australians in their family life.We are concerned about and care for all Australians. We are particularly concerned about and care for old and frail Australians—to ensure that they have the best possible quality of life in their older years and that they are particularly able to be cared for in their homes, where they wish to be cared for, through community aged care packages. We will continue to strive to achieve better standards and continued improvement in aged care in Australia.15:59:001380Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I rise today to support this matter of public importance put on the Notice Paper by the member for Grayndler. He has given a paralysing insight into the crisis in our aged care system. It is quite obvious from the contribution by the minister that the government, in line with the best traditions of aged care ministers, does not want to deal with the problem.If you had any doubt that there are problems in nursing homes, you only have to look at the history over the last six years under the Howard government, starting with the kerosene baths, patients getting septicaemia and patients suffering bedsores and in some cases death because of the maladministration of the government. Also, there is the revolving door—four ministers in six years. If you wanted any evidence of just how much of a failure the Howard government has been in relation to aged care, you only have to look at the fact that Doug Moran, the great benefactor to the Liberal Party prior to the last election, changed sides and backed the Labor Party's policy.I want to focus on the administration of the Howard government in respect of residential aged care and the conduct of the responsible minister, as I have just said, because this matter of public importance goes to the issue of funding of bed places for those people opting for residential aged care. It is important to understand what has actually happened to the allocation of beds for residential aged care facilities throughout Australia. Firstly, we should note that what was called `nursing home care' and `hospital care' is now agglomerated under one title: residential aged care, a generic title that now includes both modes of accommodation. The Howard government during the previous parliament implemented annual aged care funding rounds. However, it is significant to note that funding rounds used to be biannual—that is, funding rounds used to be held predictably in January and June of every year. The current process of funding rounds instituted by this government is now annual. Furthermore, the timing of funding rounds is not predictable—that is, it can occur at any particular time at the whim of the government. This means that there is greater uncertainty in the residential aged care industry.In order to clearly understand whether the government has any hope of fulfilling the needs of the Australian public in terms of residential aged care, we need to know three things: we need a clear explanation of the government's policy on bed allocation for residential aged care, because we clearly do not have one; we need the forward estimates for the last three years, produced by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care; and we need the actual appropriations for residential aged care in response to the forward estimates. I refer to the Liberal Party's policy document titled The Howard Government—Putting Australia's Interests First—Choosing to Stay at Home—Election 2001, which was waved about prior to the last election. This policy document is silent on the question of the coalition's policy of bed allocations. The reader of the coalition's policy on residential aged care is left begging for an answer on how the government proposes to meet demand for residential aged care bed places. It is as if the government could not care less. It is clear that the government failed to address the shortfall in residential aged care beds prior to the 2001 elections, and it is even more clear that it has no answer for it now.I turn to the question of the forward estimates produced by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. I am advised through the Parliamentary Library that the Department of Health and Aged Care does not as a matter of course publish forward estimates for the number of beds per se. This should be a source of great concern to all sides of the House, and it is reflected in the concerns raised by the shadow minister for ageing, my good friend the member for Grayndler, with the Minister for Ageing. I would like to mention some of the issues that the member for Grayndler has been trying to seek information about and have the minister accountable for. Firstly, he is concerned about the blow-out in the average waiting period for a nursing home bed from 29 days in 1998 to 55 days in 2000. What is the government doing about that? He is also concerned about the fact that the government has turned a surplus of 800 aged care beds in 1996 into a deficit of more than 6,500 beds. Another concern involves the 13,000 phantom beds that were allocated to nursing home operators but are still not operational. Of these, 2,816 were allocated more than two years ago. Most importantly, he is concerned about the lack of transparency in the aged care bed allocation process, which I am speaking to today. We just do not know what the government will do in bed allocation, because we have to rely on the Minister for Ageing announcing it in a media release. This is totally unacceptable for it demonstrates the true lack of stewardship, or accountability in general, of this government. It is for this reason that this issue of residential care subsidies for beds is such a contentious issue. Put simply, there is no political accountability. Furthermore, there is no way to objectively know whether the government is fulfilling the department's estimated demand for bedding.There is no doubt that internal estimates for bedding that are calculated by the department are known to exist, but they are internal departmental working documents and these are not allowed to be released by the department. There is, therefore, a great need for review in the way in which political accountability is maintained in this matter. This issue goes to the heart of the way in which the Department of Health and Ageing is currently administered, how bedding allocations are reported and how demand is met through a system of political transparency. We need to know the way in which the department derives these bedding estimates to determine whether the actual allocations match the anticipated demand for residential aged care.This then leads to the third and final matter: the actual appropriations which are required to answer whether the department of health's forward estimates of market needs for residential aged care are being met by the actual allocations by this government. This clearly is a matter of public importance. I put to the House and to the minister that the government's actual appropriations are not consistent with the forward estimates—not by a long shot. I note the crucial questions raised by my colleague the member for Grayndler when he asked the Minister for Ageing to please inform the parliament what changes he made in his first 100 days. We need answers to the questions that I have just referred to in relation to the blow-out in the average wait for nursing home beds from 29 days in 1998 to 55 days in 2000. The process, as I said, has absolutely no transparency. These questions expose the shortcomings of the actual appropriations of bed allocations. The Minister for Ageing can only give two answers: that the department's forward estimates are wrong, or that the government has failed to make sufficient appropriations in light of these forward estimates. Either way, the minister is between a rock and a hard place. Let us have a look at the appropriations when compared with the actual funding for the last three years. I cite the Department of Health and Aged Care annual report 1998-99. In the 1998-99 financial year, the appropriation for residential care subsidies was just over $3 billion, whilst actual expenditure for that year was only $2.9 billion. For 1998-99 the appropriation for capital assistance for residential facilities was $78 million, whilst actual expenditure was only $43 million, almost half the appropriation amount. I next cite the Department of Health and Aged Care annual report 1999-2000, which does not appear to give estimates but actuals only, and is therefore not helpful in making a comparison. Finally, I cite the Department of Health and Aged Care annual report 2000-01, which notes that the budget estimate for the 2000-01 financial year residential care subsidies is $3.43 billion, whilst actual expenditure was only $3.31 billion, a reported shortfall of over $123 million.It is difficult, with this scant information, to pin down the true outcome of the budgetary allocation for nursing home beds. However, there is a strong inference that this is the case. Therefore, the lack of transparency raised by the member for Grayndler is a most prudent question to put to this House and to be answered by the minister. The former minister, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop—the mistress of projection—was notorious for her maladministration of her portfolio.Opposition members—She blamed everyone.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—She blamed her mother.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—She blamed everyone. She never accepted any responsibility for anything. She blamed the accreditation agency, every Labor premier and every Labor health minister; she never accepted accountability herself. When did you ever see her in a nursing home? You never saw her in a nursing home. You did see her in the social pages of the Sunday newspapers, holding a glass of Moet et Chandon, because that was the glamorous part of the portfolio. If she went into a nursing home, they would faint.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Would you want to wake up with her looking at you?83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—No, I certainly would not. Added to this, the former minister systematically clawed back the funding round process by simply eliminating the biennial funding and putting in its place annual funding with uncertain frequency. The net result has been to delay the allocation of funding for much needed bed places through the residential care subsidy. I call on the Minister for Ageing to reveal the forward estimates for bedding of residential care subsidies in units of measurement that the public can properly understand—that is, the number of beds. It ought not come to the point where there is this cat and mouse guesswork in properly attempting to understand whether appropriations and actual budgets are being met.In the final analysis, it is the elderly who are suffering under this government, and I have demonstrated that the current mode of administration is thoroughly defective and in need of radical transformation to make the process more accountable. The minister at the table has inherited this poisoned chalice, and I have more confidence in his capacity to deal with these issues than the member for Mackellar, who was an abject failure and only interested in her own self-promotion and wanting to sit in the chair where you are sitting, Mr Deputy Speaker. She was the one that found out there was no-one in the government who wanted to support her. The government stands condemned for its policies. I ask the minister to look after the elderly, who are the most frail and vulnerable members of the community. (Time expired)16:09:001382Panopoulos, Sophie, MPMs PANOPOULOS00AMUIndiLP10—The member for Lowe seems to have selective amnesia. He seems to have a new found care for older Australians. Todayobviously the opposition must have been at a loose end with ideas for an MPI, and they decided to remind the member for Grayndler that he is in fact the shadow minister for ageing and seniors and he should start speaking to issues relevant to his portfolio. Looking across the chamber, I actually do feel a bit sorry for the member for Grayndler, as his office does not seem to have given him a full briefing on the Howard government's achievements, but I will try and help him here today. I do wonder where the member for Grayndler has been since 1996. Perhaps we can get some ideas of his preferred areas of interest from the first two issues that he spoke about in this parliament. The first two issues that prompted the member for Grayndler to jump to his feet were cricket and rugby. Although noble sports in themselves that do provide many Australians with health and entertainment benefits, I would have thought that the member for Grayndler's first priority would have been to address his portfolio issues. Perhaps we can infer from this that the job he really wants is that of his good friend Senator Lundy—that the member for Grayndler is hankering after that preferred portfolio instead.In his disinterest in aged care, the member for Grayndler is not any different from his colleagues in the opposition. When the opposition were last in government, they never had a vision, they never cared and they never had any compassion to plan for our aged Australians. They preferred to sweep it all under the carpet and pretend it would go away, whilst they racked up a $96 billion budget deficit. They swept it under the carpet. When we came to office, lifted the carpet and provided some transparency, their shameful 13 years in office became apparent. The thing that really hurts them—and it hurts them because they know it is true—is to be reminded of their failure and their appalling record.Perhaps the member for Grayndler's briefings have also omitted these details of the past Labor government's record but, in the spirit of parliamentary cooperation, let me provide him with some information. During the 13 years of Labor, it was not only families and businesses that were crippled under the weight of high interest rates. It was not just the one million Australian workers who were suffering and abandoned by a Labor government devoid of any visional policies. Labor's shame does not stop there. Those Australians living in rural and regional Australia were also dropped off Canberra's radar. The last Labor government allowed an exodus of doctors out of rural health areas, and not once have they endorsed the coalition's $562 million regional health strategy.But there is more: they abandoned ageing Australians. Our senior Australians—who deserve dignity, compassion and decent care—were treated by the opposition when they were last in government as second-class citizens. During their 13 years, they failed to address any serious issues in the aged care sector. They could have done something about it. They had the information—they had the Gregory report—but they abandoned it and did nothing about it. They knew that the aged care sector desperately needed capital to be invested. They knew that it needed a $1.3 billion capital injection over 10 years, but they did nothing.They knew that 51 per cent of nursing home residents were living in rooms with three or more beds and they knew that 70 per cent of nursing homes did not meet relevant outcome standards, but they just sat on their hands and swept it under the carpet. It was not a priority for them, but perhaps if there were a union for aged care residents which had voting rights at Labor preselections then the member for Grayndler and the opposition would jump to their feet and start to prioritise the policies for ageing Australians.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr H.A. Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Batman should be very careful!00AMUPanopoulos, Sophie, MPMs PANOPOULOS—Let me continue my briefing for the member for Grayndler. Under the last Labor government there were only 4,000 community care packages. In the last budget this government provided for 50,000 community care packages. These allow for ageing Australians to be looked after in their own homes, where they prefer to be. Since this government came to office over 41,000 aged care places have been released—places that are guaranteed and funded. Currently there are over 168,000 operational aged care places. The government have released an unprecedented number of beds because we inherited a 10,000-bed deficit from the previous government. But you do not like to hear about that, do you? If I were a member of the opposition, I would be ashamed of the record of the Labor government and I would be very tempted to apologise to all those older Australians who suffered under your previous government, under the substandard system that you provided.In addition to the additional bed places that the Howard government has provided, $23 million in new capital grants has been made, $20 million of which is to support the continued growth and expansion of many of our aged care homes. The 2001 aged care approvals record, with its high number of places, is of particular interest to me, because nearly 50 per cent of all places have been allocated to rural and remote areas. A significant number of places have also been allocated to senior Australians from non-English speaking backgrounds, veterans and war widows, Australians who are financially and socially disadvantaged, and Australians living in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.The only thing that the member for Grayndler has done as shadow minister is to hope and pray for some vivid story about aged care. He salivates over and feeds on the misfortune of our older Australians in an attempt to get a bit of cheap publicity and get himself a bit of a profile, poor bloke. This sad state of affairs shows that the Labor Party have not changed. They have come round full circle. They still have no vision, they still have no policies and they still do not care about our older Australians.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Bills1384The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Amendment Bill 2002Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2002Transport and Regional Services Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2002Coal Industry Repeal (Validation of Proclamation) Bill 2002Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2002Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill 2002Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill 2002Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Incentives) Bill 2002Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment Bill 2002Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2002Bills1384R15031384Debate resumed.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr H.A. Jenkins)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.16:19:001384Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank all those members who have contributed to this debate. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002 amends the Migration Act 1958 to allow a person who has been taken to an offshore place to be brought to Australia in exceptional circumstances, and I have outlined what some of those exceptional circumstances might be. I have not sought to do so exhaustively, nor do I think it is appropriate in this legislation to regulate or to make it exhaustive because the sorts of circumstances which I outlined will indicate that there are often unforseen situations that we need to address. The first of the exceptional circumstances which I have identified is a situation where a person has a medical condition which cannot be adequately treated in a place where the person has been taken. And I do not think any reasonable member would take the view that, if there were a need to evacuate somebody for the purposes of proper medical care and attention, that should not be able to happen. Certainly we ought not to be constrained, because it would open up for that person opportunities in terms of either litigation or further applications in Australia which would not be open to others.The second is for the transfer of people to Australia in order to give evidence as witnesses in a criminal trial such as people-smuggling prosecutions. Some of the people who have been transferred offshore could possibly be witnesses. Again, I do not think anybody would want a situation to arise where the trial might be aborted because we were not able to bring the evidence. People would not want a person who was to be giving evidence to be gratuitously given a better outcome, in terms of being able to lodge applications onshore, than others.The third is that there may well be situations where we are arranging for people to go home and the easiest and most direct route might be to transit Australia. I do not think that members would take the view that, for failure of legislation in an area like this, we could not land and have people here for a fairly short period of time in order to ensure that, in doing that, we did not have some people—like we saw in relation to Tampa—offering to bring litigation and showing how clever they were in order to stay in Australia when they were going home, either under removal arrangements or voluntarily.The amendments will ensure that any `transitory person', as they are called—and I do not think there is a great deal wrong with that term; a suggestion was raised that we should perhaps have some other term, but it is descriptive not of the person but of what is actually happening to them: they are transiting Australia—cannot apply for any visa, and thus use all our processes to delay their transit through Australia. These amendments complement the changes introduced by the government in September 2001 to ensure that persons cannot seek to use our international obligations under the refugee convention to obtain a migration outcome. Of course, any persons brought to Australia under these proposed provisions will not receive any more favourable outcome than they would have received as a result of their claims being assessed in the offshore place to which they have been sent.During the course of the debate there was a `theme'—as I think it was described by my shadow counterpart. I understand the reason that people might want to use that theme, but there are some points that I feel obliged to take up regarding the policies surrounding illegal entrants to Australia. Whether they are called `unlawful non-citizens' or other terms that are used, there are some people who want to promote the view that because people may have had a refugee experience, even though in coming to Australia they have left a place in which they were safe and secure, in some way they are people that should be almost idolised for what they have been prepared to do; the risks that they have been prepared to take. And in a sense, I think, around that, some people take the view in trying to build up that positive image of that sort of behaviour that, as a consequence, I should be particularly a focal point for attack. I do not take offence very easily. I have been in parliament a long time. I am used to most attacks that can be made. During my political career I have made the point very strongly that there should be no place for racism in public life or in any public policy. That is my position. I make it clear. I have said it a number of times. I would not be the minister if I had to implement racist policies. I just make that clear. But just because you are dealing with people who come from some particular countries or backgrounds does not mean that the policies that you are implementing are racist.Let me make this point: if you have a refugee and humanitarian program that is targeting people on the basis that they have suffered human rights abuses, it is not surprising that you do not get too many people from Britain or the United States or Canada and that you are getting people from the Sudan and from various parts of the Middle East and Asia. And nobody accuses us of running of racist refugee program because we choose people on the basis of their human rights suffering. It is obviously a program that is focused upon assisting those people that have the greatest need for support. Equally, when we are dealing with people who have entered Australia without lawful authority, who have not sought to obtain a visa, we do not select them, we do not choose them; they self-select. The fact that they come from particular countries or particular backgrounds does not mean that, because we treat them all in the same way, we are applying racist policies. It is an absolute contortion of reason and debate to try to mount that sort of argument. But it has been mounted, and I find it very disappointing There are some other matters. I understand the sensitivities about these matters. The Pacific solution, it is said, is unravelling. And it is said it is not working.83YHoare, Kelly, MP0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—It is a question of what is working. I have seen the letters; the letter writing campaign is going very well. People are getting up this argument that you do not get boats during the monsoon season.83CMcFarlane, Jann, MP0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—`Correct', the honourable member says. Why did we get boats in the last monsoon season—1,300 people? Why did we, the year before, get 2,600 people in the same four months, but in this year we received none? The idea that nothing has happened, when we had 3,500 people and a pipeline of a very extensive nature right through Indonesia and into South Asia—why has it suddenly stopped for four months?849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—They're not going to keep taking them. You know that.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—The reality is that a range of measures, which include the Pacific solution, is having an impact. That is the reality.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—And it will not continue to work.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I am saying it will continue to work, and you need to have the determination to make it work. But the point I would make about the Pacific solution is that it was not characterised as being the only aspect of policy that we have been pursuing. That is the whole point. You have to see these issues in the context of the efforts that we have put into dealing with issues at the source and with source countries and the issues that we have dealt with in transit countries. Operation Relex: it has to be seen in context in relation to those who were seeking to get here. Their objective is to get here and to land in Australia and to be supported in Australia. The smugglers have told them: `Look, you're going into detention. Just wait it out.' It was a question of perceptions. We have broken the perception offshore that Australia is now an easy target. That is the perception that has been broken. The Pacific solution plays a part in that—and it is working.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—You control the perceptions.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—The Pacific solution was never characterised as sending people there so that they would never be processed and would essentially be locked up in the Pacific. It was never characterised as that. It was characterised, quite correctly, as a place in which processing would be undertaken and in which decisions were going to be undertaken, essentially by the UNHCR or by us using UNHCR processes, which would not involve the very extended procedures we have here with the RRT and also the access to judicial review. What we are looking at now is an arrangement in which, as that processing proceeds, we are able to give effect to each of the measures.Christmas Island has been mentioned. I want to take that point up because I think Christmas Island has to be seen in context. These people have not been in the process of booking in. We do not know how many people are coming or when they will come. They make those decisions. But the ombudsman made the point that in our planning and in our responses we need to be looking forward and thinking about and planning for all the contingencies. Christmas Island is about contingencies. It is not a view that we have formed that we are going to see boats arriving tomorrow or next week or next month. It is a view about properly planning for the sorts of contingencies that we might meet. In this matter I think it is important that we get this bill. I think it is important that we are able to deal with a range of contingencies that I have explained to my opposition counterpart. There are all sorts of contingencies that you need to think about from time to time and if you do not have them in mind and try and deal with them you can be left with situations in which people's lives and circumstances could be very much at risk. That is one of the issues here. We do not know how, as processing goes on, these matters are going to unfold. There are a variety of situations that we might have to address. They are complex. I have explained them to the opposition shadow minister so that she would be aware of them. I would hope that good sense would prevail and people would see this bill for being what it is: a bill designed to ensure that the matters about which there was agreement last year are able to be given effect—and properly.The shadow minister wrote to me and I am aware of the amendment that is proposed today. In relation to that amendment, the first point that was made on which some assurance was sought, and it came up during the course of the debate, was in relation to refugees—whether refugees would be transferred to Australia under these arrangements. Let me make it very clear: legislation that has already been enacted enables us to resettle, from offshore, refugees. A specific visa class has been created. It is in the legislation. We are seeking for countries to be under effective international burden sharing arrangements and there is some indication that we are going to get that from a number of countries which have volunteered to participate in resettling some of the people off the Tampa and some of the other people. We have said we would do our fair share. That means some people will be coming to Australia. That was always clear. Before the election the Prime Minister said we will share in the burden. He was outlining how what we have here was going to work.I do propose an amendment which is quite clear in its terms. It will specifically exclude a person who has been assessed as a refugee for the purposes of the refugee convention from the definition of `transitory person'. That definition is being amended in that way to put it beyond doubt. I do not think it needs to be put beyond doubt but my view was that as the question had been raised we ought to deal with it and deal with it in a way which was explicit, and the legislation will do that. That amendment was in the course of preparation and is ready to be moved this afternoon.There were two other matters raised, one in relation to how we might deal with matters where I do not think it is yet appropriate to foreshadow the way in which we might deal with them. I know there are some people arguing in relation to dealing with the very difficult situation in relation to Afghanistan that if we are returning Afghans—particularly under the reintegration arrangements where the Prime Minister has foreshadowed some financial assistance—those arrangements need to be looked at. People need to be able to make some objective decisions about them. It ought not to be on the basis that you can essentially unwind those arrangements by having in place some safe haven which essentially gives people access to income and access to security and freedom within Australia when you are saying to others, `Go back now. Make it a voluntary decision, but go back now.'I am happy to continue discussing these matters in a constructive way. I want to do that. I make the point that I have always tried that in relation to these issues. There are areas in which there will be a contest; if there is to be a contest, I will be a vigorous combatant, let me assure you. But if we can work away at things in a constructive manner, I will always endeavour to do so.In that spirit, I make the final point in relation to the last matter raised by the shadow minister's amendment, and I have confirmed this in a letter to the shadow minister, and that is that I will arrange for amendments to the bill to take into account her concerns regarding the provision of access for transitory persons to a review mechanism through the Refugee Review Tribunal in the circumstances that were outlined in her address. Those circumstances are that they have been in Australia for a period of at least six months following their transfer and it is evident that they have been cooperating throughout that period with authorities involved in their return process. In other words, we do not want a situation where somebody is saying, `I won't apply for a document that I got rid of in order to frustrate your efforts.' If they were doing that, it would not apply. But if they are prepared to cooperate and still cannot be moved—and that can happen in some situations—then we will include that. If those amendments had been ready today, I would have done it, but they are not. I am happy to give the assurance that that will happen in the Senate next week. In conclusion, I hope that this legislation, for the reasons I have outlined, can have the support of the opposition. I think it is in the national interest and I think it is in the national interest that we achieve the bill quickly.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr H.A. Jenkins)—Order! The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable the Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after that be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is:That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.All of that opinion say aye; to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—You voted yes.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—I voted yes because that opposes your amendment. You voted yes. You were opposing your amendment.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—We are voting for our amendment.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! If it would suit the convenience of the House I will clarify what the question is. The question is:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.16:41:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Jenkins) 77Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Windsor, A.H.C.Worth, P.M.59Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.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'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.Original question agreed to.Bill read a second time.1389Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation) (4.51 p.m.)—I present a supplementary memorandum to the bill, and I move the government amendment as circulated:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 18), omit subparagraph (iii), substitute: (iii) disembarked in that other country;but does not include a person who has been assessed to be a refugee for the purposes of the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol.Question agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.1389Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation) (4.52 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That the bill be now read a third time.16:52:001389Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—I rise to speak on the third reading of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002. It is very important that I make a few brief remarks on the occasion of the third reading, because there have been important developments in relation to this bill since I addressed the House in the second reading debate earlier today. There have been discussions between the government and the opposition on this bill, and an important amendment has been agreed to by the government. I have before me amendment sheet VW239. The amendment agreed to by the opposition and the government is important for this reason: it shows that the Pacific solution is now dead. The government has accepted opposition amendments because they are intelligent, effective and responsible public policy. We are pleased that the government has accepted our amendments and that it has admitted the inevitable: it has dispensed with the expensive charade that was the Pacific solution and done so as soon as the election was over.I congratulate the government on the amendment before the House, but I also congratulate it on amendments it will take up in another place. These congratulations are due because the government has finally come to its senses and followed Labor's lead in beginning to restore decency, responsibility and compassion to refugee policy in this country. Let us have no more misrepresentation and public slurs on the opposition or others over this issue. The government cannot continue to attack a position it is daily being forced to adopt. Labor have led the way in taking this debate forward; we will continue to lead in the national interest in this and other areas of public policy.As a final comment, I note my and Labor's considerable thanks for the outstanding efforts of the member for Lalor, the shadow minister for population and immigration. It is in no small measure due to her and my parliamentary colleagues that Labor can claim victory on this bill today.16:54:001390Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—It is no reflection on the Leader of the Opposition that I say he may not have heard all my remarks in reply to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Bill 2002, because I outlined there the way in which the Pacific solution was intended to operate, the way in which it is operating and the way in which those results are being achieved.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It's collapsed.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—No, it has not. This bill deals with the issues that were quite clear when the Prime Minister said we would play our part in relation to resettling refugees.DT4Crean, Simon, MP0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Yes, he did. He said that we would play our part in relation to those matters. It deals with the arrangements by which those who are found, under the alternative assessment arrangements—which are far more beneficial for Australia—to be refugees are able to be moved. That is to ensure that the Pacific solution operates as it was intended.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Business13901390Mr TUCKEY (O'Connor—Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) (4.56 p.m.)—I move:That orders of the day Nos 2, 3 and 4, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.Question agreed to.Parliamentary Zone1390139016:56:001390Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals for works in the Parliamentary Zone which were presented to the House on 11 March 2002, namely: (1) construction of childcare centre playgrounds, Treasury Building, and(2) refurbishment of Communications Centre, John Gorton Building.Section 5(1) of the Parliament Act 1974 provides that no building or other work is to be erected on land within the parliamentary zone unless the minister has caused a proposal for the erection of the building or works to be laid before each house of the parliament and the proposal has been approved by resolution of each house.The Department of Finance and Administration is currently refurbishing the Treasury Building, which occupies a prominent position within the parliamentary zone. As part of that refurbishment work, DOFA is proposing to include a child-care centre on the ground floor of the eastern side of the building, known as block B.One of the main licensing requirements for the centre is to provide adequate space for outdoor play areas with play equipment appropriate to the needs of children in the program. DOFA is therefore proposing to construct two outdoor playgrounds as part of the centre—one within the northern courtyard and the other on the southern podium of the Treasury Building. The works for the playgrounds comprise the installation of safety fencing, putting in appropriate ground material, installation of playground equipment, shade structures and associated landscaping. Plans showing the location and detail of the proposed works are at attachment A. As the two outdoor playgrounds are a licensing requirement of the overall childhood centre, the works for the centre cannot proceed until parliamentary approval has been granted for the two playgrounds.The subject site is in a designated area as defined by the National Capital Plan. Consequently, all external works proposed require works approval from the National Capital Authority pursuant to section 12(1) of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988. The authority has examined the proposal and is prepared to grant approval to the works associated with the construction of the two playgrounds. Although the Treasury Building is not separately listed on the Register of the National Estate, it forms part of the Parliament House Vista, which is on the Register of the National Estate. The Australian Heritage Commission has been consulted on the proposal and has advised that, subject to some minor changes being made, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the National Estate values of the Parliament House Vista. A copy of the commission's advice is at attachment B. The changes suggested by the commission have been incorporated as appropriate. Approval for the works is sought under section 5(1) of the Parliament Act 1974.Regarding the John Gorton Building Communications Centre refurbishment, section 5(1) of the Parliament Act 1974 provides that no building or other work is to be erected on land within the parliament zone unless the minister has caused a proposal for the erection of the building or work to be laid before each house of the parliament and the proposal has been approved by resolution of each house.The Department of Finance and Administration, on behalf of Environment Australia, a tenant in the John Gorton Building, is proposing to convert the former Communications Centre located in the basement area of the building into offices, a library and meeting rooms. The Communications Centre has a gross floor area of 3,589 square metres. The proposed refurbishment would provide a net useable floor area of 3,309 square metres, which is intended to be leased to Environment Australia for occupation by the Australian Greenhouse Office. The external works associated with the refurbishment of the Communications Centre include the provision of six external steel-framed glass skylights, four light courts and related modifications to the surface car park above. The modifications to the surface car park will result in the loss of 29 car parking spaces, thereby reducing the total number of car parking spaces available in this car park to 345. From the authority's planning point of view, this reduction in car parking spaces will not have an undue adverse impact in the area. A plan showing the location of the Communications Centre and details of the proposed works are at attachment A.The subject site is in a designated area as defined in the National Capital Plan. Consequently, all external works proposed require works approval from the National Capital Authority pursuant to section 12(1)(b) of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988. The authority has examined the proposal and is prepared to grant approval to the works.Although the John Gorton Building and the area of proposed works are not separately listed on the Register of the National Estate, it forms part of the Parliament House Vista which is on the Register of the National Estate. The Australian Heritage Commission has been consulted on the external works associated with the proposal and has advised that the proposal will not have an adverse affect on the National Estate values of the place. A copy of the commission's advice is at attachment B. Approval for the works is sought under section 5(1) of the Parliament Act 1974. I commend the motion to the House.17:02:001391McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I would like to support the motion and commend the government on the proposal for works in the parliamentary zone, particularly the construction of the child-care centre playgrounds for the Treasury Building. One of the reasons I am doing this is because, as you know, I have a long time interest in and experience with community based child care, and particularly I see it as a mechanism for families, for parents, to participate in the work force. In a speech called `Balancing work and family and staying competitive', the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Jenny Macklin, said:We are certainly having fewer babies. The birth rate in Australia has dropped from 3.5 babies per woman in the early 1960s, to 1.84 a decade ago, to 1.75 babies per woman in 2000.One of the solutions to dealing with this difficulty is to develop more flexible models of parental leave and income support and improve access to high quality, affordable child care. The proposal for works in the Forrest child-care centre is an example of improving high quality by improving the playground areas. Also, we commend the government for giving some practical application to their policy on family friendly workplaces. Labor also supports family friendly workplaces. I draw to your attention an article by Adele Horin in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 November, which said: Working mothers have less access to family friendly workplace policies than women workers who don't have children, a new study shows.This study was carried out by Edith Gray of the Research School of Social Sciences at ANU, showing that fathers are more likely to have access to family friendly entitlements than other workers. But they rarely use them. So anything that improves family friendly policies is to be applauded. I would also like to say, when looking at this issue, that it is a terrible shame that the government has not considered reviewing the funding formulae for all types of children's services in Australia. In my own electorate, 14 children's services have closed down in the last five years, the main reason being the funding formulae. In an article by Chloe Saltau in the Age of 8 March headed `Care costs hit families', she said:... rising costs were making day care for children prohibitive for some working parents.In the survey of local government day care centres, 40 per cent of centres said parents had given up work to care for their children, and 60 per cent said they had to increase fees this year.The findings come as the government tries to encourage parents, particularly sole parents, back into paid work as part of its social security reforms.The report by the Australian Services Union, which represents child-care workers in council-run centres, pointed out the need to look at the funding options and the funding structure. In looking at types of child-care centres and workplaces, I draw attention to the fact that this House, in the non-sitting period, has 1,300 people in the building and, in sitting periods, 3,000-plus. It became obvious a long time ago that there are child-care needs for the workers in Parliament House to be looked at. The next step the government needs to take is to treat child-care needs in this house seriously. The Treasury Building, which is a large building, has fewer workers than this place. I will read from a media release of Senator Kate Lundy put out yesterday:Now, workers in Parliament House will again be surveyed on their child care needs. A 1995 survey indicated substantial demand then for child care for those working in Parliament House, so the 2002 survey is expected to indicate substantial increased demand.There has been a bit of a problem with this survey in that it has not been sent out to every worker in the house. Yesterday the member for Watson raised this issue with the Speaker and asked that the survey be sent to everyone in the house. As Senator Crossin said:The child care survey is a positive step towards gaining a child care facility for and in Parliament House.`What (working) women want' is the headline of an article in the Age of 2 August 2001 by Denise Ryan, in which she said:Many argue that working mothers won't put themselves forward until the workplace offers greater flexibility.Quentin Bryce, the federal sex discrimination commissioner from 1988-93, says progress appears to have stalled.... ... ...... these days I just see a lot of lip service paid to work and family issues.The article goes on:Pru Goward, who has taken up the role as federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, says Australia must address these issues. “Unless we look at how we treat women, and how they integrate work and family, then the low birth rate will continue, creating fundamental population issues.”I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the HREOC report on pregnancy and work urges government in bipartisan spirit to implement all the recommendations in that report. I particularly draw the attention of the House to the issue that, in creating a quality child-care environment in the Forrest child-care place at the Treasury Building, they do not forget that there are needs in this house that must be addressed. So we support the motion of the government but we also call for action in regard to other needs. 17:08:001393Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I rise to support this motion not just as a member of parliament or the spokesman on family and community services but also as a parent. The hardest and the most important job that there is in this country is nurturing the next generation of young Australians. There are fewer places and fewer jobs which are more hostile to those nurturing needs in families than being a parliamentarian or indeed working in this house.The work force trends in this country are ones that are hostile to the role of parenting and, increasingly throughout our whole community, work is intruding more and more into family life. It is very important that we as a society recognise that. We must recognise it in our workplaces and we should recognise it in this workplace, which is why I am so pleased to see this motion on the Notice Paper. It has been a long time coming—a very long time coming. It is a bit of a pity that we cannot necessarily provide the child care within this house and that it is in fact down the road because that in itself, I know, will pose very considerable difficulties for members of this House. Nevertheless, it is a move forward. We must continue to give much more serious consideration to not just child-care arrangements for this house but the nurturing role that we all play in our own families. There are many practices of this House that are hostile to the parenting role and there will be many more reforms that will be required in this institution if we are to follow through with the most important reform that we could implement as representatives of the people—doing a lot more to assist families with their children and a lot more to stop that clash between the world of work and the nurturing roles of parents. So I welcome this motion as something that is long overdue, although we have got a long way to go.17:10:001393Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I too join my colleagues in welcoming this particular motion and I would like to go into a bit of detail as to the basis for that support. First of all, I think there would be a great majority of people employed in the Treasury Building who would be within my constituency as residents. Of course I will always support any move—be it by government or be it by private enterprise—to improve access to work based child care. It has been a long time in coming in beginning to be accepted as the norm but we have a great deal of distance still to go in that debate. I think I can speak pretty securely and safely in relation to representing those workers in that building when I say that, like me, they will very much welcome having access to work based child care.When we talk about work based child care we are not talking about it purely from the point of view of the mother. There are many male members opposite me in this House who also have young children. I think it is very important to remember that a parent—be they male or female—should be represented in any statistical analysis taken when you are trying to establish the need for a work based child care service. That also comes across to this very building. Some people in the public could misrepresent a call for work based child care in this building as a call by the members of the parliament and therefore also in some minds they may consider that that is a call by the female members of this parliament. In my view, nothing could be further from the truth, and in fact that is quite misleading.There are, as we know, 4,000-odd people employed in this building when both chambers are in operation, both male and female, many of whom have young children and come from all ranks within this building. We are lucky because we—the members of this House, the 150 of us—have the opportunity to stand in here on behalf of all of the workers in this building when we talk about the need for child care here. I would like to think that we could extrapolate this motion and feel quite secure in imagining—and quite rightfully so—that, as the government is happy to look at work based child care in the Treasury Building given that the work force there is much smaller than in this building, and the government would equally smile upon a similar proposal for this very building. For that reason I am extremely happy to endorse the proposal on behalf of the work force within the Treasury Building, but also, I hope, in predicting similar support for such an enterprise within this very workplace as well. The other point that I want to make is more a question to the minister, I think, and that is based on the fact that these works are being undertaken within the parliamentary zone. I am pretty sure that I am right in saying that under normal circumstances such proposals, be they works proposed within the parliamentary zone, would in fact go before the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. I have been a member of that committee now for two terms and am looking forward to membership in this coming term. As the member for Canberra I am very happy to be on that committee. But I have to say that this highlights to me very strongly the delay the government has enjoyed in bringing this parliament back from the election and therefore in constituting the committees of this place.Like many members in this place, I am an extremely strong supporter of the committee process and I participate in it in a very forward, active and positive way. I think it is a bit of an indictment on the minister that he has had to bring this proposal before the House simply because that parliamentary committee has not been established in time to entertain such a proposal. I would like to think that we will not see many more of these before that committee is set up and operating and in a position to do the work I believe it is there to do, like other committees—that is, to consider this sort of proposal. I am not in any way suggesting this is an improper action, because the minister has said that under an act of the parliament of, I think, 1974 he is able to bring it forward here. If I am wrong, I would be very happy for him to refute what I have said, but as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories I have a very strong feeling that this very motion would have been a piece of normal business for that committee. I am, therefore, very hopeful that that committee, like all others, will be ready and able to carry out its work as soon as possible. It is a very important part of the work of this parliament, and it is about time that the government got off its chair, to put it in a pleasant way, and got those committees up and running. Then we would not be doing this here; the committee, in fact, would be able to look at this motion in a far more constituted fashion.17:16:001394Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I also rise to support this motion from the minister to build a child-care centre in the Treasury Building. I was quite disturbed to hear the contribution from the member for Canberra. I think she has raised quite a serious matter in relation to the issue of these works in the parliamentary precinct not going through the proper and due processes, seemingly. I am glad that the member for Canberra raised those concerns. They are very serious ones, and she has a great deal of respect for the processes which are to be gone through and I wish her well in her future work on that committee.Various issues have been raised about family friendly workplaces in this debate. The reason we are standing up and speaking on what would usually be a fairly procedural type of motion is that in recent weeks and months we have seen the way in which the issue of child care has been raised in this house. As a question to the Speaker yesterday indicated, our concern is that the survey, which is going to be the definitive response and provide the definitive research to decide whether or not there is a need to provide child-care facilities in this house, has not gone to every single worker in this house. It has been pointed out that there are 1,300 people here through non-sitting weeks; through sitting weeks there are 3,000 people here. We must ensure that that survey is distributed to each and every person in this place, and we must encourage each and every person in this place to fill out that survey and to send it back.When I talk about the 3,000 people working in this place, I must take the opportunity to encourage new members to go below the ground floor and have a look at where the workers are in this place. These workers work underground; they have no natural light; as you would be aware, they even have street names for the alleyways down there where they work. I encourage new members to go down and say g'day to the workers and have a look to see where the real powerhouse of this place is. Prior to the last federal election, the ACTU ran a poll for women voters about the kinds of issues they felt were important in the workplace. It was quite an extraordinary poll, with more than 1,100 participating. Affordable and accessible child care as a top response came from 306 women in that survey, but that is child care alone. All the responses from all the women in that survey particularly related to family friendly workplaces, to quality of work and flexibility of work and the necessity for the public sector and the private sector to be able to provide workplaces or work regimes in which family and work responsibilities are better balanced.The responses included, of course, job security. A lot of the corporate collapses that the coalition government has presided over have been in areas where you find a majority of low paid women casual workers—for example, in the garment industry. So, job security was important to women, as were provision of health and aged care and community services and family friendly work policies and affordable childcare. While I support the motion from the minister to build this child-care centre in Treasury, I also call on him to use his ministerial influence and his influence in the cabinet to try to ensure that every single worker in this place receives a copy of that survey and is encouraged to fill it out.17:21:001395King, Catherine, MPMs KING00AMRBallaratALP00—I rise in support of this motion, and I am very pleased to be able to do so. I am very pleased that the government is recognising the needs of workers in the parliamentary zone for child care. I am, however, disappointed that the child-care survey to look at the needs of workers in this house has been inadequately distributed. I only found out about the survey as I was leaving on Tuesday night, when I happened to see a table outside the House of Representatives entrance and grabbed a copy of the survey. It had run out by about nine o'clock the next morning and no more copies were supplied.The survey itself is constructed in such a way as to make it inordinately difficult for people to express their need for child care in this house. The questions have been constructed in such a way as to make it very difficult for people to say that they would prefer to have child care in this house and in this house alone. It is extremely important to recognise the uniqueness of this as a workplace. The 3,000-plus workers who work in this house during parliamentary sitting periods are here for long hours. They are often not able to get home; they are often not able to get out to meet the needs of their children. It is extremely important that those child-care needs are looked at in relation to the unique nature of this workplace.I am very pleased to support the motion to provide child-care facilities in the parliamentary triangle, but I also think it is important that we look seriously at the need for child care in this house, and I do not think the survey that is currently being poorly distributed is actually doing so. I ask the minister to use whatever influence he can in his position to make sure that every person within this house gets a copy of the survey, is able to express the needs for child care in this house and that the issue is treated seriously.17:23:001395Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I feel that we finally have some action. Not only is consideration being given to child-care facilities in the parliamentary zone but to child-care facilities in this house. We have come a long way since 1923 when Edith Cowan was elected as the first woman in parliament in Western Australia. She brought to the notice of the then minister for transport some of the difficulties. She said that, if he took a pram with a child in a tram and paid the extra shilling, he would know how difficult it is to carry children. As women we are trying to get the point across to all males how difficult it is if we want to combine work and child care. I was very pleased that the Manager of Opposition Business in the House was also able to express, as a family man, how much it would help him and his lifestyle if he were able to use a facility in this parliament that would enable children to be cared for and cared for in a proper way.Since we have celebrated the centenary of federal government and since so many women make up the 150 people in this House and those in the Senate—and we waited 43 years before we got the first woman elected federally—perhaps this government will finally give due consideration to providing the adequate facilities that are required. We cannot have rhetoric any more. We say that we want to see more of our talented women stay in the work force. We do not want to waste the expertise that has been generated through the education and learning of those wonderful women. We cannot say to them, `We want you to be members of parliament but we don't want you to have children. If you have children, we don't want you to be bothered with them.' What we are now saying to the parliament is: `It is about time you wake up, stand up and get counted.' People are going to continue to have children and families. We have to make sure that we are leaders of this nation and provide the proper facilities. Those facilities should be first and foremost provided by this parliament before this parliament instructs businesses out there on what they should do for their employees. I commend the minister for bringing the motion before the House, but we welcome him to come into the House to say when construction will commence on child-care facilities in these premises, not necessarily just in the parliamentary zone.Question agreed to.Adjournment1396Mr TUCKEY (O'Connor—Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) (5.26 p.m.)—I move:That the House do now adjourn.139617:26:001396Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—In the grievance debate earlier this week I raised, in this very House, the government's failure to effectively assist unemployed Australians to find work. During the debate I outlined three areas: a lack of protection for casual workers; the trialling of workers, where they were trialled for some time—and numerous workers were trialled—without receiving any pay; and the lack of assistance for disadvantaged job seekers. I was horrified when I heard the Minister for Employment Services incorrectly quote what I had said in that speech. Then he went on to defend the government's policy of breaching by discussing the breaching of Stephen, Bruce and John. If the veracity of the information he presented to this House were similar to the accuracy with which he quoted me, then I would have to say that it brings into doubt his contribution to this House at question time.The minister also spent some time denigrating the Pearce report, and I can understand why he did this. It is because it identifies a number of areas which the government has failed in and problems with the breaching process. This report says that the breaching system has been designed and administered primarily to enforce compliance, rather than to actually assist job seekers. It says that the system often functions in an appropriate manner but on many occasions it is excessively punitive. The report says:Moreover, penalties for the breaches are often too severe, thereby causing unnecessary and unjustifiable hardship.It goes on to point out that the hardship is not only for the person who incurs the breach but also for the whole family. The review makes 36 recommendations in all as to how the government can actually rectify the problem. I look forward to the Minister for Employment Services coming into this House and adopting some of those recommendations and concentrating on creating jobs and finding work for people rather than, as I said on Monday, making them jump through hoops. I would be most grateful if he would actually look at some of the issues that I raised. It is interesting that the federal government spent $214 million less in the budget addressing long-term unemployment, and I refer to an article in the Newcastle Herald of today in which it says that there were about 386,000 breaches last year which involved Job Network providers. They feel that they are being used—that rather than assisting people to find work, they are being put into the role of policing whether or not a person turns up for an appointment.Just as the minister came to this House with some cases, I am also bringing some—from as recently as this week. A lady had an appointment at Charlestown Centrelink. Recently the buses have been changed, and unfortunately the bus that she was to catch to her interview was cancelled. When she phoned Centrelink to talk to them about this, they said, `Bad luck, your benefits have been suspended.' They are suspended until such time as they review her case. We heard about another lady: Centrelink lost her diary and she was unable to attend an interview. They actually did not notify her. What happened? She was breached. Another lady, from Swansea, had an 18 per cent breach of her payments for six months. That was because she had made a mistake in putting down the amount that she had earned; she had poor literacy skills. As a consequence, she was punished not only for her error but because of her poor literacy skills. We also heard about a lady who has been receiving youth allowance: once again, Centrelink failed to send out a notice for an appointment. She did not attend the appointment and was breached. (Time expired)139717:31:001397Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—When Captain Cook first set foot on Australian soil over 230 years ago, he came charged with a number of tasks by the British Admiralty. As we are all aware, the first of these was to rediscover the great southern continent—New Holland—and survey as much of its coastline as possible. A second priority was the collection of biological specimens and the recording of any notable animal life. Thirdly, Cook was instructed to make initial contact with the local inhabitants if possible.Contact was eventually made. However, history relates that the first exchange between the crew of the Endeavour and the local Geawegal people was not a happy one. In fact, it involved hostilities: spears or darts being thrown and warning shots fired from a musket. Cook's first experiences in Australia and this momentous meeting between two cultures took place in my electorate, which of course now bears the explorer's name. Unfortunately, despite the initial meeting's importance and the importance of the further, more peaceful, contact that was made during the week that the Endeavour remained in the area, there is a real lack of solid information about these instances in the history of black and white relations in Australia. Conversely, we have a wealth of material on the plant and animal species that were encountered over these days.Recently it came to my attention that there might be more relics from this initial encounter than the notes in the ship's logs and drawings. It appears that the crew of the Endeavour were also able to take a number of fishing spears, hunting spears and bark shields with them back to Britain for study. For obvious reasons, the whereabouts of these relics are of considerable interest to their traditional owners, the Geawegal people of the Sutherland shire area. Their symbolism also makes them of interest to Australian society at large.In mid-2000, along with my colleague Danna Vale, I was able to generate some local interest in the retrieval of at least a few of these items from Britain, but our campaign ran into difficulties over the precise location of the artefacts as well as the sensitivities of raising the issue at the same time that Australia was trying to secure the return of various indigenous human remains from the British Museum in London.Eighteen months down the track, I am happy to inform the House that there have been a number of developments that mean we could soon be in a position to see at least some of these significant objects back in the country. Following research done by local journalist John Mulcair, the relics have been located in a history museum that is run by Trinity College at Cambridge University. While initial informal approaches to that museum—made by Councillor Dawn Emerson of the Sutherland Shire Council—for the return of the spears have been rejected by the college, there have been some encouraging indications that a more formal approach could be acceptable.If an approach was made by a major museum or institution, if it had the full support of the original owners, if it did not request the return of all the relics and if it was proposed as a `permanent loan' rather than a direct return, the request might be successful. Obviously there are some considerable compromises involved in these conditions, but I believe that the benefits of having these relics on display in Australia clearly outweigh the ridiculous situation of leaving them in Britain, where many of them are not even on display. As a final note, I was pleased to receive an email from ATSIC recently saying that, following consultation with the Geawegal people, a letter of support from that organisation would also be sent to the museum at Cambridge. While ATSIC's focus remains on retrieving human remains, their assistance in this case will be welcome.There are a number of good reasons to fight to have these spears returned—the first of which is of course to recognise that their traditional owners are the Geawegal people in my area. The second, at a more national level, is that they are important reminders of a major occasion in the history of relations between modern and ancient Australia. Thirdly, having such items on display in a local museum—or, with the consent of the Geawegal people, in a national museum—would be an excellent way to bring this important era to life for Australian schoolchildren. I commend the efforts of those involved in this campaign and look forward to more positive progress being made.139817:35:001398Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Last month I reported to the House a long list of examples of the double standards and hypocrisy of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I also promised to provide the House with an update through the term of the parliament. This is my first update on the hypocrisy of the member for Warringah.Take, for instance, his attack on the Labor opposition in this place on 21 February. He described our policy on asylum seekers, which is tough but compassionate, as `oxymoronic' and a `contradiction'. Of course, he is the master of the oxymoron, the master of the contradiction. His welfare reform policy is tough love. How can a person who has a welfare reform policy of tough love be complaining and alleging contradictions on the other side of the House? This is a rank piece of hypocrisy and a rank double standard by the member for Warringah.The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has also continued his attack on Labor's political families. Every day in question time he is at it, like a broken record. This is another example of the minister for employment leading with his chin—he takes a big swing and then leaves himself wide open. There has been a convention in this place that members should not drag each other's families into parliamentary debate. The minister for employment has thrown this convention overboard. Like most of the conventions, it has been thrown overboard by this so-called conservative government. In the process, the minister for employment has left himself wide open to a charge of hypocrisy. He is the last person in this place who should be lecturing others on family history. He wants us to believe that he is a family man with no history—a conservative cleanskin—who can lecture and patronise other members in the House. Already this year we have heard him attack the Leader of the Opposition as being genetically engineered to lead the Labor Party. Along with many other members, I respect and admire parents like Frank Crean, who have always done the right thing. They have always raised their children and protected their genes, rather than giving them away.The minister for employment should be the last person in this place to talk about hereditary peers. His hypocrisy on this issue is breathtaking, especially when applied to his own side of politics. The Howard government has a long list of so-called hereditary peers—the members for Mayo, Richmond, Parramatta, Berowra, Flinders, Goldstein, Higgins and Gwydir—plus one hereditary `disappear', the member for Warringah. He is even attacking the history of the Costello family. I am indebted to the research by the member for Bendigo, which points out that the Treasurer had a forebear who was a member of parliament, Paddy Costello. The history of the Victorian parliament records the following entry: Arrived in Port Phillip in August 1840. Various occupations. Early innkeeper, city councillor. After expulsion from parliament for offences committed at a Mornington by-election, was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment but soon released after petitions from his wife, members of parliament, the mayor and aldermen of the city and citizens of Melbourne. As the member for Bendigo so aptly pointed out, he was a member of parliament who had the numbers to get into parliament and then the numbers to get out of jail shortly thereafter. Some might have said that he was as crooked as a dog's hind leg.In the remaining moments let me address some matters about Bill Heffernan, another rank hypocrite and master of double standards on the other side of politics. I first had a debate with Bill Heffernan when he attacked one of my constituents, John Marsden, some 18 months ago. I say: judge Senator Heffernan on his results. What has been the result of those serious allegations levelled against my constituent John Marsden? In fact, nothing has been proven. No action has been taken in an 18-month period simply because there was no action to take. There was no outcome in this particular matter, with allegations similar to those levelled against Justice Kirby.Also judge him by his principles. If he really regarded fighting against child sexual abuse as such a strong principle, he would go public about the Governor-General—he would say something about the Governor-General. Instead, he has been at meetings of the executive council with the head of state. He has not said anything publicly, only taken the coward's course, which was to background the Australian newspaper, followed by another coward's course of slandering and slurring another citizen, Justice Kirby, as he did the other evening. I say: judge Senator Heffernan by his results, which are dismal. Judge him by his principles, which are another example of double standards and hypocrisy.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I remind the member for Werriwa of the obligations he has under standing order 75.139917:40:001399Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNP10—I rise in the adjournment debate tonight to raise an issue I noticed in the press, associated with the last flight of Ansett, from Perth to Sydney. I was concerned at the playing of the last post and associating the last post with that last flight of Ansett. Ansett was a commercial entity and suffered a corporate collapse. I believe that corporate collapse should not associate itself with the playing of the last post. The last post was played as flight AN152 taxied at Perth airport. There were water cannons creating an arch for the aircraft to pass through as it taxied, and the last post was played in association with this last flight. The aircraft was filled with paying passengers and quite a lot of journalists, and I noticed that there was a reference to the fact that this was a publicity stunt.It really does disturb me to think that there are people who can be so disrespectful as to use the last post in this manner. All my life I have associated the playing of the last post with a salute to the fallen warrior. It rightly should remain associated in the military tradition, as it always has been, with the end of the day or to introduce a minute's silence at commemoration ceremonies. I looked at many reference points to see where the last post might have been used in a commercial sense. I could not find it in the Oxford Dictionary or Encarta. I find it very distasteful that the last post was used in this manner. It is not only disrespectful but also inappropriate.I am seeking the views of the ex-service community in my electorate, and I will be happy to see whether other members of this House will be taking up this issue with their constituents or the ex-service community. Perhaps it is time, if this sort of thing may happen again, that we protect the last post, that music, by some regulation. The use of the word `Anzac' is protected by legislation dating back to 1921, under section 22 of the War Precautions Act Repeal Act 1920. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs does have the capacity under that act to regulate the use of the word `Anzac'. The original intention of that legislation was to ensure that the use of the word `Anzac' was not used in a commercial or inappropriate way.Perhaps it is time we looked at the last post—the music and the bugle call—to protect it in some way. The fact that it was used once to associate itself with the end of a corporate collapse could see it used—as it was in this case as a publicity stunt—again, which disturbs me. Whenever the word `Anzac'—whether it is Anzac Park, Anzac Road, Anzac Building, Anzac Square or Anzac Parade—is used, it has been used appropriately and has always had the protection of a regulation of this House. Perhaps it is time we looked at the last post and had some regulation covering it so that it can never, ever be used again in a disrespectful way, because the way it was used the other night was not only disrespectful to the fallen but also disrespectful for all Australians who hold very dear the service and sacrifice of all our service personnel. 140017:45:001400Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—The proposed fast-tracking of the sale of Sydney airport has once again raised concern for the future of Bankstown airport. In earlier announcements the government has indicated that, as part of the sale process, Bankstown, Hoxton Park and Camden airports will also be sold. The proposed sale of those general aviation airports is of great concern to many residents in the electorate of Fowler.Bankstown airport joins the eastern boundary of Fowler, and the main flight paths extend over densely populated areas of Lansvale East, Lansvale, Cabramatta and Warwick Farm. Residents of those suburbs were shocked to learn of the government's plan to change the role of Bankstown airport following its privatisation. In December 2000, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services announced:The government has decided to make Bankstown airport available as an overflow airport for Sydney.He said also that the operator of Bankstown airport `will be encouraged to extend the main runway so it can handle jet aircraft.' As far as I am aware there has been no announcement by the government to say that the proposed sale of Bankstown will not go ahead or that the new owner will not be encouraged to extend the main runway. As things stand we can expect those plans to go ahead some time this year and, according to earlier statements by the minister, the new operator will be encouraged to extend the runway to handle jet aircraft.We know that Sydney airport is operating at close to its operating capacity and, even given the current mess in the airline industry, we can expect the demand for access to Sydney airport to increase. Even without Ansett the policy of Virgin Blue to rely on the smaller Boeing 737 aircraft rather than the higher capacity 767 and Airbus aircraft can be expected to quickly return Sydney airport to full capacity. While Virgin Blue appears to have no plans to expand into freight carrying, its partnership with Patrick would seem to leave this option open. While the Tesna proposal is dead for the time being, the Linfox group, which already owns general aviation airports at Essendon and Avalon, may seek to develop airfreight operations resulting in higher use of Sydney airport. All of this suggests that in the near future we can expect capacity at Sydney airport to come close to the capped number of movements allowed. So the Bankstown option can be expected to go ahead. Looking at the future of the Bankstown airport, there are two options. As an overflow airport for Sydney it may take smaller regional aircraft, interstate jet aircraft or even freight aircraft. The Minister for Transport and Regional Affairs has made it clear that he will not reduce the access of regional flights into Sydney airport. That leaves only the other option—interstate jet aircraft flying into Bankstown. Given the current aircraft fleet of Qantas and Virgin Blue, that would mean Boeing 737 aircraft landing at Bankstown. But the longest existing runway at Bankstown is only 1,400 metres long. The required runway length for Boeing 727 aircraft is 2,800 metres. That is twice the length of the existing runway. Anyone who has been to Bankstown airport could see that it is not possible to extend the runway to more than 1,800 metres. So it would still be one kilometre short.Apart from the obvious safety limitations, the noise impact on surrounding areas would be appalling. Suburbs within eight kilometres of Bankstown airport would suffer noise levels above 70 decibels. You could not hold a normal conversation or hear radio or television with those noise levels. The questions surrounding the future of Bankstown airport and conditions on the sale of Sydney airport must be considered before the sale proceeds. This must not be done simply to fill the black hole in the government's budget. The conditions for the sale of Sydney and Bankstown airports need to be made public before the sale takes place. The people of my electorate of Fowler have a right to know what this government has in store for them and there should be ample time allowed to assess the impact of any changes to the operation of Bankstown airport. 1401140117:50:001401Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLP10—I rise to set the record straight on a few matters that were raised today by the member for Grayndler and the member for Lowe in the MPI, and statements that the member for Grayndler has made in addition. I would have enjoyed being part of the MPI today to set straight some of the nonsense and mistruths that were put forth, but I will take the opportunity now. Firstly, I will talk about the release of the National Strategy for an Aging Australia, a very fine document, the result of three years hard work with a ministerial group that I chaired consisting of the Minister for Health, the Minister for Family and Community Services, the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Veterans Affairs as they existed in the last government. Many papers were put out that preceded the development of the document because we wanted to consult widely. It is a fine strategy from which policy will now flow. Policy will flow over the next decades because this is a problem that we are looking at from now until 2050. The issues that it raises are ones that must be addressed, and it is an area on which I have had discussions with the OECD and the United Nations as well.That document was to be released at a conference of independent retirees in Melbourne on 10 October. That was arranged before the election was called. You will remember that the election date was probably called a week earlier than normal because CHOGM was cancelled. Nonetheless, the document was printed and ready to go and then, when it came forward at the independent retirees conference, I did not release the document. I spoke about it and said what a good document it was, that it could be made available and that anyone who wished could have a copy of it after the election but, because of the caretaker convention, much to the disappointment of all those people attending, they could not have a copy of the document on that occasion. So there was no breach.I am interested that Mr Albanese wanted the Liberal Party to pay for its printing because he thought it was `such a fine, useful document in the campaign and helped us win'. When he comes back and wants to attack the document, I think he speaks with forked tongue. But then that is not unusual. He spoke with forked tongue again on another issue, and that concerns the question of the number of beds which I said in a press release would come on stream. Mr Albanese said that he had evidence that the department did not provide that material. I checked this afternoon with the man who compiled those figures—he is a departmental person. Those figures were provided to him by the various state offices of the department, which gained the information from the approved providers themselves who are obliged under the rules I put in place to advise the department when those beds are likely to be opened. I also put in place a rule that said you had two years to bring them on stream. You had to report six-monthly and, if you failed to do so, you could lose the beds. That was an important rule. In the last round not only were those rules in place but also it was important for the department to take heed of the speed with which beds would come on stream when making the allocations.The third point I want to make is that which I think was brought up by the member for Lowe in referring to Mr Doug Moran. Mr Moran said he was so upset with our policies that, as a benefactor of the Liberal Party, he was going to the Labor Party. He is no benefactor of the Liberal Party, and has not been for many years.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—That's why you cut him off!SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—And you are welcome to him. I discerned before the election that, of the $1.7 billion increase in funds that went to aged care providers across the country, $40 million actually went to the Moran group in accordance with the normal increases. But Mr Moran had arranged his affairs in such a way, by selling off half the real estate, that he was obliged to incur costs of payment to the person he had sold to that gave him a great deal of capital. He actually sent an envoy to my office on one occasion saying, `You'll have to give me more money, because we want to make more profit.' I will not tell you what I said; nonetheless, it indicated that that was perfectly unacceptable. I just wanted to set the record straight on those three issues. Perhaps the member for Grayndler ought to go away and do some homework, and perhaps then he will have a better outcome.140217:55:001402Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Responding to a question today on the effects of the Virgin Blue-Corrigan deal and its anticipated benefits for Australian tourism, the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, Joe Hockey, exposed—perhaps unwittingly—the government's confusion on the issue of our nation's international image. The member for North Sydney, Minister Hockey, suggested that more people would now be able to see Australia's famous destinations such as the Whitsunday Passage and the Great Barrier Reef.Our avuncular minister may have his heart in the right place when it comes to promoting Australia. Unfortunately, his enthusiastic actions to promote Australia have been undermined by earlier activities of his colleague the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The minister for immigration in the previous parliament spent several millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on an extraordinary video titled Illegal travel: it's not worth the risk. This is truly extraordinary—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I do believe that was brought to my attention before today, member for Melbourne Ports.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBY—It has, Mr Speaker. You were kind enough to warn me about drawing it to the minister's attention. We all remember how Chairman Mao used to scrub out the images of Lin Biao in official Chinese propaganda after Lin Bao's passing, and how Joe Stalin used to rub out the pictures of Leon Trotsky from the great Soviet encyclopedia. I am convinced that this government tries to pretend that this video no longer exists.This is an extraordinary video. When I was a very young and green member of this House I went to the soiree that the minister for immigration held in the Great Hall where they were handing out these videos by the hundreds. They spent several million dollars trying to explain to people that, if you came to Australia, you would be eaten by sharks or crocodiles and, if you were not, you would be consumed in a bushfire. It has an extraordinary fake picture on the front, too, of slums that you would see when you arrived in Australia. They are actually—I hate to say it—in another foreign city, in Singapore. They are not in Australia.The explanation to me by the minister for immigration was that this extraordinary video, whose existence they are very ashamed of, was going to be shown on Afghan and Iraqi television. I thought this was a very curious idea and tried to explain to senior immigration officials that, as far as I understood, Iraqi television was wall-to-wall Saddam Hussein, and that I did not think they would be able to get their video shown on Baghdad television. Also, they had no budget at all for promoting it anywhere overseas in such a way that it would be paid for. They just paid several million dollars to produce it and, as far as I know, it never made it to any television station in Iraq or Afghanistan. This `promotional' video produced by the minister is now virtually unavailable. It casts Australia as a wilderness and a backwater surrounded by crocodiles and sharks.My colleague the member for Calwell, who is a new member of this House, said that government ministers appear to be at loggerheads about how it is promoting the image of our country around the world. The Minister for Small Business and Tourism is happy with deals between Mr Corrigan and Virgin Blue, and we all want more tourists to come to Australia, and yet we have this video. I hope the minister for immigration has withdrawn it from all our posts all over the world. It certainly has never, as far as I know, made it onto Afghan or Iraqi TV. I had to disillusion some of the Immigration officials by telling them too that, during the period of the Taliban, there was no TV in Afghanistan, and they certainly would not show videos trying to convince their citizens not to flee to better places such as Australia. Ms Vamvakinou, who is the member for Calwell, said the actions of the minister for tourism and the minister for immigration sent out contradictory messages about our country. She also said that the minister for tourism is doing his job in promoting the natural beauty of our country while the minister for immigration prefers to produce videos promoting the idea that visitors will face imminent death if they come to this country. The government has got to get its messages right. The whole policy on asylum seekers and the way that has portrayed Australia all around the world have done nothing to promote Australian tourism.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.18:00:001403House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Notices1403The following notices were given:83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek to move:That this House does not prohibit further stem cell research from existing or new embryos.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek to move:That this House:(1) recognises the physical, emotional and psychological damage caused by child sexual abuse;(2) recognises that in every state in Australia adults who have sexual relations with teenagers under the age of 16 are committing a criminal offence, and there are no excuses for this behaviour;(3) commits itself to providing a safe environment for every child in Australia;(4) commits itself to playing a role in ending sexual abuse of children overseas; and(5) commits itself to acknowledging and seeking to mend the harm done to victims of child sexual abuse.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek to move:That this House:(1) notes that the NSW Social and Community Sector award pay increases are a welcome recognition of the hard work and skill of workers in the social and community sector;(2) congratulates the NSW Government for funding its share of the increased wages bills of the organisations which rely on these workers;(3) notes that some organisations still face significant difficulties in meeting increased wages bills and are facing reducing services to the nation's most needy; and(4) calls on the Federal Government to pay its share of the increased wages bill to ensure these services can remain open. (Notice given 14 March 2002.)2002-03-14—————The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members1404140409:40:001404George, Jennie, MPMs GEORGEJH5ThrosbyALP00—I take this opportunity to raise an issue of serious concern to me and a number of my constituents who have visited the electorate office to complain about the impact of a very flawed system of family payments. We need to understand that many of the people and families in Throsby are low-income earners and that a high level of retrenchment occurs in the area.What worries me is that the Minister for Family and Community Services has conceded that there are problems in the system. However, she describes them as mere `teething problems', whereas I believe that the system is fundamentally flawed, and it is leading to a situation where honest and hardworking people are being made to feel that they have done something wrong, when it is in fact the system that is leading to an appalling burden, particularly for low income families.The system is obviously flawed because we now have about half a billion dollars of outstanding debt. I do not know how high the debt level would have to rise before the minister conceded that it was a genuine problem, not merely a teething problem. It is particularly outrageous that only one in five families was advised before the election that they would be likely to sustain a debt burden. Of course, we had the $1,000 waiver, and a lot of families believed that would be the end of the story. They are now finding out that the system is continuing to punish them, even though they are doing the right thing and advising Centrelink of any changes in their employment situation.Let me give the chamber two examples of what I am talking about. The Miller family in the electorate of Throsby was essentially a single-income earning-family, and the wife went out to get some part-time work. The family notified Centrelink but, despite doing everything by the book, the family is now being slugged with a debt of $1,700 on top of the $1,000 waiver. I think that is an absolutely appalling situation. For the minister to describe this system as one that is going through teething problems is beyond the pale.Another example: as I said, the area is known for high levels of unemployment and possible retrenchments. In the case of the Hill family, the husband was retrenched. Of course, you cannot predict the possibility of retrenchment. They were not able to advise Centrelink in advance that the husband would be receiving a retrenchment payout. So here we have a family saddled with debt. On top of retrenchment, they now have a burden of $1,800. It is time the minister recognised the seriousness of the situation. (Time expired)140409:44:001404Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I am delighted to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous work of many in the Petrie electorate. Earlier this month, Mrs Beth Nightingale, of St Kieran's School in Brighton, was announced as one of the 35 teachers Australia wide who received a 2002 Commonwealth Government Australian Teachers Prize for Excellence. Mrs Nightingale, who lives in Bracken Ridge, was rewarded for her outstanding contribution to holistic education. One of her most innovative programs was the `writers cramp'. This program encouraged students and invited people from all walks of life to share their thoughts on how they used reading and writing in their daily work. As a teacher, Mrs Nightingale encourages positive relationships and teamwork among students as a way of accomplishing tasks. Through this, she maintains a happy environment and her compassionate nature is greatly appreciated by the whole school community. I take this opportunity to congratulate Mrs Nightingale on her achievement. We sometimes forget the valuable work of teachers in educating and shaping our future. Well done, Mrs Nightingale. In the last six years, local businesses across the Petrie electorate have secured over $3 million in export market development grants from the federal government. These grants have assisted hundreds of local businesses across Petrie to develop their businesses overseas. In the last two months two local businesses at Stafford, which is in the southern part of my electorate, and one in Redcliffe shared a total of $140,000 in EMDG funding. The Lenan Corporation Pty Ltd in Stafford received $9,499 in funding for their business in cosmetic and toiletry preparation manufacturing. Elpro Technologies, also at Stafford, received funding of $109,961. This business works in the electronic equipment and manufacturing industry. Bayline Services received $26,170 in funding for their business in the plant nurseries industry. Research by the Australian Trade Commission and the University of New South Wales shows that exporters on average pay their staff more, offer more training and career development opportunities and provide healthier and safer workplaces.It is important for our exporters to receive the necessary support, such as the EMDG scheme, to grow their business, which in turn will directly contribute to our local community. I congratulate these local businesses on their success and wish them well in tackling competitive global markets. On a final note, I wish to congratulate the Howard government on the initiative of the national servicemen's medal. My office has been inundated with applications. It is very befitting that it occurs in this year 2002 because it marks the 60th anniversary of the defence of Australia.140509:47:001405Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—Last week, press reports made claims that the New South Wales Indochina Chinese Association had provided food for a lunar New Year party conducted at Long Bay jail at the request of Phuong Ngo, the man convicted of the murder of Cabramatta MP John Newman. The association is based at Canley Vale in my electorate. The reports also claimed that the association received federal government funding of $100,000. The Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs announced that a departmental inquiry would be conducted into the claims that the association had used government funding to supply food for the function. It has been brought to my attention that the request, in fact, came from an officer of the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services. In a fax message to the association, the manager of inmate services and programs made the request on behalf of the Asian committee at Long Bay. The fax message was attached to the letterhead of the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services, Metropolitan Medical and Transit Centre. The request mentioned that the committee raised funds which are donated to charity and pointed out that last year $900 was donated to the Spastic Centre of New South Wales. The New South Wales Indochina Chinese Association responded to the request saying:It is with pleasure that the ICCA have been invited to contribute to the celebrations on the 21th (st), as it also will help raise funds for charitable causes.The ICCA later advised that it had arranged for food to be supplied by the Sea Treasure restaurant at Crows Nest. The association is most upset that its reputation has been called into question in this way. In a statement the president of the association, Mr To Ha Huynh OAM, stressed:We notified Corrective Services that a restaurant had been identified to provide food and that the department could organise to pick up the food themselves. I did not sign any cheque and no money from the ICCA was used to pay for the food. Mr Huynh also pointed out:In this case we facilitated contributions from individuals and groups but no ICCA funds were used.I hope that the inquiry is carried out quickly and fairly and clarifies the role of community organisations in the area of rehabilitation of convicted persons. As the ICCA president has stated: Our association was happy to be able to assist the rehabilitation of inmates and we are now at a loss to know how we should treat future requests from the Department of Corrective Services.The minister might provide some guidelines for organisations such as the New South Wales Indochina Chinese Association for its future work in this area. In the short time I have, I would like to have on the public record that the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, Kerry Chikarovski, has also visited Long Bay jail on a number of occasions.140609:50:001406Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6CanningLP10—I was appalled to observe a form of push polling during the recent federal election campaign. As a pollster, Gary Morgan of the Roy Morgan group either is a disgrace to his profession or should go and work on something easier, such as surveying the public's preferences for soap powders and such things. No wonder the Bulletin dumped the Roy Morgan group after the recent federal election. Compared to the Newspoll surveys conducted in the Australian newspaper by the very accurate Sol Lebovic or the AC Neilsen polls for the Age newspaper, the Morgan poll was wildly out of whack for the entire year prior to the election date—in fact, some say for up to three years beforehand.You will recall that post Tampa the Morgan group had the coalition jump to a 20-point lead over Labor. It was so knee-jerk and fanciful that the Morgan group did another poll just days later and then they had the coalition and Labor about neck and neck. A week later, they published another poll in the Bulletin to show that Labor was about 10 points ahead. That is about a 30-point change in 10 days; the Morgan group had swung so wildly in that period—what a wild ride. Compare this to the Newspoll and the AC Neilsen polls of that time and you will see why the Morgan poll has lost all credibility. No wonder Melbourne based researcher Irving Saulwick described Morgan's figures as abysmally wrong.I will go even further and say that Gary Morgan has always had a tendency towards erring on the side of inaccuracy towards the Australian Labor Party. This soft spot for the Labor Party could be seen as the worst form of push polling on behalf of his ALP mates. Many Australians in voter land want to be part of a winning team. If the Morgan polling published in such a credible magazine as the Bulletin continually has the ALP way in front, the naive and the gullible may be persuaded to get onto the populist bandwagon—and so it seems with the Morgan polling described in the Bulletin.Sorry, Gary: your old mate Kim missed out and so did your preferred party. Keep on with the soap powders before you practise on the Australian public in the future, and keep out of political contests where you have no credibility. By the way, predicting the South Australian election result was no credit to you, Gary. Blind Freddy in the street was able to be just as accurate. Morgan are now sending around magazines and emailing everybody trying to gain their credibility back, but it is too late; they have been found out. 140609:52:001406Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—During my address-in-reply a couple of weeks ago, I raised the very serious matter of the inability of the Department of Defence and the Minister for Defence to sort out a contract with Australian Defence Industries in Bendigo. The contract I am referring to was to manufacture armoured personnel carriers in my electorate. During that speech I raised some very serious questions about the role of the former defence minister, Peter Reith, in all of that. For example, I asked: can Peter Reith categorically deny that he or his department acted in a way which delayed and then potentially scuttled the ADI-Bendigo armoured personnel carrier contract, the Bushmaster? Another question was: was Peter Reith aware that one of the items in Tenix's list of products is an armoured personnel carrier called the Shorland S600, essentially a British Aerospace designed vehicle adapted to a wide range of functions? Question No. 3: was Mr Reith aware that the Shorland was and is a direct rival to the Bushmaster? Question No. 4: is it a coincidence that on 4 April last year, when the contract for the 330 Bushmaster was already in doubt because of bureaucratic delays, Mr Reith announced a $10 million plan to upgrade the Army's 350 M113 armoured personnel carriers at the Tenix plant in Adelaide? The final question was: was Mr Reith aware that Tenix was one of the suitors for taking over ADI when it was still a government owned operation? The government has an appalling record on this matter. On 15 February 1996 the Prime Minister, during his last visit to Bendigo, told the Bendigo media conference, `No, no and no; we have no plans to privatise ADI.' Fifteen months later, the then defence minister announced plans to do just that, and we have seen a steady stream of jobs lost there ever since, culminating in 95 job losses at ADI Bendigo about three weeks ago.The Prime Minister deliberately deceived the people of Bendigo over the ADI contract, just like he deliberately deceived the Australian people over the refugee situation. I do not begrudge anybody earning a retirement income. Mr Reith has obviously got himself a pretty substantial consultancy with ADI's major competitor, but I raise the question: is it appropriate for him to do that? We have all seen Mr Wooldridge buy himself a retirement package with $5 million worth of taxpayers' money. Again, is that appropriate use of taxpayers' money? I do not begrudge anybody earning a living. But when someone puts a plant like ADI Bendigo in jeopardy, causing 245 people to lose their jobs, which is the number that have lost their jobs since it was privatised, you have to call into question their integrity. I think it is an outrageous situation. I raised these questions two weeks ago. To date they have not been answered by ex-Minister Reith or the Prime Minister. It is about time they came clean. It is about time they told the people of Bendigo the truth.140709:55:001407Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10—I wish to commend the six people in the Parkes electorate who were recently awarded the Order of Australia Medal. They include the late Dr Gerald Morgan of Nyngan, for service to medicine, particularly in the provision of outreach, palliative and aged care rehabilitation services in rural and remote western New South Wales; Mrs Shirley Hunter of Bogan Gate, for the organisation and promotion of the Bogan Gate Centenary of Federation celebrations and for her work for many years as an office bearer of the Bogan Gate Country Women's Association; Mrs Joan Bolton of Grenfell, for her service to the community as a teacher of porcelain painting of rural areas of south-west New South Wales; Mrs Clare McCrae, for service to the community through the Broken Hill Philharmonic Society Choir; Mrs Mabel Garland of Broken Hill, for service to children with visual impairment, as a transcriber of books into braille; and the late Mrs Annie Swanson, for services to the community of Tullamore through women's service organisations. An electorate as large and as isolated as my electorate of Parkes simply could not look after its community without the incredible sacrifice and services of people such as those six who received OAM awards in the Parkes electorate recently. Our communities could not function. Governments could not look after them to the extent that they need looking after if community minded people like these did not do what they do. I never cease to be amazed at the sacrifice individuals make, with no personal or material gain and almost no recognition until finally the community recognises what we have in our midst. I commend these people. The work done by those six remarkable people has benefited us enormously. On behalf of the whole federal seat of Parkes, I would like to say to them: without you, we could not function. Thank you.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. Bills1408R1464BillsR1465BillsR1466Bills1408Debate resumed from 13 March, on motion by Mr Slipper:That this bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr McMullan moved by way of amendment: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 condemns the Government for its:(1) pre-election spending spree;(2) speculation in currency derivatives at a cost of nearly $5 billion over the life of this Government;(3) blatant disregard for the application of Australian accounting standards in compiling its own accounts;(4) failure to recognise the GST as a Commonwealth tax and this Government as the highest taxing Government of all time;(5) complete lack of disclosure and accountability in relation to the escalating costs of the so-called `Pacific Solution';(6) breaking its election promise to make health insurance affordable by approving a premium increase at twice the rate of inflation;(7) misleading the public about the real cost of its defence commitments prior to the election;(8) woefully inadequate support for the development of the broadband infrastructure integral to Australia's participation in the information economy;(9) inadequate attempts to remedy chronic under funding of research and innovation; and(10) failure to address the significant investment needs in the areas of education and the provision of social services”.09:59:001408Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the appropriation bills. There are a few things which need to be stated very plainly in relation to the federal government's lack of interest in the McMillan electorate and I take the opportunity to do that today. There are plenty of opportunities for the federal government to make a contribution to the renewal of our electoral district. At every turn they have squibbed it. They have missed every opportunity that they have had to do something good for the people of the McMillan electoral district.When we talk about the federal government's capacity to do some good for the people of the Latrobe Valley, West Gippsland and Pakenham, we are talking about a great deal that the Commonwealth can do. The Commonwealth is not a rinky-dink little outfit that does not have much in the way of resources. It is a very powerful institution. It has a lot of resources and a lot of capacity to make a great deal of difference to people's lives.At every turn the Commonwealth has deliberately chosen not to do what it can to help our district. As a result, people are suffering; people are doing without the services that they need. As a result of that neglect, people are doing without the opportunities that they deserve. When there is a dollar to be cut, the Commonwealth government comes knocking on the door of the people of the Latrobe Valley; it always comes when there is a dollar to be cut. But when there is a dollar to be put back in, or a dollar of Commonwealth taxpayers' money to be invested, it seems that we are always pushed pretty far down the list. That is not good enough when we have unemployment at the levels that we have got—13 and 14 per cent in the Latrobe Valley. It is not good enough when we have as much identifiable need as we have in our district. Report after report—Commonwealth government report after Commonwealth government agency report—all point to very high levels of disadvantage in our district. Yet, for all of the six years of John Howard's weak, pathetic prime ministership, we have not seen the Commonwealth government support that we deserve channelled into the McMillan electoral district. The comparison between his approach and the approach that has been taken by the state government of Victoria could not be more stark. I state very plainly today my appreciation of the efforts that have been made by my good friend the Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks, in relation to the Latrobe Valley in particular. His has been a government that has been prepared to get in and do the work and return opportunity to our district. By comparison, the Prime Minister, John Howard, has done nothing at all, despite the fact that he has all of the resources of the Commonwealth at his disposal, to do anything to turn around our situation in the Latrobe Valley, in particular.I want to talk briefly about some of the things that the state government has done in relation to the McMillan electoral district. It has put $11 million into the rebuilding of the Allanbank Dairy Research Institute in West Gippsland. This institute is a substantial investment in a very important dairy research project and a substantial investment in the research, development and science associated with this vital industry not only for Gippsland but also for our nation. It is a very welcome investment there.The state government has put $5 million into building a new police station at Moe. It has put $5 million into rebuilding the TAFE in the Latrobe Valley and it has put $11 million into an education precinct for the Latrobe Valley to try to generate an improvement in the retention rates, which fell off every year that Jeff Kennett was Premier of Victoria. The state government has put $22 million into a public housing redevelopment project to link that to jobs and training opportunities for people living in our district. It has put around $20 million into building a judicial precinct for the Latrobe Valley that will see a consolidation and expansion of the court services which are provided to people living in our district. As well, and not insignificantly, it has purchased back the Latrobe Regional Hospital, which the Kennett government privatised at a cost of $12 million.These are just some of the things which the state government is doing in our district. It has made an enormous difference. It has really given us belief that there is at least one level of government in this country which is prepared to get in and work with us to help us restore some of the opportunity that has been taken away from us. On behalf of the people in my electorate, I say thank you to the Bracks government for having the preparedness to sit down and work with us, to support us and to get behind our efforts to try to bring back opportunity to the Latrobe Valley. Our instinct in the Latrobe Valley is, and always has been, to work. We have been a group of people associated with work in industry and in making contributions far beyond our region. We have made enormous contributions to the state of Victoria and to the state of the country. We have made enormous contributions through the infrastructure which workers have built in the Latrobe Valley. The Bracks government has been prepared to recognise that we are a group of people who have suffered disproportionately as a result of national competition policy but who are not prepared to remain suffering from that disadvantage and who want to do something about it.By contrast, at every turn, at every opportunity they get, the federal government does nothing for the Latrobe Valley. We saw this is in the granting of an MRI machine licence which was supposed to service the Gippsland region. Everyone supported it going into the Latrobe Regional Hospital and being run by the Gippsland Pathology Service, but where did it go? It went to Dandenong, because in the mind of people in the Commonwealth government Dandenong is a place where people from Gippsland should go to get service—they should not go to somewhere in Gippsland itself; they should go to Melbourne and get service, because we are not really important enough to have our own MRI machine. Every single member of parliament in the Gippsland region, with the exception of Peter McGauran, supported the MRI machine going to the Latrobe Regional Hospital and being run by the Gippsland Pathology Service. It would have made an enormous difference in terms of people being able to access this new medical technology in our region and not having to make a trip—from the eastern parts of Gippsland, we are talking about a trip of six or seven hours. They would have been able to go and access this service at Traralgon at the Latrobe Regional Hospital. That would have been a good thing; it would have been welcomed by everyone here.So that is just one opportunity that the federal government has had to put something into our region, and they have squibbed it. They have deliberately taken the decision that we are not important enough to them, and they have put the machine into Dandenong, where they already have two other MRI machines. We have none, and they have all those. I say we need to have a fairer level of service provision in our district, and we should not have to miss out every time there is an opportunity to upgrade our health infrastructure.As well, whilst we have seen from the state government a preparedness to work to make sure that identified pockets of disadvantage do not get left behind, we have seen from the federal government this maintenance of the lie that all rural and regional areas are the same—with the same access to the same buckets of money or to the same levels of support—and all they need to do is apply for that and somehow it will all work out. That is just not true; it is not the right approach to take in relation to rural and regional development, and we need to have rural and regional development policies in this country which recognise areas of disadvantage so that we can channel the most resources there to break the back of disadvantage in those areas and see some fairness restored in terms of the opportunities which people who live in those communities are provided with.We have not seen this from the Howard government. We have seen the old-fashioned National Party approach to regional development, which is all about throwing a slab of stinking pork at a community and saying, `You go and feed on that; that will keep you happy for a little while.' That is the old National Party approach to regional development. That is not what we want or believe in or support. We support the provision of opportunity and the enabling of communities. We do not want to see the old pork barrel National Party approach; we want to see opportunity given to these regional communities.When you have unemployment rates of 13 and 14 per cent, it is pretty hard to get opportunities and to keep your young people and to keep hope and to keep a handle on drug abuse and family breakdown. We need to make sure that these communities do not get left behind. The only way to do something about that is to make sure that, when unemployment goes up—and that might be as a result of a national restructure like national competition policy—you do not leave people behind. Right now, the federal government's approach to our region is all about leaving us behind. But we are not going to be left behind. We are not going to take it. We are not going to just say, `All right, Mr Prime Minister, it is okay for you to do that. It is all right for you to treat us that way.' We are going to kick up a fuss, because we think he should be making a contribution.I have written a letter to the Prime Minister and invited him again to come to our district. Some of the members in the chamber right now might recall that almost exactly three years ago I asked the Prime Minister in the House what he was going to do for the Latrobe Valley, given the unemployment problems we faced there. He said that he would come to the Latrobe Valley, to the McMillan electorate, and he would see first-hand what the problems were and do something about them. Here we are, three years on , with yet another broken promise. He said he would come to our district and see first-hand what the problems were and do something about them, but he has not. Three years have passed, and he has not come to our region. Since he has been Prime Minister, he has never been to the Latrobe Valley—not once. To the best of my knowledge he has never been to the Latrobe Valley at all. The Latrobe Valley is not some rinky-dink country town. It has 70,000 people who make an important contribution to the state of Victoria and to our country more generally. But he has never been to the Latrobe Valley in the course of his prime ministership. I have written him a letter and I have said, `Prime Minister, you made us this promise. I expect you to honour it, so please come to our region.' I have said to him, and I will restate here, that any time he wants to come to the Latrobe Valley he is welcome. I will clear whatever I have got on that day, no matter what it is, and I will facilitate his coming to our region. I will make myself available to show him around and give him a good appreciation of the needs of our region.He needs to come to the Latrobe Valley because it is not good enough for a Prime Minister of our country not to come to such an important regional area. It is not good enough for him to care so little about our region. I think he should come to the Latrobe Valley and see first-hand exactly what it is that the cutbacks he has put in place have done to our community. He made us a promise and we expect him to honour it.At every turn the federal government misses chances to do the right thing by our region. I think they miss those chances because they do not care and because they are contemptuous about the people who live in our electoral district. We saw a situation where again the West Gippsland Health Care Group missed out on the funding which it applied for for 25 high-care aged care beds to go into the town of Trafalgar. This was a very important campaign issue during the election campaign that we had last year. We saw the then Minister for Aged Care, Bronwyn Bishop, come to the McMillan electorate. She visited Trafalgar and went to the aged care hostel where these beds would be housed. She said to everyone there with a knowing smile, `I'll look very favourably upon your application'—wink, wink, nudge, nudge—`I'll fix it up for you.'The Labor Party made a specific commitment to the people of Trafalgar that if we got elected we would build those aged care beds there and we would fund them. That would mean that the commitment that the state government has made to fund the capital associated with that could kick in and it could get built very quickly. Bronwyn Bishop made a commitment where she basically said, `Leave it to me. I'll fix it up. I'll look after your interests.'After the election campaign the decision came in that the federal government had again rejected the application by the West Gippsland Health Care Group. The West Gippsland Health Care Group—one of the most professional health care groups in rural Australia, I think—are frustrated and angry that again they have missed out and that funding is being provided through these nursing home subsidies to private health care providers, many of whom have not set up or ever run a nursing home before. So we are disappointed. The people of Trafalgar in particular are disappointed about this other opportunity that we have seen missed by the federal government to put some support into our district.It is all about priorities. When you have $4.8 billion to blow in foreign exchange swaps it really does make you wonder why you cannot find just a little bit of support to put into a needy community like the McMillan electoral district. It seems that they cannot find any support at all for 25 high-care nursing home beds for Trafalgar, a fantastic little town with a wonderful community who know how important this is, but the government can find $4.8 billion to blow. They can find $100 million a month to waste on advertising in the lead-up to an election campaign, but they cannot find the 25 high-care beds that we need for Trafalgar.The federal government do need to do more for our region. They have demonstrated contempt for our region over the last six years unquestionably and they really do need to get out and listen. The Prime Minister should accept my invitation. He should come to our region. I have made that serious commitment to him to come and see first-hand what the issues are. He needs to get out of his comfortable office over here, get out of his comfort zone and come to the McMillan electoral district. 10:14:001412Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister10—Mr Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you again on your elevation to that post. Appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 are testament to the government's economic management. These bills deal with contingencies not foreseen in the 2001 budget. Who could have predicted the events of September 11 and the subsequent war on terrorism or, even closer to home, the bushfire crisis in New South Wales at Christmas? It says a lot about the government's economic management over the last six budgets that we are able to fund and deal with these problems without an adverse impact on Australia's financial position and standing.Good government is a lot like good housekeeping: it is a matter of saving for that rainy day and for life's little surprises. Our good housekeeping has paid off. As the Treasurer recently told the House, Australia has exceptionally strong national accounts at 10 times the OECD average and 10 times the average of industrialised nations. Even the Canberra press gallery is finally recognising the achievements of John Howard. Dennis Shanahan recently wrote in the Australian:... in its six years the Howard Government has had some significant achievements, won popular support and stamped its own style on the national debate and, most fundamentally of all, delivered economically.In time, the Coalition years delivered by Howard ... will be seen to have been prosperous and some of the most radical changes will only be recognised later because they are evolutionary and not revolutionary.Shanahan, not always kind to the government, is correct. Years from now, though those opposite continually carp to the contrary, the Howard years will be seen as an era of prosperity, a time when Australia walked proudly on the international stage with control over domestic firearms, enforcement of the human rights of the people of East Timor, the most successful Olympics ever and, recently, our role in the war on terror. It will be seen as a time when good sense, understatement and a quiet sense of purpose guided the Australian government.This government has made the tough decisions. We have reduced by $56 billion the $96 billion debt left by Labor, $80 billion of which was racked up in their last five years of government. We implemented the most ambitious taxation reform agenda this country has ever seen. The current Leader of the Opposition, like Mike Tyson at a pre-fight media conference, said the GST would king-hit the economy, that the GST was the worst thing ever to happen to Australia and they would roll it back. Some king hit! We have just seen for 2001 a growth rate of 4.1 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition has shown that, as shadow Treasurer, his economic analysis left a great deal to be desired and, as a political tactician, his dream of surfing into office on the people's discontent with the radical changes was completely flawed unless you offered those people real policy alternatives and not just 97 per cent of what they already had with any goodies coming after the 2004 election.The bills we are dealing with today fund real policy commitments, such as the allocation of funding to the Department of Defence for its war on terrorism and the costs associated with the increasing illegal entries into Australia, as well as—importantly for my electorate— the extension of the first home buyers grant and the introduction of the first child tax refund, an election promise which was extremely popular. I would like to devote my attention to the last two because they are of great importance in my electorate of Lindsay.I believe that there is more to politics than economics and there is more to life than politics. As we rejoice in Australia's really good economic figures and as we debate these bills which appropriate funding to government departments, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking purely in financial terms. Sometimes, the bean counters seem to forget that good national accounts translate into real benefits for Australians. A growing economy means increased employment, investment and business opportunities. Low interest rates put money back into the pockets of families paying off the mortgage on the family home. In 1996 the average home loan interest rate was 10.5 per cent and by 2001 it was 6.3 per cent. That constitutes a saving of $350 a month—that is $4,000 a year—on an average home mortgage of $100,000. In my electorate, where the average home price is now $200,000, low interest rates are incredibly important to first home buyers and to young couples starting out on that path to ownership. The first home buyers grant is making a real difference, saving buyers up to $8,000 on their home mortgage, plus giving them the opportunity to take advantage of a $10,000 first home buyers grant—if it is an established home, then that is $7,000. Low interest rates also allow small businesses to take risks and expand. A vibrant economy can make a real difference to the happiness, wellbeing and self-sufficiency of countless Australians. The package of appropriation bills we are debating today contain several financial measures that can only have a positive impact on the most basic unit of society, the family. These days, the family is defined by numerous constructs—it might be your traditional mum, dad and kids arrangement or it might be a situation where you have a separated home of single parents or it might include stepsiblings or half-siblings.Let us talk about the first child tax refund. In Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2001-2002, the government is devoting $7.2 million to the first child tax refund. This is another example of the Howard government delivering on its election promises. Incidentally, on Tuesday this week the government also delivered on another of its election promises, when Senator Abetz announced that the Commonwealth is committed to protecting all the areas on the former ADI site at St Mary's that are listed on the Register of the National Estate. That is an election promise that was important to the people of Lindsay and this week we delivered on it because we are in the financial situation to be able to do so.Back to the first child tax refund: when a mother leaves the workplace, the family will invariably experience a fluctuation in income. The first child tax refund effectively allows a mother to average her income over a few years to cope with the loss of income resulting from a decision to stay at home after childbirth. I was very keen on that promise because, if I had not been returned, then one option I would have had was to stay at home with my impending child, and I may have been eligible to access this rebate. It is based on the tax payable on all non-investment income in the year of or the year prior to the birth of the child. Low-income mothers or mothers not previously in the workplace will receive a minimum refund of $500 a year. We all know that every little bit helps. Those that earn over $52,000 will be able to claim back a refund of $2,500 a year in tax paid previously.The refund will be available from 1 July 2002 and will apply to a family's firstborn after 1 July 2001, so I qualify. Even though I had a child in January 2000, it is applied to the first child after 1 July 2001. The refund is part of the government's attempt to ease the financial burden of the first child. It is true that with your first child you have enormous expenses getting the prams, cots, bassinettes and everything. I am sure second children are poor cousins because they all get the hand-me-downs. I do not think I have purchased much for this child, the poor thing. It will be using all its sister's goodies.The government recognises that women have competing concerns. Women are very educated in today's society—more so than ever before in the history of Australia—and there are competing areas of interest between career and family. I do not like to categorise females as either stay at home or working. Throughout our lives we will move—when we leave school, we may work; we may then move into a situation where we wish to stay at home; and we may then move back into the workplace. I always stress that something as simple as a car accident might find you back at home—you could have a special needs child and be out of the workplace. If you lose a spouse, you could find yourself back in the work force. It happens very quickly, and throughout life females find themselves transiting between career and family, having to balance those competing concerns. Our goal is to ensure that if a woman chooses to devote her life to a particular career, then she should have all the possible opportunities. By the same token, if a woman wants to start a family and focus centrally on that, then the government should ensure that that choice is supported. We all know that the family is the building block of society. The government recognises this fact. I know that John Howard does because he has been incredibly supportive of my decision to find a balance between the competing demands of family and work. It is another example of economics going beyond mere dollars. It is about having a real impact on the nature of Australian society. 62.8 per cent of mothers with children under 15 are in the work force. Young mothers play a crucial role in both the economy and the home. Child care is an issue of growing importance to thousands of Australian families. The Howard government has also delivered on child care. Over the next four years we will spend $6.7 billion on child care, which, as the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs points out, is a 36 per cent increase on what Labor spent in their last six years. We have also seen the cost of child care fall by over 13 per cent. The Howard government has made it that much easier for working mothers and families where both parents are at work.This government's Workplace Relations Act 1996 provides for a cooperative workplace which assists employees to balance their work and family responsibilities effectively through the development of mutually beneficial work practices with employers. It aims to help prevent and eliminate discrimination based on family responsibilities or pregnancy. The act provides employees with family responsibilities with improved access to their preferred agreements and arrangements by encouraging regular part-time employment and by enabling casual employment to be used where it has a role to play in the labour market. We know that this role is continuing to grow. Unlike the Labor Party, we have a policy where maternity leave is concerned. The Labor Party think it is a good idea but they are not quite sure how to fund it—maybe the government should fund it or maybe small business should foot the bill. Then again they are not too sure—`Should we or shouldn't we?' Once again the opposition are flip-flopping from one position to another in the great vacuum that is Labor Party policy, whereas on our side of the House, one year after Labor had lost power, 28 per cent of females had access to maternity leave through federal agreements. By 2000, under this government, through AWAs and certified agreements, 39 per cent of women have access to paid maternity leave. Real progress has been made through the government's emphasis on workplace bargaining. You are able to negotiate what is important to you throughout life. Post your childbirth years you may wish to negotiate a different award for yourself when maternity leave is not critical to you. At other stages in your career you may wish to negotiate a situation where paid maternity leave is an option. The government is creating choice and flexibility in the workplace, which I note the Labor states are quickly eroding in their respective industrial relations systems. It is amazing what a government can achieve with clear and coherent policies. It is worth mentioning that single mothers in Australia in 1996 had a median income of $341. In 1999-2000, that median income was $418. There can be no doubt that for a single female parent life is better under the coalition. They earn more and they are more self-sufficient. But it is not just single mothers: as the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs outlined yesterday, more than four million Australians will start receiving higher pensions from next Wednesday. The single rate of pension will rise by $11.30 to $421.80 a fortnight. These increases are greater than rises in the cost of living, and this is because—unlike Labor—this government linked pensions to average weekly earning increases as well as inflation. Once again, the Howard government is delivering a better standard of living for all Australians. As the House is no doubt aware, I represent an electorate in the mortgage belt of Western Sydney. The first home buyers grant has been an incredible boon to families not just in my electorate but across Western Sydney. The suburbs of Penrith and Werrington in my electorate are rated 14th and 17th respectively in the top 20 suburbs in New South Wales that have taken up the government's first home buyers scheme. The statistics make interesting reading. Out of the top 20 suburbs, the overwhelming majority of areas where there has been a high take-up of the first home buyers grant are in Sydney's west. Over 50 per cent of the top 20 suburbs in New South Wales are in Labor electorates. This should be so demeaning for the Labor Party hierarchy after their complete failure in Western Sydney, with the collapse of their primary vote and large swings against them. This information should undoubtedly have gone before the Wran committee. That committee, I know, heard that Labor voters had sold their souls and voted Liberal. But I think the ALP should be looking at this in a different light. These voters have not sold their souls; they are making real decisions on what is best for them. They are waking up to good representation and good policy. These are people that work hard and save hard. They want a better life for themselves and their children, and the Howard government is committed to providing not a handout but a helping hand—indeed, $15 million in these bills alone.These people are Menzies' forgotten people, Howard's battlers, and those opposite have left them behind. The Labor Party are not delivering relevant policies for them and so clearly despise what these people stand for. The Labor Party think they would be selling their souls to seek the policies and the economic stability that the Liberal Party are providing. It is little wonder—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPGK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—that their primary vote collapsed in Western Sydney, Leo. Instead, those opposite voice their continued concerns about sectional interest groups; they promise that they will get rid of the 60-40 rule and that they will review all their policies, bar the sale of Telstra; and yet, the first opportunity they get, they block the new schools program and the fair dismissal laws.The time will come when those opposite will have to hear from those that they have left behind. The Labor Party do not seem to realise the very positive impact that this financial measure is having on countless people in Western Sydney. It sets them on the road to home ownership. Indeed, 70,299 people across New South Wales are on their way to home ownership because of this measure. Those opposite who are so keen on throwing money at all manner of social problems fail to realise that money strategically spent can benefit society as a whole. It is not the amount; it is the question of how it is spent. I am sure that some members opposite—especially the member for Werriwa, who is not with us today—see the sense in that. This is about concrete actions that go beyond the naming of a shadow portfolio `ownership'; it is about people seeking more than symbolism. They want results, and the Howard government has delivered. In these bills, people see the cold, hard facts.I note also that Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2001-2002 provides $800,000 for the transportation costs of the American helitankers Georgia Peach and Incredible Hulk. I have spoken before on the devastation that the Christmas bushfires caused in my electorate, so I do welcome the government's funding in this bill for the transportation of those helitankers, which proved so effective in fighting the fires not just in my electorate but across New South Wales. Again I pay tribute to all of those who so selflessly served in paid or volunteer positions across New South Wales at that time. I commend these bills to the House.10:34:001415McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I have been listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister attempting to rewrite history. I used to be amazed during the last parliament when `Thrown Overboard Reith' was the workplace relations minister and Leader of the House and he came up with these Goebbels like titles for bills. Whatever the bill was about, he would put the opposite in the short title. He thought that people would think there was something good in it for them. The government seem to have adopted the same attitude now. Even though Reith has been thrown overboard, he still lives. As my colleague here reminds me, the best one he came up with when he was sacking people was More Jobs Better Pay. Now they have got this new one, and so the spirit of Reith lives on. A bill that allows employers to fire their workers is called the `fair dismissals' bill. There is obviously some fellow or woman down there who has read 1984 and has got a PhD in newspeak. They are the ones who come up with the short titles. In some ways there might be a bit of unconstitutionality in this, because I always thought the short title was supposed to at least give you some sort of a steer as to what the bill was about. Even the Goebbels character got it all mucked up the other day. Yesterday they had to go and withdraw a bill because they finally `out-1984ed' themselves and `newspeaked' themselves to death. In all their attempts to write a whole lot of clever titles for the security bills, they put the wrong bill in, put the wrong short title on it and had to withdraw the bill. The Attorney-General did not even have the good grace to come in and tell us why it had happened. Instead, we get poor old Peter Slipper in there, getting the short straw as usual, while the Attorney-General was downstairs with the Prime Minister and the homophobe from William Street, trying to work out what they would do about his outrageous attack on a High Court judge.But it really is getting to the stage where you pick up one of these bills and you would never know what is in it. You are probably better off to pick up the bill, look at the short title and decide, `If it's anything, that's precisely not what it is.' Anyway, today we are looking at the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2001-2002—and I can see that my colleague over there is nearly going to sleep.RI4Prosser, Geoff, MP4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—I must say, I saw him last night and no doubt he really should be going to sleep now. The member for Forrest is usually pretty bright, but he is probably about as bright as I am this morning.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—Is there any content in this speech?4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—Sid, there is more content in my speech than there will be in yours. At least I have something written down. You have more papers strewn over your desk than there are in the Sydney Morning Herald. Back to the appropriation bills, which are the bits and pieces for which the government ask the parliament for a bit more money for all the things they say were essential or unavoidable expenditures and which have to come out of the consolidated revenue fund. I think the parliamentary secretary, when he introduced the bill, said in the second reading speech that the moneys are required to meet a number of things, including forecasts, increases in costs, capital restructuring, some new activities and particular commitments made by the government during the election campaign. That could cover a multitude of sins.When I was thinking about what I was going to say in this speech, I thought I would do something that I had not done before and have a look at the outcomes, because the current government, in their newspeak mode, have inputs and outcomes. You listen to the Senate estimates committees and so on now and they do not talk about programs any more; they talk about outcomes. It is interesting to see what some of the various outcomes of portfolios are in this today. It was an enlightening experience, one on which, I would suggest, my colleague here has a lot of thoughts but probably will not get to state them because we are going to have a division shortly. I am beginning to wonder whether we are in danger of becoming rather a schizophrenic society. That sounded a bit extreme; maybe we are just a highly confused society. I actually looked at some of the outcomes and at the member sitting next to me. If I needed any proof that we were a confused society— 849Sidebottom, Sid, MP4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—I have to say, Sid: you confirm that every time. You might actually start to wonder about your sanity when you look at this stuff and then at you as well. An example of some of these outcomes and what they are supposed to match is interesting. According to the parliamentary secretary's second reading speech, $145 million from Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2001-2002 is destined, in his words, `for the Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs portfolio to fund the government's strategy to deal with illegal arrivals'.It is interesting to look at the schedule to see the outcomes against which this expenditure is broken up. Outcome 1 is `contributing to Australian society and its economic advancement through the lawful and orderly entry and stay of people'. Outcome 2 is `a society which values Australian citizenship, appreciates cultural diversity and enables migrants to participate equitably'. Outcome 1 for the Migration Review Tribunal is `contribute to ensuring that the administrative decisions of government are correct and preferable in relation to non-humanitarian entrants'. The newspeak person has written that, I think. I read that a couple of times to see what it meant, and I am still not quite sure. `Non-humanitarian entrants'—it is mind boggling.Outcome 2 is interesting. There is reference to `the appreciation of cultural diversity and enabling migrants to participate equitably', in particular. I wonder what asylum seekers would make of these worthy aims. They could be excused for being thoroughly confused. On the one hand we appear to be a country that would welcome diversity and people from other lands but on the other hand the bitter experience of asylum seekers shows that we do not. It is in the name of these lofty outcomes that the government is seeking to appropriate money to keep people out. It would be more honest if there were outcomes that said something like `a society that thinks it is clever to trick people from other lands who are desperate' or `a society which values Australian citizenship to the extent that it does not want to share it with any undesirables'. We want to keep people out, yet we pride ourselves on our multiculturalism. Nowadays, it seems to be a case of saying, `We'll have multiculturalism as long as they're people like us.' I remember that, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister made a great deal of the Tampa crisis. We heard the member for Lindsay, who preceded me in the debate, tell us that people in Western Sydney voted for the government because of its lofty ideals. The real reason that a lot of people in Western Sydney voted for the government was because of the scare campaign by the government about people on the Tampa and boat people in general. The Prime Minister said then that it would be over his dead body that any of these people would get into Australia, but yesterday the government introduced a bill that will let a lot of them into Australia. We have a government that says one thing and does something entirely different. It makes up these phoney names for pieces of legislation that do something entirely different. People in this country have lost faith in the political system because of the things that this government has done. This government has taken the cynicism in the electorate, worked on it, massaged it and taken us to a position where people now have no faith in politicians; they have no faith in the political system.EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr Stone—Speak for yourself.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—You're one of the nice people; be quiet and listen. 10000Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. B.C. Scott)—I say to the honourable member for Watson that I will decide who is going to be quiet.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—The parliamentary secretary is one of the nice people. I think we are actually in a very dangerous position in this country now because the cynical exercise regarding the `baby overboard' saga at the last election has devalued a lot of things that people would have liked to have thought were right. You can always win an election in Australia if you want to play the race card. Most political leaders have not done that. Most people know that it is a card that is there and that it is available, but if you want to have a country that is inclusive, that does hang together, it is best not to do that. The last fellow who played the race card was Menzies. Menzies thought that he would win an election by putting fear into people over communism. The current Prime Minister has actually used the race card on three occasions. First off, it concerned Asian immigration, then it concerned Aboriginals and, in the last instance, it concerned Afghan and Iraqi asylum seekers. The great damage that has done is that, in getting that campaign going, he and Peter Reith coopted the bureaucracy to an extent that no-one has before. One of the things you used to be able to rely on in this country was that the bureaucracy was a body that supported the government, that you could rely on the fact that the bureaucracy would at least give the government the best advice that the bureaucracy had at the time and be fair about it. People like Yeend—and, even in the modern era, people like Codd—valued the fact that to be the secretary of the Prime Minister's department meant that you held a very important public trust. Your job was to serve the Prime Minister but also it was to ensure that you never overstepped the line of that public trust.I think I must have been here a little too long because I sat up until 11 o'clock—on a Wednesday night when we have the night off—watching the Senate estimates—RI4Prosser, Geoff, MPMr Prosser—You are that sick.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—It is worrying, isn't it? The member for Forrest is as worried about this as I am. The worry about it all is that if you watched the last lot of Senate estimates meetings you saw the secretary of the Prime Minister's department come in and be more political than the politicians. Worse than that, you saw a parade of senior officers of the Australian military—including a general and an air vice marshal who had been the acting chief of the Defence Force—who understood the old idea of honour and had told the minister that he was perpetrating a lie. But you then had the terrible experience of seeing the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Barrie, not being honourable like his two deputies but perpetrating the lie that the secretary of the Prime Minister's department and the Prime Minister were running. If you watched that, you saw the collapse of the last bastion of what was an honourable bureaucracy in this country. Finally, the government had not only coopted the bureaucracy through the secretary of the Prime Minister's department and the secretary of the health department—who just came in and said whatever the government told them—but it had also coopted the military. I really think that what we saw in the last few weeks was the best and the worst of what can happen.Brigadier Bornholt, who has gone to run the Australian effort in Afghanistan, was a very honourable military officer. He stood up and told the truth. But when Admiral Barrie was put there his explanation in the end was, `Well, I never asked the question.' The Prime Minister's answer to all these things is, `I don't know the answer,' and Admiral Barrie's answer to all this was, `I never asked the question. For months and months I sat there and never asked anyone.' It boggles the mind to think about it. Here is this fellow who is supposed to be running a number of Australian military operations overseas. We have more people deployed now than we have ever had except in wartime. Admiral Barrie comes back from an overseas appointment and does not ask his deputy, `Have you told the minister anything interesting in the last couple of days?'Then he goes away again. This time it is not the air vice marshal but the general who is acting CDF. When he comes back he does not ask him either. This fellow, who is supposed to be running the Australian military, does not ask—or so he says—his deputies what they did while he was away. Then he goes before the Senate estimates and says as far as he knows he is relying upon some advice he got three months before and he has never asked anyone since. He never rang the ship's captain because that would have been going back down the chain of command, and you should not do that. But he never asked any of his deputies, and that is what he should have done. If he had asked one of his deputies, they would have said, `Yes, unfortunately we told the minister the government's out there running a lie. But you don't want to know, do you?' What we have now in Australia is really the worst politicisation of the bureaucracy and the military that we have seen. Some political scientists say that the political system we have in Australia is not the Westminster system—it is a Washminster mutation—and that what we cobbled together in 1901 was the influence of King O'Malley, who liked the American system, with the attitude of the other people who liked the British system. So we have a Senate, which is equivalent to the American Senate, latched onto a House of Representatives that is more like the House of Commons than the US Congress.But the trouble with that mutation now is that you have none of the checks and balances of Washington, where the legislative branch is continually at war with the executive branch and both sides use the press as their proxies. So you have none of the checks and balances that are there and none of the honour of Westminster, because you would never get the chief of the British defence forces coming in and trying to hide behind a tea-leaf, like Admiral Barrie did, and you would not get a very powerful public servant who is the secretary to the Prime Minister's department in London coming in and just running a third-rate government lie, as Max Moore-Wilton did. So you have none of the honour of Westminster and none of the checks and balances of Washington. What we have now seen is a whole raft of things that have brought us to that.To go back to where I began, it is part of this cynicism of calling bills what they are not. That seems like a little thing, but it is part of this insidious politicisation of the public service. I must say that when we were in government we had a little bit to do with it, but it has reached its height now. It has reached its height when the one organisation that you could always hope was going to be honourable, the defence forces, had the CDF go in there and repeat the government's lie. In the end he had to destroy his own integrity by saying it was wrong and supporting his commanders. So I think this appropriation bill just continues that sort of cynicism that the government is running. (Time expired)10:54:001419Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I wish to put on the record the role Australia has played and continues to play in protecting the Antarctic. A significant budget is committed by the Australian government to the Australian Antarctic Division. There has also been the Antarctic treaty system, bringing together a number of nations despite their competing sovereignty claims. That has been perhaps one of the most outstanding examples of international cooperation that we have yet seen. Despite all of that, there continue to be major problems in the Antarctic with natural resource protection. Australia has long led in trying to ensure that the ecosystems remain intact, that the significance of this region, which for example locks up some 70 per cent of all fresh surface water supplies, is protected for future generations, and that we now understand the significance of the region in terms of the impacts on world climate and the nutrients of the seas, to name but some of those impacts.Some people, of course, will be quite convinced that the nature of the cooperation down in the Antarctic has been for all time. They will tell you that the Antarctic is the last great untouched wilderness—that man's footprint is, figuratively speaking, barely visible in the snow. However, the first 150 years of human contact with the Antarctic region was a classic tale of the `tragedy of the commons'. It is a history of unbridled commercial exploitation, leading to species extinctions and declines, rubbish dumping and disputes over sovereignty. Let me turn briefly to that early bloody history and see whether or not we have learned by those mistakes. In the 18th century, official and merchant sponsored sailing explorations began to chart the waters and document the icefields and shores of what they described as a beautiful, dangerous place rich in marine resources, in particular fur seals, oil seals and whales. What followed was a decimation of the mammals, driven by the tragedy of the commons. In the absence of property rights or any regulation, private commercial interests rushed to cash in on the bountiful harvest of wildlife—there, apparently, for the taking. Merchants understood their profits depended on arriving first and taking the most before competitors loomed over the horizon.Sealing was well established by the time Captain James Cook's description of the Antarctic marine life in his journals was spread throughout Europe. By the 1770s hunting had already decimated the sealing grounds of the Northern Hemisphere, so the merchants' ships pushed down to the icebergs and windy beaches of the south through the newly charted waters. Crews often sailed out on a promise of a percentage of the profits, so each man was motivated to maximise the kill. Teams were put ashore to skin and render the seals or whales and they took with them rats and cats. To increase the chances of survival of shipwrecked crews of workers abandoned by the less scrupulous masters, sheep, goats and rabbits were also released onto some of the most fragile island ecosystems.During the summer of 1820 at least 49 sealing vessels worked the beaches of the South Shetlands with over 1,200 in the crews. It was an era of horrific human caused extinctions and the destruction of ecosystems. Captain Robert Fildes, the master of the Cora, which sailed from England in 1820, was amused to see how skinners used their observations of fur seal behaviour to lessen injury to themselves but also to maximise the numbers taken. Male fur seals aggressively kept their harem of females herded together in a cluster on the beach. So the skinners blinded the big bull seals in one eye. Fildes then wrote:It was then laughable to see these old goats, planted along the beach, keeping their remaining peeper continually fixed on their seraglio of (females), while sailors passed ... unheeded, between their blind side and the waters edge.While the bull seals kept the females from escaping to the sea—they were slaughtered on the beaches—the pups were left to die beside them. Few animals survived a season's harvest. Within decades the once abundant fur seals were gone. The crews were forced to turn to the less lucrative elephant seal oil. The cauldrons were fired with the bodies of penguins. Eventually they turned to penguins as the only lucrative source of oil, albeit not nearly as viable as boiling down elephant seals.With the beaches emptied, ships turned to the more hazardous whaling, which kept the fleets at work. Whaling stations and camps soon were dotted around the inlets of the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic regions. By 1910 there were reports that the waters around the Falklands were overexploited and that whales were moving further south. At that time, however, the whale catch continued to be too large for efficient local processing. Many killed whales were left to rot in the harbours of the whaling stations. So in 1911 the British introduced a ban on the issue of new whaling licences and regulations in the territories around the Falklands, trying to enforce full utilisation of the whale carcasses.The pattern of hunting till resources were no longer commercially viable, which sealers had followed in the 19th century, was spread across the South Atlantic. By the 1920s pelagic or deep sea whaling had taken over from the land based whaling stations, with catcher ships killing the whales and factory ships doing the processing. Thus the modern era of highly efficient whaling had begun. By 1935 whalers from Norway and the UK accounted for 90 per cent of the catch from the Antarctic region. At its peak in 1937-38, in that one year 33 expeditions went south and killed 46,000 whales. In 1937 Japan joined the hunt. Soon it was evident that different species were unlikely to survive. The blue whale was hunted to near extinction by the 1940s, then the humpback, right and sei whales. Australia shut down its last whaling station in the 1970s, realising the impacts of this wholesale slaughter, and instead turned its attention to the creation of sanctuaries for the protection and preservation of all whale species.With an Indian and Southern Ocean sanctuary in place, we now work hard to create a sanctuary in the South Pacific where whales move to from the Antarctic in winter to breed and mate in the warmer waters. We have been arguing at the last two International Whaling Commission meetings for this sanctuary to be put in place. We know we are fighting an uphill battle as the Japanese, once again, increase their `scientific' whaling quotas and call upon their neighbours in the north—in particular Norway—to assist them in arguing that commercial whaling is not a problem for the species.But it is not just the whales that continue to be in trouble. As I speak, the last illegal fishers of the season are probably hauling up their long-lines and leaving Australian waters off Heard and McDonald Islands. Their ships' holds will be full of frozen Patagonian toothfish destined for lucrative markets in the Northern Hemisphere. The Patagonian toothfish was driven to commercial extinction by many of the same fishing enterprises in the last several years in the nearby South African sub-Antartic territories. Lying at anchor in Fremantle are the Lena and the Volga, arrested for their illegal toothfish long-lining in the Antarctic waters in February. These same ships had been sighted and warned off in January. Despite the cost and the danger, Australia is determined to do all it can; this government will do all it can to defend and sustain this unique and vulnerable species.Under the guise of so-called scientific whaling, and legally under the IWC provisions that allow member countries to set their own kill quotas of whales for research, the Japanese chaser vessels and factory ships steam back to the Northern Hemisphere every year, their holds laden with carcases prepared for sale in the Japanese whale meat markets. Not satisfied with the quotas of minke whales annually killed `for science', the Japanese government has just announced quotas for the endangered sei whale species. These, too, will end up on the Japanese tables, as will the whales that now are allowed to be caught and processed—those that were ensnared in nets just off their coastline.Since the 1960s, and the signing of the Antarctic Treaty, signatories quite rightly claim that they have introduced a new world order of cooperation and peace over a territory the size of the USA and Europe—the Antarctic. Obviously, with this illegal fishing, and with the whaling continuing, there is still a great deal of work to do. How did this Antarctic Treaty system then come about? The success of the International Geophysical Year 1957-58 saw many nations building bases and cooperating in scientific work in the Antarctic. The success of that year stimulated the idea of continuous international cooperation supporting the work of the scientists in the Antarctic.The 1959 Washington conference then laid down the two basic principles of the Antarctic Treaty: the dedication of Antarctica for peaceful purposes only, and the continuance of freedom of scientific investigation and cooperation. To make this possible, the Antarctic Treaty codified an agreement to disagree on sovereignty claims, safeguarding the status quo on the legal positions taken by claimant and non-claimant parties to the treaty. Thus, a unique continuous cooperation among a group of states was established, despite the fact that some territorial claims continue to overlap and some of the natural resources continue to occur in superabundance in the region. Australia, I am proud to say, has been at the forefront of developing and maintaining this unique arrangement, where collaborative scientific endeavour is the glue that binds the participating nations. In 1988, some of the signatories to the Antarctic Treaty were anxious to negotiate the conditions for mining to occur on the continent. Australia and France, neighbours in adjoining claimed territories, argued against this activity, understanding the potential to pollute and endanger the ecosystems in the Antarctic itself. Instead, Australia and France initiated and shepherded through the Madrid protocol. This places a ban on mining for some 50 years, designates the Antarctic as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science, and requires that activities in the Antarctic are subject to environmental impact assessment. It was one of the first treaties to deal with natural resources using an ecosystem or holistic approach. Australia and France can be proud that the Madrid protocol achieved consensus and it was signed in very quick time indeed. Good science is essential for responsible stewardship in the Antarctic. Antarctic based research has identified the global implications of climate change, sea level fluctuations and availability of world food supply. Thus the Antarctic continent acts as a platform or scientific observatory that permits a detailed view of aspects of nature that are not observable anywhere else on the planet. The science that the Australian Antarctic Division administers and supports through the three Australian bases yields information on human biology as well. Our scientists investigate the impact of isolation on human metabolism, nutrition, psychology, physiology and virology in cold climates. This research has implications for medical research and long-term space voyages. Scientists from at least 26 states, most of whom are from non-claimant nations, visit and work on scientific projects in the Antarctic. This, I say again, is one of the most outstanding examples of cooperation internationally and one which goes from strength to strength, with Indonesia now asking how it might participate as part of the great group of nations who together manage the Antarctic Treaty system.Not only has the Antarctic a history of some of the worst episodes of human exploitation and of wildlife species decimation in the past; it also has some of the worst examples of rubbish accumulation around the few sites where humans have made a base over the last 50 to 60 years. In the 1960s, divers near McMurdo base station found the sea floor littered with rubbish. Huskies were interfering with seals and rookeries and driving many of these breeding grounds further and further from where the humans were settled. In 1965, Bernard Stonehouse, from the British Antartic survey, said in an address to scientists:Most Antarctic bases are surrounded by untidiness; some are sordid. The spread of cans, boxes, packing material, oil drums and defunct vehicles around the worst of them is an ugly feature of man's colonisation. Small penguin colonies and breeding groups of gulls, terns and skuas disappear rapidly. Downwind from bases freshwater lakes tend to fill with all the slovenly litter of a village duckpond; their flora and fauna almost unknown, but certainly fascinating, deserve a better fate.In the summer of 1969-70 oil slicks were frequently noted in Arthur Harbour, off the Palmer Island base. The normal processes of decomposition in the frozen region are of course very slow or barely exist. Old machinery, for example, used to be simply abandoned or parked on the sea ice to slip into the ocean during the thaw. In 1983 environmental issues were, not surprisingly therefore, on the agenda of meetings of the Antarctic Treaty nations, with Australia at the forefront in insisting that the environment must be of critical concern to the treaty nations. Some nations—in particular Australia and the United States—began serious cleaning up of their bases in the early 1980s. In a unique collaboration with the private sector, the Australian Antarctic Division is working with Collex this summer to ensure that the rubbish accumulation around Australian bases becomes a thing of the past. Collex has donated special containers to collect the rubbish and then have it transported back to Tasmania for repatriation. Cleaning up the debris of earlier times and some of the contaminated soil remains a major challenge for the Australian Antarctic Division but one which we absolutely embrace and which the Australian government sees as a priority. To save on the need to store fuel and the pollution possibilities that accompany that, and also to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Australian bases, we have now funded the installation of the world's largest wind turbines to generate power to supply Mawson Station and possibly other Australian Antarctic bases. Finally, the last and perhaps the greatest challenge in the protection of Antarctica is the management of tourists—tourists anxious to explore and experience the last frontier. In the four summer months some years ago, 3,000 tourists from 35 ships visited the same penguin and seal populations near a United States base. Quite clearly, the sheer weight of numbers of tourist visitors could be the last straw for some of those already endangered ecosystems. A range of international agreements created since the Antarctic Treaty of 1961 also apply to tourist activity. The 1964 Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, the 1972 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and the Madrid Protocol all help to regulate tourist activity. I am now working with the Antarctic Division to make sure Australia has the appropriate response to growing demands for tourism, so that all visitors have a chance to enjoy their great Australian heritage and at the same time understand the need to sustain that precious place.I will end with a quote from a great Australian, Sir Douglas Mawson, himself a physical scientist but one who very early on recognised the vulnerability of the Antarctic, its significance and the need to steward the region and, particularly, to guard against its unsustainable commercial exploitation. He was addressing the South Australian branch of the Royal Geographic Society in 1918. I should add that he was addressing that society at a time when there was a flourishing industry of boiling down penguins for oil on Macquarie Island. He said:If we totally disregard the value to science of perpetuating this life for study and observation in the future, if we take no account of the pleasure which such an island of animal life must afford future generations of the human race, who alas are destined to live in a world more and more robbed of its former varied fauna and flora, if we are not perturbed at the prospect of an ocean devoid of the bird life so welcome to the ocean voyager, if we give no thought to the economic possibilities of exploitation in future times and, finally, if the wholesale destruction of animal life leaves us unmoved, then we may proceed to continue with the unchecked slaying for the few pence that it returns and with no thought for the morrow.He was begging that the Antarctic and the sub-Antarctic regions be given a better chance.Let me say finally, there was a great Aussie effort in January this year, when a young Australian returning from the Antarctic bases on board the ship the Aurora Australis saw a Japanese chaser vessel at work in the claimed territories near Heard and McDonald Islands. Frustrated by seeing this chaser vessel at work, hunting whales `in the name of science', he dropped his trousers, despite the freezing conditions, facing off towards the chaser vessel. It was an act of sheer frustration, an act of despair perhaps, a great Aussie symbol, but one from the heart of one Australian. That symbolism was not lost on the Japanese. All Australians have a great sense of outrage when they see a region that must be sustained, a region that should no longer be seen as a place that can be commercially exploited to the point where there are no longer viable species. The Australian government is proud to continue the work of previous governments with the great Australian Antarctic Division, supporting the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, and I am proud to be responsible for the work that they do.11:14:001423Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Congratulations, Deputy Speaker Scott, on your elevation to the deputy speakership. I found the preceding speech very interesting. I remind the parliamentary secretary of Tasmania's great involvement in the Antarctic, something of which I am sure she is well aware. I welcome in the parliament her news about the air link, which sounds to have terrific potential for the future, but I agree with her that we have to be very careful how we manage that tourism potential. One thing I might not have mentioned to her before, just for the record, is that we share Shakespeare's birthday. That is not far off—and we will both be turning 30! EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr Stone—Absolutely!849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Absolutely. In terms of appropriations, I would like to continue a theme that I have spoken of in this parliament since I have been here and fortunate enough to be re-elected by the good people of Braddon. It is related to higher education, its financial pressures and the lack of support for families and students who are taking on continuing education and further education. Again, I would like to highlight some areas that I believe are very relevant, not only to my electorate but to average Aussie families throughout Australia, in particular to those that are doing it pretty tough.I mentioned the other day that there was an interesting survey from Newspoll late last year of 1,200 adults—grandfathers, grandmothers and parents of young people. Eighty-four per cent said they looked forward to and encouraged their children to go on and further their education, be it at university, TAFE or wherever else that education would take them. But only 34 per cent of them had any sense of reality of what that cost would be. That is a fairly disturbing statistic. There is no doubt that most people tend to concentrate their costs on their children's primary and secondary education, but unfortunately the days of going through higher education free of charge or with little financial impost are well and truly over. There needs to be—and I have mentioned it before—greater public awareness education of what the costs will be. The reality is, and most people would be shocked by these figures, that the cost of doing a university degree can range between $18,000 and $21,000 a year. That is a fair old whack in anybody's language, but if you are not prepared for it then it makes the situation very difficult. It is very important to note that the Commonwealth does support families and students through the Youth Allowance and Austudy, some accommodation allowance and even some isolated students allowances. But when you look at the actual income threshold involved in terms of means testing you would have to say, in relative terms and real terms, that it is very low. So it excludes many families who I believe are on the margin in terms of the income threshold and that makes it very difficult for them.Looking at some of those costs—and it is important that they are on the record—the Australian Scholarship Group did an investigation of 30 institutions and they looked at costs of book buying and living costs. The full minimal cost they estimated of a three-year arts degree at university was $55,000. Okay, it is an investment by families and students and the community. For instance, the cost of doing a degree in medicine over six years would be $130,000. That is a lot of money to pay. The HECS liability, for instance, could be about $3,598. It can be deferred, but it is still a debt. It can be something like $6,000 to $10,000 for accommodation costs—and I will return to that in a moment—$700 for books, $470 for other course-related charges, $3,250 for food—I do not think I could get half-way through a year on that but that is the estimate—$1,340 for clothes, entertainment $1,430 and something like $870 for personal items, taking it to a total of about $18,000, a considerable cost. These costs are substantial and make it a question of survival for many students in higher education for both them and their families. Remember, these are essentials, not luxuries.The costs are substantial and rising, and the ability to meet these financial imposts is lessening by degrees. There is more and more reliance by students on parental support, Commonwealth benefits, particularly Youth Allowance and Austudy, and on part-time and casual work, both for part-time and full-time students. That factor is one of the most significant changes, certainly in the last 15 to 20 years: full-time students are taking on part-time work and many students who are studying part time have to take on part-time work—and, in some instances, full-time work. That affects the time taken to get their degree. It affects their ability to study, the efficiency and effectiveness of their study and, ultimately and unfortunately for some, it determines whether they finish those studies at all. Concomitant with part-time and full-time work—and I will return to that matter in a moment—is, unfortunately, an increase in debt. The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee's major survey of Australian undergraduate university student finances for 2000 found that, in 2000, 10.7 per cent of undergraduate students obtained a loan in order to continue their studies, and that the average amount borrowed was nearly $4,000. It might not seem like a lot of money to people who receive fairly hefty incomes, but when you are on the margin or you do not have enough, it is very difficult. I can imagine the pressure both on parents and on those supporting students, who will do everything they can to support the student. Needless to say, there is also a reciprocal pressure on the student to work hard whilst they are doing their courses. For some, the pressure is so great that they would not put their families through that financial cost. It makes it more and more difficult and it certainly does have negative consequences. The survey also pointed out that a significant number of students who would prefer to study full time, finances permitting, were from low socioeconomic family backgrounds; had applied for, but been refused, government income support; were either financially independent or financially dependent on relatively low income earners; had taken out a loan to continue study; had a deficit budget; and had not paid course fees up-front. So they are literally living in need and in debt. Thus a substantial demand for full-time study cannot be met because students simply cannot afford to study full time.The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee's survey of Australian undergraduate student finances for 2000, under the heading `Work and Study' in their executive summary, came up with some information relating to students working part time and full time which is very interesting to take on board. The proportion of full-time students who are in paid employment during semester has increased in the last two decades. In 1984, about five in 10 undergraduates were employed during the semester. In 2000, more than seven in every 10 students were employed during the semester. And that is not just to get beer money; that is to get living money, survival money, in order to continue their courses. Not only are more students in paid employment during the semester; those who are employed are working longer hours. In 1984, full-time undergraduate university students worked an average of five hours every week during semester. By 2000, full-time students worked an average of 14.4 hours a week, or about two days every week, and nearly three times the hours worked by students in 1984. I repeat: 14.4 hours per week during semester. The increase in paid work takes its toll on studies, according to the report. Nearly one in every 10 students, or about 33,900, who are employed frequently miss classes because of that work. Nearly two in every 10 students, or 70,600 students Australia wide, in paid employment say that the work adversely affects their study a great deal.So we have increasing financial imposts on students and their families. We have more and more students who must work, who take part-time or full-time work. The hours involved in that work are increasing dramatically. It is affecting their studies and we know from surveys that students and their families are increasingly more in debt. That must affect participation rates. Where I come from, in the Mersey-Lyall region, which is basically the north-west and west coast of Tasmania, including King Island, unfortunately the participation rates, particularly for tertiary education, are amongst the lowest in Australia—historically so. So the issues I have raised here are exacerbated in my own electorate. It is not just the higher education participation rate that is relatively lower; our retention rates from year 12 into further education are also significantly lower state wide and, unfortunately, nationally. So that is an issue that we have to work at very strongly. I hope this government will be working nationally on these issues as well. In the last federal election, our policy of education priority zones was designed specifically to try and tackle some of these issues.One of the things I find interesting about the lower participation rates, particularly in rural and regional areas, is that it is not only those on low incomes and those people who are below the threshold to receive youth allowance, Austudy and other allowances who are finding it very difficult. There is an added difficulty—I have raised this before and I will raise it again—and that is for the people and families that are near that low income threshold but receive no benefits at all. I refer to the discriminatory practice in Australia against students in rural and regional areas, who have to move away from where they live and to travel to continue their education. Families who are above that low income threshold receive no support at all. It is our estimate that something like $10,000 per annum is the geographic differential that occurs because of this discriminatory approach in education—the difference between supporting and not supporting families. I would like to take the last remaining moments of my speech to share with this chamber and to put on the public record the difficulties that some of these families experience. Remember: students have to move away to continue their education. It is not a choice; it is a fact. It would cost them an extra $10,000 a year on top of any other charges or imposts faced by most students living in urban areas or in regional university towns. It is that $10,000 difference that I want to talk about and how it unfairly affects many of these families.I would like to quote from a letter sent to me by Mr Robert Bourke from Penguin in my electorate.Dear Sid I would like to this opportunity to express to you my concerns in relation to the problems associated with the need for students, who reside on the North West Coast of Tasmania, who wish to further their education and are required to attend the University of Tasmania in Hobart. It could equally have been Launceston.My daughter currently finds herself in a position where she will be required to move to Hobart in order to undertake studies for a Pharmacy degree. There will be quite a number of other students who will find themselves in the same situation and I am anxious to highlight to you the financial impact this move will have on our family. This is not a case of “crying poverty” but one where I believe that because we choose to live where we do and that in order for our daughter to pursue her chosen career, she has to relocate and in her case it is to Hobart. The costs associated with this move has necessitated my wife reentering the workforce after nearly 20 years of being a “stay at home mother” in order for us to find the finance required to cover all expenses.Remember: they receive no financial support at all. There is no taxation rebate or concession for this differential when their child has to move away from home. It continues:The need for my wife to reenter the workforce for the sole purpose of funding our daughter's further education is evidence that there should be some consideration given to families who are being disadvantaged by living outside Hobart—in this case—If our family chose to live in Hobart it would not require my wife to work and the overall costs associated with our daughter attending University would be no more than what we have been paying for the past 10 years as we opted to send our daughter to a private school.I wish to list the following major items of expenditure that we have or will be required to fund:· Attendance at Unistart Program—1 week in Hobart—Travel—Accommodation—$600· Accommodation—Jane Franklin College—$9,000.00· HECS Fees—$3,600.00· Purchase of items to fit-out accommodation—$400Our daughter has also been employed on a part-time basis whilst living at home and therefore has been able to fund her own personal living and social expenses but it will be an unknown factor as to her ability to find suitable part-time work in Hobart that will be conducive to her studies. If this does eventuate then we will also be required to fund her personal living expenses.In addition to the above there will be costs associated with our daughter either traveling home or us visiting Hobart where we will have costs associated with travel, accommodation and living expenses. As you can see from the above, people like us who live on the North West Coast are at a distinct disadvantage to those who live in Hobart or Launceston. Added to this is the fact that Government support is “means tested” and those of us who are deemed “ineligible” are being forced to somehow find the additional finance to fund their child's further education. In our case it has meant that my wife has had to find employment, something that we have great difficulty with, given the high rate of unemployment and the fact that she has most probably taken a job that one of our young unemployed could have had. I raise that letter from Mr Robert Bourke as an example to illustrate the situation where you have, all things being equal, people who will not receive any financial support for their son or daughter going to university or further education. The fact is that these students have to leave the region. It is not an option; they have to leave. The estimate is—and Mr Bourke has pointed some of the costs out—that there would be a $10,000 differential if they lived in Hobart, Launceston, Melbourne, Sydney or wherever else a university centre is.Why is that we cannot support those people in that differential? I am asking members to consider that need, because it is a need based on equity. I am asking members in this House and in my own party—and I hope other members opposite will be asking in their own parties—what type of support we could give to overcome that differential, even in a taxation sense. It may mean that you have to show your proof of university entrance and also accommodation receipts to claim some form of tax benefit. It may not be the whole amount—I appreciate that—but it would be something to help those people overcome that differential. I believe that differential is inequitable and unfair. These people are not asking for anything different from anyone else who may live in an urban centre or in a regional university centre. They are asking that they get some support to overcome that differential based on geography. (Time expired)11:34:001427Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—This is the first opportunity that I have had in the 40th Parliament to reflect upon the election result and to make some comments about some of the challenges that I think this place faces as a parliamentary democracy. Of course, from my point of view it is disappointing that the Australian Labor Party still finds itself on the opposition benches. I wish to thank the people of Scullin for once again showing their faith in the Australian Labor Party and in me as their representative by re-electing me. Without wishing to sound overly conceited or gloating, I wish to indicate that there is a very important facet about the result in Scullin. The primary vote for the Australian Labor Party in the seat of Scullin was just over 63 per cent. Based on my research, this is the highest percentage primary vote that the Australian Labor Party got in any electorate throughout Australia. I would not be so bold as to say that it was all due to the calibre of the candidate that the party was putting forward. But I wish to say that this is something that is very much in my mind as I embark upon the next three years in this place.Of course, like all people that are elected to this place, I represent the whole of the electorate. But the important thing that that high primary vote, in what is a large region of the outer suburbs of the north of Melbourne, indicates to me is that those people—despite whatever was going on overall in the election—in great numbers put their faith for their future in the Australian Labor Party. In other neighbouring electorates the two-party preferred vote creeps up to above what the result was in Scullin. That is partly because in large numbers those that had voted for the Australian Labor Party as their first vote decided that they would vote for other parties first and then give Labor the second preference. This did not happen in Scullin. This is something, as I said, that I will have in the back of my mind throughout this parliament.What are the challenges that confront an electorate like Scullin now and into the future? The electorate of Scullin has the northern suburbs of the city of Whittlesea, part of the city of Banyule and part of the shire of Nillumbik. It is very much on the outer urban fringe of Melbourne. The two municipalities, Nillumbik and Whittlesea, are part of a Melbourne conglomerate of councils that call themselves the interface councils. Throughout the whole crest of Melbourne, from the western suburbs through to Frankston, these councils have shared challenges as they try to come to grips with growing populations on the outer urban fringe. What are some of the things that characterise the challenges for the outer urban fringe? Increasing population and increasing need for infrastructure such as roads and public transport. Mr Deputy Speaker, without wishing to get you into the debate in your capacity as the member for Greenway, you would understand the challenges that confront these outer-lying areas of major cities, where we do not have what inner dwellers have inherited from history: large public transport networks. We rely on the private car. We can continue to have efforts to reduce that reliance, but it will still be there. So we need to balance the proper provision of a road infrastructure with taking measures that encourage people to use public transport, especially in the northern suburbs of Melbourne for journeys into the CBD. At the moment, major arterial roads are completely chocked-full, especially at peak hour, of traffic where people are trying to get to their employment.In a Royal Automobile Club of Victoria article of February this year, they make an analysis of some of the costs to local communities of our present road network. This was based on a study of outer metropolitan transfer infrastructure surveys and the RACV's investigations. For instance, for a municipality like Whittlesea, there were 198 reported crashes on substandard arterial roads, and the RACV is estimating that the cost to the community is $17.6 million. In Nillumbik there were 113 reported crashes at a cost to the community of $13.1 million. When we consider these questions such as the provision of road infrastructure, we have to take into account the cost of not doing anything, the cost of allowing our roads to continue to be substandard.In the run-up to the election there was a bit of local discussion about a major road project that is to occur. That is the F2 freeway. It is the Hume Highway deviation from Craigieburn down to the Western Ring Road. Many years ago in this place I was able to raise my concerns about adequate environmental studies to ensure that certain fauna and flora worth protecting would not be affected by this proposal. I believe that the route that has finally been decided meets many of those concerns. Putting in place this alternative route—the final bit of the Hume Highway as it comes down from Sydney and arrives in Melbourne to meet up with the ring road—is of great importance, and the benefit to the wider community and the local community outweighs any disadvantage. We have to make those analyses. For the overall good, the people of the northern suburbs of Melbourne have often been called upon to take a lot of that infrastructure and to take the disadvantages that brings with it.Another important piece of infrastructure that is required around the area that I represent is health infrastructure. The two major public hospitals that service the area are the Northern Hospital at Epping and the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre. The Austin repatriation hospital has had an injection of hundreds of millions of dollars from the state government, as part of their commitment when they were elected. That was on the basis of trying to rationalise the old Repatriation General Hospital Heidelberg campus and the previous Austin Heidelberg campus, to make better use of the entire facilities. That is a very positive step.Last week at the Northern Hospital at Epping, I attended the turning of the sod for the works that are going to be conducted as part of the first stage of a redevelopment of that fairly new hospital. It has had teething problems as it has started to develop, but the state government—directly through the efforts of Minister Thwaites—sat down with the hospital and commenced a program to tackle those problems, to make sure that the hospital provides the best service possible for the local community. This stage is a $12 million redevelopment which will see 32 surgical beds, two new operating theatres and an increase in available day procedure unit beds from 10 to 20. That will significantly improve the way in which people are able to get into public hospitals. At the election, the Australian Labor Party, as part of its Medicare alliance and its ability to sit down with state governments and rationalise the federal and state arrangements, put forward a piece of policy that would have had a federal Labor government looking at assisting the state government in the provision of public hospital beds in the outer urban fringe. A sum of $30 million would have gone to four outer suburban hospitals—Frankston, Maroondah, Werribee and the Northern Hospital at Epping. That indicates that we were willing to sit down and to enter into discussion with representatives from areas such as those four that I mentioned—that are characteristic of these, to use the term that local governments are using, `interface' areas—and to be part of the provision of important social infrastructure: in this case, hospitals.One of the things that is continually put to me as we go through the discussion of population policy is that there has to be a shared responsibility for the provision of services for the areas that are taking these people. Now in Melbourne, as the south-east is very much developed, the northern and the western suburbs are really taking most of the new residents and undergoing great development. There needs to be a shared responsibility between local government and state government, and I believe that the federal government has a role in that provision.There are, of course, other important areas such as education and employment. Unemployment in Scullin is at about the national average, but that is no cause for complacency. It still means that 4,000 or 5,000 people who live in the area are seeking employment. One of the things affecting people's ability to get employment is the way in which our trade efforts are changing—the way in which different sectors are becoming important. In the past there has been great reliance placed upon manufacturing industry but, when we see things such as the rationalisation that there has been in the passenger motor vehicle assembly sector and the way in which the textile, clothing and footwear industry has changed, we see that lots of the old traditional opportunities are going. Now we are trying to discover other things that we can be involved in. Being on the outer urban fringe close to primary producers, one of the things that local industry are now turning to is food processing. Not only are they turning to that for domestic markets; they are exploring the way in which they can export. Last week I visited a small Italian pasta maker who is now selling pasta into Asian markets—into Beijing and into Korea. I think it is very important that we have the balance in these very small businesses so that they see that the opportunities are not in replacing domestic markets but in exploring the ways in which they can enter export markets.At the same time, when we have some people taking advantage of globalisation and the opening up of international trade, other people continue to bear the brunt and be the victims of globalisation. At the moment, in Preston—which is outside my electorate but some of the people who work at Hugo Boss are people from my electorate—there are people who, because of the way in which the textile, clothing and footwear industry has changed, will be losing their jobs to places offshore. Hugo Boss has taken back the licence that was given to the Flair group of companies, and the Hugo Boss products that were manufactured at the Preston site will be going offshore. A couple of hundred jobs are being lost. I have to admit that the suit I am wearing is an Australian produced Hugo Boss suit. I hate to have to admit that this is the most money I have ever spent on a suit. It is a very good suit; a fine product with fine workmanship. I am disappointed that the opportunities that were produced through that licensing agreement have gone. More importantly, 200 people will now have to make the adjustment. They are the ones who are bearing the brunt of this freeing up through globalisation. They are the people we really have to think about. Not everybody will be able to get into the so-called benefits of the freeing up of trade. Over the past few days we have discussed, for instance, the steel industry, and lamb and other things. In my electorate, Howe Leather was affected when the Americans went after Howe Leather right through the World Trade Organisation. Sometimes some of the other players do not have a great commitment to free trade. Sometimes people who say that free trade has to be about fair trade are scoffed at. I am not going to walk away from my position: if free trade is not about fair trade, I am not a supporter of free trade. We have to be fair dinkum. There is no need for us to get the gold medal for being the first to get the pure model of free trade if people around us are not playing the game by the same rules. It is all about level playing fields, and that is what government and decision makers have to realise. Another important opportunity for employment in the local area is the so-called Janefield land. Way back, Janefield was a colony for people with intellectual disabilities. Under the Building Better Cities Program, money was provided to assist the people who were former residents of Janefield to go out into the community—the so-called deinstitutionalisation. That meant that the land became vacant, and it gave an opportunity to the local area to look at what use could be made of that land. The most important priority given to that land was through the employment opportunities that it represented.Regrettably, over the last five or six years, that land has lain vacant. There was no movement. RMIT eventually bought the land about three years ago. They had grandiose ideas about how they would develop that greenfield site. They had ideas of higher technology companies possibly coming into the area, creating a niche in the employment market that is not represented at present—an exciting prospect. There was the possibility of 3,000 to 5,000 jobs when the land was fully developed. What has happened so far? Not much at all. In fact, the only thing that has been achieved is the remaining residential complex for some of the people that are under the care of the state government. But nothing else has happened—not even the possibility of student accommodation, which was a small pocket.The local community is now in fear that the whole site will revert to residential use and the community will miss out on employment opportunities that go with residential development. Local councils in the north understand that. They have endeavoured to ensure that employment opportunities go hand-in-hand with new residential developments. They are often not sure whether all government agencies see that as the most important thing. Too easily in the past, land with planning that would provide employment opportunity has been changed expeditiously to residential areas. That cannot continue. There has to be a realisation that any development that occurs has to be balanced. These are very much the important things that we have.The people of Scullin and the surrounding area need to be able to go forward with the same opportunities for access to information that others have. Slowly but surely computer ownership and modem access to the Internet is increasing. We have to ensure that people have equal opportunities to access those things. When you have areas of very low income, these opportunities are not readily available and, on some occasions, have to be provided publicly.There are other issues and challenges that I could raise. One of the local papers noted that a local legal service had been conducted for 25 years through the voluntary efforts of local legal practitioners. Disappointingly, they now have only one legal practitioner on their books. Over those 25 years, there have been efforts to get a government sponsored legal service, because that is a very important element of a local community, but they have failed. When this modest volunteer legal service is now struggling, it leaves the community with no alternatives, and that is disappointing.The most important thing that people who live in an electorate like Scullin would like to see from this parliament is that they get a fair share of what is available commensurate with the needs of the local area. (Time expired)11:50:001431Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I want to use the broad ranging nature of the debate on this package of appropriations bills to raise some issues, broadly under the category of health, in relation to the levels of resources and management arrangements that the Commonwealth, particularly, but also all the state and territory governments might take account of in relation to this important area. For most Australians there has undoubtedly been remarkable progress over recent decades in relation to physical wellbeing associated with rapid advances in medical science, but those advances are not necessarily matched in terms of social and emotional wellbeing. In that respect, the work of an organisation such as the National Mental Health Promotion and Prevention Working Party, chaired by Professor Beverley Raphael and under the auspices of the Australian health ministers collectively, carries out a most important function. That working party has an approach to mental health issues that incorporates promotion, prevention and early intervention activities. Obviously, those approaches can have far-reaching consequences in minimising the terrible long-term costs that often attach to individuals, families and, indeed, whole communities in relation to mental health. Without in any way diminishing the importance of those particular areas of promotion and prevention, I would suggest other areas in addition. It is also worth noting that the working party gives considerable attention to other areas, particularly the development of partnerships and service reform and issues of quality and effectiveness of service delivery for those people who may have more chronic difficulties in relation to mental health.This is not a small issue in the Australian community. More than one million Australians are estimated to have a mental disorder, with half of them affected long term. It is also estimated that one in five Australians will be affected, at least at some stage in their life, by a mental disorder. As I indicated, the Second National Mental Health Plan, which closely involves the working party that I referred to a moment ago, is involved in making recommendations to all levels of government in Australia in relation to ensuring that the balances are correct.A number of very interesting points made in a monograph that this working party put out recently, entitled Promotion, prevention, early intervention for mental health, are worth referring to. The working party refers to the need to discourage rigid funding models that are sector specific as they can be counterproductive to policies that promote mental health. Similarly, the working party talks about a need for a major shift in philosophy and resource allocation to enable health agencies to embrace promotion activities more adequately. It talks about the limited resources allocated to mental health having been historically used for treating conditions, leaving little for initiatives earlier in the intervention spectrum. It also talks about agencies planning to incorporate new directions inevitably facing problems in prioritising and allocating sufficient funds for other options: that is, it is suggesting, I think, that the system is perhaps a little hidebound and in need of some fairly fundamental looking at. I would suggest that that is undoubtedly correct. My only reservation about the comments that I have just referred to, which are very significant in the reports of the working party, is that that emphasis on promotion and prevention should not diminish the importance of looking very seriously at the adequacy of management arrangements that operate within the system at the moment, in relation to managing particular chronic conditions.I want to illustrate that point by talking more specifically about some particular conditions which are essentially mental health conditions but spill over into physical health as well, particularly those affecting adolescents. Adolescence is seen as a peak period of mental difficulties, because difficulties can flow through to the formation of young people's sense of self and identity. It can also very adversely affect their educational development and vocational prospects. Eating disorders—most specifically anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa which are very prevalent among young adolescent females particularly—are one group of disorders I have been aware of for some time, but I have only realised the severity of them through personal exposure to family friends. These are conditions that affect around 1.8 per cent and 0.4 per cent respectively of women generally. It is estimated that about one per cent of adolescents experience these eating disorders. These eating disorders are very rare in males. They are very much an illness of young females and are obviously closely associated with anxiety and depression. The attention that needs to be focused on these sorts of conditions is illustrated by a couple of books that I would like to quote from. The first is an excellent Australian publication by Melinda Hutchings. Her introduction states:Whenever I hear of another young, innocent victim falling prey to an eating disorder, the illness which captured my life for three years when I was a teenager, my heart sinks with the sadness of knowing only too well the hardships that lie ahead. Anorexia, Bulimia and an Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified are all illnesses that are very complex and difficult to understand, and extremely life threatening.Another book in circulation in Australia by an American author says, in the introduction:For most people, eating disorders are a great mystery of our time: an enigma to the medical and psychological professionals as well as to those who have had to live with the bizarre and often tragic behaviour of its victims and the sufferers themselves who cannot explain their actions. Paradoxically, much of the mystery has arisen less because we lack the knowledge or wisdom to understand what drives people to destroy themselves, but because we are all too ready to explain their behaviour in some of the most authoritative and misleading cliches of our culture.In a world so fixated on images, so prone to reward selfishness, so ready to equate success with self-promotion, it is hardly surprising that eating disorders are often construed as simple vanity taken to an extreme.Having had some small personal experience with young women with this particular illness, I echo those sentiments and underline the importance of health authorities in Australia, including the Commonwealth, ensuring that adequate priority and adequate attention is given in the most appropriate ways to these conditions. I think all in this House would agree that young Australians are undoubtedly our most precious resource, yet I am certainly not convinced at all that the resources and appropriate structures are in place to adequately address the very complex psychological and social issues that attach, particularly for young adolescent women in these conditions.I am aware in this context that the Victorian government has recently established a centre of excellence for eating disorders. That is clearly a positive step but a heck of a lot more needs to be done. I am advised that in Victoria, my home state, for example, there are only three hospitals that provide services for anorexia nervosa and bulimia victims: Monash Medical Centre, the Austin and the Royal Melbourne. But in none of them, I am advised, is there a specialised in-patient facility for adolescent victims of these illnesses. The Royal Children's Hospital in Victoria has an adolescent health unit, but I understand that is an out-patient facility. So I repeat my point: for this condition that is chronic in young women in our society, in the state of Victoria there is no specialist in-patient facility for these young people. I do not believe the situation in other states is any better; it may well be worse.It really is quite important to understand that our young people may not be adequately served even given that limitation. A recent publication put out by the Eating Disorders Foundation of Victoria argues a very strong case for the need for case management of such young people. It says:Case management for people with an eating disorder occurs rarely ... In other mental illness the potential of a case management approach to increase the smooth transition between different treatment types, and to keep the client `linked' in to the service system is well recognised. Case management may minimise the often negative ... experiences associated with the need to access several services, sites of service or treatment options; thus increasing the potential of the consumer to continue with treatment. The constancy provided by case management and individual service plans can promote a smoother and more effective transition for the client through all phases of recovery. Despite that sensible advice from the foundation, it is my understanding that that system does not apply in hospitals in Australia, including in Victoria, for eating disorder victims. Frankly, there is an obligation to look at it. There may well be some systemic problems as well. Hospital funding operations are, as I understand it, premised very much on achieving a relatively rapid throughput of patients. Hospitals tend to be penalised over the long staying of patients. So you have the absurd situation sometimes where a young adolescent who has been admitted to a ward in relation to dramatic weight loss will be patched up and whizzed back out into the community, without the necessary support required for that young person not to get on the roundabout again and have to come back in the relatively near future simply because the hospital has been focused on getting them in and out of the system as quickly as possible, and it has funding incentives to do that.Then there may be a situation where a young person is put into a psychiatric ward where there may well be adult patients who are suffering some sort of psychotic disorder—that is not necessarily the most appropriate environment for a very vulnerable, fragile, young girl. You could also have situations, I am advised, where association with other anorexia or bulimia patients and the negativity that is typical of those mental conditions is not the appropriate setting in which a child or adolescent can have their mental health needs addressed properly and coherently.There is a need for governments in Australia—led, hopefully, by the Commonwealth, because this is a national issue—to ensure that a systematic road map is developed for ensuring the adequacy of service for adolescents with the sorts of illnesses associated with eating disorders, and to ensure that some serious resources are put in. It is not simply a matter of resources; it involves matters of philosophy and management style. It is also a matter of ensuring that our health institutions actually do have the structures in place to address the fairly specific needs of these very complex conditions.I am suggesting that the Commonwealth government, through the appropriate agencies, really gives this issue some priority consideration and ensures that the states are brought along cooperatively, so that we do address the disgraceful situation we face at the moment whereby, in a city like Melbourne—and I understand the same applies in every other capital city—there is no specialised in-patient service available for adolescent anorexia nervosa victims. Certainly it is welcome, as I mentioned earlier, that we note the work done by the mental health working party. Certainly, great emphasis does need to be put on prevention through the promotion of healthy eating concepts, but that cannot be done at the expense of ensuring that the services are in place for the chronic victims of these conditions. Tragically, it is a life-threatening set of conditions. Young people, particularly young women, do die from these conditions. We do need to ensure that the total system is able to cope with them. I am certainly not persuaded that at the moment we have anywhere near the right balance. I urge the Commonwealth to provide some real leadership on this matter and to get down to the job of protecting and enhancing the quality of life of those people whom we recognise as one of our most valuable community resources: the young people, the adolescents of our society.12:09:001433Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I congratulate you on your appointment to the Speakers Panel.10000Mossfield, Frank (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr F.W. Mossfield)—And to you too.84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE—It has taken a little over three months for the great deception played out by the Howard government in the 2001 election to unravel. As I intended to say in my address-in-reply speech, but unfortunately that has been put off, the Australian Labor Party holds no bitterness over the result, no matter how disappointing election defeats are. We remain appalled at the way in which the Howard government obtained its victory. It was a deceitful and unprincipled victory that has tarnished our national reputation and damaged our national conscience. It has diminished us as a nation, created division in our community and questioned the values of honesty and decency that were once considered fundamental to what it was to be an Australian. Week by week since 10 November we have seen one thread after the other of the Howard government election deceit unravel. First there were the allegations of children being thrown overboard. It was obvious at the time to the government that these were nothing more than allegations, but it served the government's purposes to perpetuate the story because it helped its political fortunes. It beggars belief that the Prime Minister did not know these allegations could not be substantiated. For a Prime Minister to not know such detail in the pressure cooker of an election campaign is simply fantasy. As the honourable member for Brand said at the dinner in his honour last week, party leaders know everything; in election campaigns they are briefed in detail on such matters. For a Prime Minister to claim that he did not know information of this nature and in this detail is an admission of utter incompetence. Prime Minister, we do not believe you, nor do the Australian people.The 2001 campaign showed the Howard government was breathtakingly deficient in its vision for the future of this country. If the Howard government had had a comprehensive policy platform and a direction in which it wanted to take the country, it would not have been necessary to resort to such despicable electoral tactics. What the Labor Party said in the lead-up to and during the campaign was that this government was without policies and had no idea where it was going. My only hope is that the Senate committee investigating this matter uncovers the truth about what happened and reveals it to the public so that the Prime Minister and his colleagues are held in judgment by the nation. The suggestion that ministerial advisers and Public Service officials may be prevented from giving evidence to the committee and that it may have to go to the unprecedented length of issuing subpoenas simply beggars belief. It clearly shows that the government has a lot to hide about its actions in this affair. If all that the Prime Minister has said about his involvement in and knowledge of this affair is true, then he and any other members of the government should have nothing to hide: they should be willing to fearlessly appear before the Senate committee and answer any question put to them. I admit that I will not be holding my breath for this to happen, as I am all too familiar with the deceitful manner in which this government operates.The second great con by this government was to appeal to voters for its return on the basis that it was the best qualified to manage the Australian economy. Casino Costello and the frittering away of $5 billion in public money on speculative foreign currency transactions, in the face of unambiguous advice that the policy should be changed, has quickly put paid to any suggestion that this government is economically responsible. The best the Treasurer can do is blame the Labor Party because it implemented the policy. The Labor Party did implement the policy but the Labor Party did not accumulate $5 billion in losses. Every question time we are forced to endure the further erosion of standards in the House as government members ask dorothy dixers of the Treasurer about Australia's economic performance, government economic policies and his views about alternative policies. Every answer sees the Treasurer waxing lyrical about this government's sound stewardship of the economy and how bad it would be if Labor were in government and implemented its economic policies. Perhaps the Treasurer can explain how he thinks he can have it both ways. If Labor's policies are so bad, how come we manage to make them work successfully? If Labor's policies are so bad, why didn't he change them? Where has the Treasurer been for the last six years?Of course, the Treasurer would never admit that he inherited an economy that was fundamentally sound, thanks to the reforms and policies of the Hawke and Keating Labor governments. Thirteen years of brave reforms meant that by 1996 the current Prime Minister inherited an economy underpinned by strong growth, low inflation, low unemployment and increased productivity. Compare this to the Prime Minister's period as Treasurer: he was a minister in a government which, despite controlling both houses of parliament, failed every economic reform challenge presented to it. It left office in 1983 with the unique distinction of achieving low economic growth, high inflation and high unemployment—something most economists refer to as stagflation. The present government has achieved the unique distinction of its former members and ministers having a greater influence on public life after leaving parliament than they ever did when they were in this place. Unfortunately, none of this influence is in any way positive. Try as I might to forget him, let us consider the legacy of Dr Wooldridge. I am sure many voters remember the former minister for health giving his assurances that the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance would reduce pressure on the public hospital system and that dramatic rises in private health insurance premiums would not occur. In fact, the former minister even predicted that in 2002 private health insurance premiums might even fall. Well, in the last month cabinet has approved increases in premiums which have blown the last of Michael Wooldridge's credibility clean out of the water. And the revelation of his spending priorities in diverting $5 million in funding for asthma programs to the Royal College of General Practitioners speaks volumes about the principles of the government.Detached as Western Australia is from the population centres on the east coast, the premium rise proposed by HBF, Western Australia's largest private health insurer, probably did not get much national attention—it certainly did in Western Australia. That is because HBF had approval to increase premiums by an average of 18 per cent. That is right: 18 per cent. Cover for an individual will rise by $5 per fortnight and for a family by between $10 and $15 a fortnight. One of the other funds in Western Australia—the Goldfield Medical Fund—I believehas had approval for an increase of up to 30 per cent. So we have the major fund going up by 18 per cent and some of the other funds going up by as much as 30 per cent. So much for no increases.I have not heard Dr Wooldridge say much about the matter. That is probably because he is too busy with the lucrative consultancy he now has with the Royal College of General Practitioners, the beneficiary of the $5 million in funding that was to be spent on asthma and rural health programs. Given that Dr Wooldridge has now disappeared into political irrelevance, perhaps the Prime Minister could explain the legacy that his former health minister leaves. After all, in the election campaign the Liberal Party claimed that its health policies were going to make private health insurance more affordable and attractive to consumers. Prime Minister Howard referred on several occasions to the government resuscitating private health insurance. I can assure this government that the budgets of many households in my electorates are starving for oxygen and are well and truly in shock. I have tried doing the sums but I still do not see how families being slugged $150 to $250 a year makes private health insurance more affordable and more attractive. If the Prime Minister cannot explain this, if Dr Wooldridge is too busy with his wine collection, then maybe the Treasurer can give the Australian people the benefit of his economic genius and justify these increases. `Never mind,' he will tell the Australian people, `just like the $5 billion of your money I lost speculating on foreign currencies, they are just sort of paper increases. Other people might claim they are real, but they are not. They are just paper increases.' Pull the other one, Treasurer. Another slug on families already doing it tough will only make it harder for families to make ends meet. The saddest aspect of all these matters I have described is that they represent the continuing erosion of the high standards to which those of us in public office should be bound.The Howard government plays lowest common denominator politics. Its standards continue to go lower and lower. This is despite the Prime Minister's proclamation in 1996 that he would set and enforce high standards of conduct. We now know his words were hollow. Ministers have consistently breached standards of acceptable behaviour and suffered no penalty. The `children overboard' affair makes me wonder just what a Howard government minister can get away with. The Prime Minister sees fit to operate by his own low standards. While those opposite might operate at such low standards, the Australian Labor Party will not be dragged down to those levels. As an opposition member, I will continue to work for the people of Swan to deliver something better. I will continue to work with the Westralia Airports Corporation, the owners of Perth International Airport, as they face challenges from the collapse of Ansett. With Ansett no longer operating, Perth International Airport must deal with a significant decrease in its revenue. Businesses that operated within the airport and others who supplied their goods and services to Ansett face a very uncertain future. I will continue to work with them. I will continue to work with the airport and with residents to address noise management issues arising from the operations of the airport. In particular, I will continue to work for noise amelioration measures to be installed in homes, businesses and schools that are under the airport flight path, so that affected areas are treated no differently from those in Sydney. Given that my electorate of Swan and the adjoining electorate of Hasluck are not Liberal electorates, I know a fair level of Commonwealth government funding for this program is by no means a certainty. I will continue to pressure the government to give greater security to workers in my electorate through support for legislation that ensures workers' entitlements are protected. I will continue to work to ensure Telstra remains in majority public ownership and meets its obligations to its employees and its biggest shareholder, the Australian people. I make this undertaking, as I do not want to see a repeat of the recent sacking by Telstra of 53 of its call centre staff because of the supposed cyclical nature of the telecommunications industry. As a member of parliament, I take no satisfaction in trying to explain to employees who have worked between six and 10 months for a government owned corporation and are sacked with no access to leave or redundancy entitlements that they have been treated fairly.I will continue to work with the Curtin University of Technology, a fine educational institution with an excellent international reputation for teaching, learning and research and development, and which I am proud to have located within my electorate. It is unfortunate that Curtin University's educational capacity has been constrained by of the funding priorities of this government. Curtin University is not alone in this regard. Since 1996 the Howard government has reduced funding to universities by millions of dollars and, at the same time, slugged students with extra fees through higher HECS payments. During its time in office, the Howard government has almost doubled the HECS it charges students. The number of places for students going to university is now in decline. In 2000, for the first time, enrolments of commencing domestic students in Australia declined. Curtin University's funding for undergraduate places has also been decreased. Curtin University now offers far fewer places than it did in 1996. Research and development has also suffered under the Howard government because of the lack of Commonwealth funding. In turn, fewer university places mean our brightest and youngest minds are denied opportunities to obtain a higher education, robbing them and our nation of the opportunity to reap the benefits of their intellectual endeavours. I will continue to work for a better deal for job seekers and those on welfare benefits. But, in the face of the way this government treats job seekers, I know I have my work cut out. For this government, the term `mutual obligation' is an oxymoron. It expects welfare recipients to estimate their earnings in advance so that benefits can be adjusted. But, if these estimates are not right—not easy, given the complex nature of the process—the recipient is stung with a bill for immediate payment. And the way the government held off sending these repayment demands until after the 2001 federal election should not be forgotten, which of course goes back to the lack of standards that I mentioned earlier.The recent report of the Independent Review of Breaches and Penalties in the Social Security System blew the whistle on the way the government treats job seekers. I want to place on record my admiration for the job done by the staff of Centrelink, for they are in the unfortunate situation of having to administer some of the most draconian government policies imaginable. My criticism is not of them but is reserved for the government, which is ultimately responsible for these policies. Of particular concern to me in this report was the information about the processes for reporting potential breaches and subsequently imposing penalties. Having worked in the employment provision sector, I have a good understanding of how job seekers should be treated so that their prospects of finding work are maximised. The report shows the government's present system is failing in this regard. It showed how unfair this government's policies are in relation to what constitutes a breach by job seekers, the process for the imposition of penalties, the nature of the penalties imposed and the processes by which breaches could have been remedied and penalties avoided. You only had to watch the Minister for Employment Services yesterday in question time, dribbling on with selected ravings about people who had had their benefits cut, to realise that that was what he was doing: being very selective. A lot of people who have had their benefits cut and who were breached should never have been breached in the first place. Had the matter been dealt with properly and efficiently, there would not have been a problem. Unfortunately, often Centrelink staff are locked into mandatory breaches when, in fact, the job seeker has not done anything wrong. Reading about the impacts of these draconian policies on job seekers who have been breached disturbed me greatly. Many suffered periods of even greater personal and financial hardship as a result of the breaching, which in many cases was unequivocally due to failures in the system and not to any intention to abuse the social security system. I can reach no other conclusion than that these policies would have made many thousands of job seekers feel even more worthless and disconnected from society, at a time when society should reach out to them and seek to offer them opportunities for inclusion in our society.I would be failing in my duties as an elected representative of the people of Swan if I did not devote my time to holding this government accountable for its actions and its appalling standards. It is a duty I have committed myself to for the next three years and I remain optimistic it will conclude with the election of a Crean Labor government. 12:24:001437Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—These appropriation bills continue the government's record as the biggest taxing and highest spending administration in Australia's history. The appropriations that the parliament is being asked to make continue that bad record—the biggest taxing, biggest spending government in the history of the Commonwealth.This fact was highlighted in the recent report of the Auditor-General. That report showed that the Howard-Costello government tax take in 2000-01, even allowing for the removal of state taxes, was $10 billion higher in today's dollars than the take in the Keating government's final budget. Now that the Auditor-General has exposed the government's deceit in trying to hide the impact of the GST, now that the GST has been properly classified as a Commonwealth tax, the full extent of this tax and spend government has been revealed. The government is collecting $10 billion more in real terms than was collected in the final budget of the previous government. That is an extra tax grab of $2,000 for every Australian family. When Labor left office in 1995-96, the tax burden was 23 per cent of GDP. What is it today? It is 24.5 per cent of GDP—an extra 1½ per cent GDP burden on the Australian taxpayer. In today's dollars, the Treasurer is collecting $10 billion more than Labor did in its final year. The average tax burden under Treasurer Costello is 23.8 per cent of GDP, easily the highest tax take of any Treasurer, averaged over the Treasurer's term, since Federation.The tax burden is bad enough, but waste and mismanagement are even worse. The full consequences of Treasurer Costello's financial fiasco will fall on the backs of Australian families. If a government loses $5 billion, as this government has done—the worst financial loss in the history of the Commonwealth—there are only two ways in which that loss can be ultimately funded. The first way is to cut services that are much needed by Australian families and the second is to increase the tax burden on Australian households. So the sad loss—the human cost—of the $5 billion currency swap fiasco will be felt by the Australian people. As we get deeper into this enormous financial loss, the Treasurer's alibis become weaker and more fantastic. I noticed just yesterday in the Age newspaper a headline on the opinion page fronting an article written by the Treasurer, Mr Costello. The headline reads, `Fact is, far from gambling, interest-rate swaps cut risk'. If you are cutting risk and losing $5 billion, I would hate to see what happens when you increase risk! The Treasurer's version of risk management is to lose $5 billion and claim in a headline article that, far from gambling, this is cutting risk. I hate to think what will happen when he moves from the roulette wheel to the high rollers' room. The Australian taxpayers will be shaking in their boots to think what will happen when the Treasurer has a fair dinkum gamble—when he goes from the roulette wheel to the high rollers' room in Costello's casino.This is a very bad outcome, and the Treasurer's explanations are getting weaker by the day. This is not just an ALP claim against the government's financial management: if you do not believe our version of events, go to Liberal Senator John Watson and see what he had to say in Senate estimates just yesterday. He is that rarity in parliamentary life, an honest Liberal who is setting the record straight with regard to these financial losses. This is what Senator Watson had to say in estimates just yesterday:So just because somebody said it is a good idea that you go to a maximum of 15 per cent or 10 per cent in these currency swaps you say, `We will stick to this,' even though the conditions may be that you have the opportunity to wind it back. Given the history of what has happened it does not make sense.He went on to say:I find it just incredible that you have a maximum and that you believe you have to stick to your maximum even though you are making massive repayments. I would have thought that in the environment where you try to get it down this is commonsense.So there is Senator Watson condemning the financial mismanagement of his own government. He has made a commonsense proposition that to continue with these currency swaps, to continue to gamble, relied on two core economic conditions. It relied on a large differential between Australian and American interest rates and it relied on the Australian currency being in a relatively strong position in comparison to the US dollar. Wakey-wakey, Treasurer: those conditions have not existed since the end of 1996. Senator Watson has just pointed out the obvious: if the conditions have not existed for more than five years, wind back the positions. If the whole policy rationale for currency swaps has fallen away, wind back the position and do not go over the 15 per cent limit—in fact, head in the opposite direction and wind it back. As Senator Watson has said so succinctly, this is commonsense. It reminds me of something one of my old schoolteachers said to me: the only problem with commonsense is that it is not too common.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—When you look at the financial mismanagement of this government, that saying rings true. The only problem with the commonsense position advocated by Senator Watson is that it has not been common in the financial policies of this government under Treasurer Costello.This is an appropriation bill that confirms the government's record as the biggest taxing and biggest spending administration in Australia's history. Unfortunately, it highlights to the House the fact that the $5 billion currency swap losses will need to be funded by further adjustments to the government's budget in coming years. What all this shows, of course, is that this government is squandering the record of economic reform established by the former Labor government. As this government pays for the $5 billion currency losses, it will undoubtedly try to cut back on education and research. It will undoubtedly try to cut back on training and on the skilling of the Australian people. This is its track record. The last time the government was under financial stress in 1996, its first priority was to cut back on education, which is the worst thing you can do for a nation where skills and qualifications are more needed than ever before. I would argue that this government is failing to meet the aspirations of the Australian people for ownership and assets. I would argue that the former Labor government, in effect, created an ownership revolution. Our aim, in opposition now, is to build on these achievements and to reclaim the ownership revolution for our side of politics. When Paul Keating said that his economic reforms would change the nation, he meant it, and it has been achieved. When you look at the economic changes in Australia, it is true to say that in the space of a generation, assumptions about ownership skills and economic mobility have been transformed. Through the 1960s and 1970s, the ratio of household wealth to disposable income in Australia was reasonably stable. It bubbled along at about 400 per cent. In the mid-1980s, however, the world changed and this pattern was broken. There was a sharp rise in the ratio. It now stands at 650 per cent.Let me summarise what that means. In the old economy—the Menzies and the Malcolm Fraser economy—Australians held $4 of assets for every dollar of income. In the new economy, the one that was created by the Hawke and Keating governments, they now hold $6.50. This has been a sea change in the asset base and ownership of the Australian people. As a result, assets are now a regular part of our economic culture. People are no longer content to leave their savings in passive bank accounts. They want their money to work for them, turning over and trading upwards on a regular basis. They want their money to be moving all the time. Smart money is money that keeps moving. The transformation of household wealth and asset trading in Australia can be seen in the following trends: the huge increase in public participation in the financial markets, especially through the growth of superannuation and equity investments; the expansion of small business ownership with the number of small enterprises increasing from 180,000 to almost a million since 1970; and the large number of people who used to work for companies who now work for themselves as contractors, consultants, franchisees and entrepreneurs. There is also the growth of intellectual capitalists—the high skill, high salary workers of the information economy. The technological change, of course, has placed a heavy premium on the ownership of skills and qualifications.Finally, in this ownership revolution, I point to the trend towards bigger and better home ownership, with record rates of double storey construction and housing renovation. In large part, this ownership revolution—the statistics I have provided to the chamber—is Labor's revolution. It started with the Whitlam education reforms of the 1970s that lifted working-class families within reach of tertiary qualifications, then the Keating economic reforms of the 1980s gave working people access to an open, dynamic and competitive economy, one in which they could convert their skills and enterprise into ownership.This of course was a good Labor thing to do. For the first time in Australia's history we have an economy in which genuine mobility is possible. People do not have to work on the assumption that they are going to the same job and hold the assets and opportunities that their parents and grandparents held before them. People have mobility within reach for the first time in this nation's history. The old economy locked them into semiskilled work; young people grew up with aspirations no more advanced than doing what their parents had done.In effect, Whitlam and Keating created a whirlwind of economic and social mobility. In less than a generation, people went from owning nothing to owning just about everything. In my electorate in the south-west of Sydney, I see them all the time: people I grew up with in public housing in the Green Valley estate are now the contractors, the franchisees, the small businessmen of the new economy. In the space of a generation they have gone, by definition, from owning nothing—as public housing tenants—to owning a substantial stakeholding in the new economy. This is an economic revolution that is producing substantial political change as well. It has produced a new class of aspirational voters. Anyone who denies the importance of this phenomenon is denying reality, particularly in an electorate like mine. The working class have had a taste of economic ownership and, not surprisingly, they want more of ownership and assets—not the cars and refrigerators that their parents aspired to, but real economic assets: shares, investments, businesses and skills, the real economic assets that make a difference in this new economy.Of course, we are going to have a series of debates on this. I have set out the credentials of the ALP under Whitlam and Keating for making the ownership revolution possible. There are some revisionists in this parliament: people who want to revise history, who want to try to claim the ownership revolution as their own. I noticed, for instance, that, amongst the maiden speeches of the new government members, there was a speech by the new member for Casey in which he tried to make these points. He tried to argue the case that the ownership revolution was in fact a Liberal creation. In his monotone maiden speech, he said:... there has been a tendency by many political and social commentators to label those pursuing the recent suburban dream as `aspirational voters' as if either they are some new phenomenon in political life or no previous generation ever aspired to a better life.... ... ...Menzies simply called them the forgotten people. Far from having new demands, their concerns and expectations of government are the same as those of all who passed before them. So there was the new member for Casey saying, `This ownership revolution? It's all Bob Menzies' work.' Well, he has not checked his economic history. He has not checked the statistics. He needs to look at that graph of the ratio of ownership to disposable income. All through the Menzies years, and then in the 1970s and the first half of the eighties, the figure was bouncing along at 400 per cent. The big spike in that graph occurred in the mid-eighties. It is the work of the Keating economic reforms. It is a phoney Liberal claim to argue that Menzies was responsible for the rise of aspirational voters. The ownership aspiration in our political system is the work of the Whitlam government and then, most substantially, the Keating government. But it is not just the member for Casey making these claims; it is also his old boss, the Treasurer, Mr Costello. He argued in the House on 13 February that aspirational voters were discovered by Robert Menzies nearly 50 years ago, who called them the `forgotten people'. As ever, the Liberals do not understand their own history, let alone Australian history. Menzies' `forgotten people' speech in May 1942 was a political response to a class based system. He identified three layers of society, with no prospect of economic mobility between classes. At one end of society, he said, was an upper class:... the rich and powerful: those who control great funds and enterprises, and are as a rule able to protect themselves ...At the other end were:... the mass of unskilled people, almost invariably well-organised with their wages and conditions safeguarded by popular law.How ironic now that the member for Casey and the member for Higgins should claim the Menzies legacy, when they are part of the cabal that is trying to rip down the popular law that safeguards the wages and conditions of working people in this country. In fact, they have dedicated their political life to such a task. What they need to do most of all is go back and read Menzies' speech. For Menzies, the `forgotten people' were the middle-class families who provided: ... the intellectual life which marks us off from the beast; the life which finds room for literature, for the arts, for science, for medicine and the law.... ... ...... this middle class maintains and fills the higher schools and universities, and so feeds the lamp of learning.That is what Menzies had to say. It was an incredibly elitist and rigid view of Australian society. Menzies did not see the middle class in aspirational terms—in his opinion these people had already achieved great things—nor did he entertain the idea that working-class families might aspire to a higher school or university education. Indeed, the forgotten people speech reflected the political orthodoxy of its time. The upper class voted conservative, the working class voted Labor, and Menzies wanted to win the support of the middle class. This was an old Australian view reflecting a class-based, static society. Indeed, Australia's claim to egalitarianism in the Menzies era—the 1950s and sixties—was simply a myth.The first government to break down the class barriers of the Australian economy and generate genuine mobility was the federal Labor government 1983-96. The legacy of the Menzies and Fraser governments left Australia as a rigid, hierarchical society. Of course the Treasurer was so impressed by the Menzies legacy that as a young man he decided to join Young Labor and the Social Democratic Association at Monash University—that is how impressed he was with the Menzies legacy, as a young man getting interested in politics.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr Ripoll—That is right.00AN3O'Connor, Brendan, MPMr Brendan O'Connor—He had no idea.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I do not know if he left or we threw him out. I do not know if he is a dog or a rat—he is probably both. It is true to say that as a young man he was so impressed by Menzies that he decided to join Young Labor and the Social Democratic Association. Having tried to rewrite his own political history, he is now trying to do the same for poor old Bob Menzies.In practice, the Liberals have never understood the importance of working-class mobility. This is why the Howard-Costello government has failed to add value to Australia's ownership revolution. It has failed to add value to the aspirations of Australian families who want to accumulate assets and ownership and support their families. Most of the policies of this government have been a barrier to working-class aspiration. It is difficult to identify any area of public policy where the government has actively promoted social mobility. Its policy failures include its large cuts to the education system, increasing the cost of a decent school and post-secondary education for most Australians. We are talking about aspirational voters. A burning aspiration of Australian families is to get their kids through a good university education. This government has made it so much harder. I receive a number of complaints from parents who say, `I'd love my son or daughter to go to university, but we are petrified about the HECS burden.' They are petrified of debts that have been made larger by this government through its budget cuts.Other failures include its record as Australia's highest taxing and spending government. There is a cost: this government is placing economic resources in the hands of bureaucracies and tax collectors at the expense of working families. The government has also engaged in an ineffective program of welfare reform that has failed to improve the capacity and assets of disadvantaged Australians. It has overlooked and neglected the aspirations of disadvantaged Australians to join the ownership revolution—to own something, to benefit from economic ownership and security. This government has also imposed a record level of red tape and compliance costs for small business, especially following the introduction of the GST. Also, shamefully, this government has presided over falling rates of home ownership among younger Australians, many of whom are struggling to access opportunities and accumulate assets under this particular administration. The appropriation bills add to the weight of the financial burden. It is more spending by this government, adding to its record of the highest spending administration in the history of the Commonwealth. We face the additional burden of the Treasurer's financial fiasco: the lost $5 billion in currency swaps. That will need to be paid for by the Australian people by either cuts to services or additional taxes. On top of that we have the absurdity of these Liberals, the members for Casey and Higgins, trying to rewrite their own history. Menzies did not start the ownership revolution. Menzies was into a rigid, static, class based society. He did not believe in aspiration any more than he believed in an Australian republic—that is the truth of it. It is the Labor Party that have always backed working-class aspiration, and as we develop policies in the coming period we will do it again.12:44:001442Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—It is with the same pleasure and pride as all my colleagues that I take up my role in this place as the elected member for Oxley. Being a member of parliament is a great privilege and an honour and one that involves the trust of a community in a person to represent their best interests along with the interests of the nation as a whole. I would like to take this opportunity to thank a range of very special, important people.Firstly I would like to thank my family—my wife and my children. They have been prepared to continue the normality of life in the difficult times throughout campaigns and the long hours that are involved for all concerned. Most importantly, they also provide the vital sanctuary from public life which enables me to maintain the energy and desire to continue the work of representing the people of Oxley.As in all campaigns there are many people involved and critical to its success, particularly those whose commitment sees the campaign through continually for the three years and not just in the final couple of days—people such as Jim Horsfal, my campaign director, and Courtney Hoogen, my campaign manager. I thank them both, together with the campaign team of Frank and Joyce Dudman, Shayne Neumann, Toni Gibbs, Darren Hooper and a host of other people from my FDE and others who generally just help—volunteers and supporters—for their unshakeable determination to retain the seat of Oxley for Labor. I would also like to thank my FDE, which has operated under the chairmanship of Shayne Neumann and secretary Toni Gibbs for many, many years. It has operated without falter and with great conviction. This party unit and its delegates have been a great source of advice and encouragement, and it has been an integral part in the success of Labor, not only at a federal level in Oxley but also at a state and local government level.Finally I want to thank Kim Beazley and the federal caucus. We did a tough job in tough times and can hold our heads up high that the Labor Beazley team took the right decisions rather than just populist options. Facts, figures and data give an interesting picture of what the election results actually mean. While I got a healthy primary increase of a bit over four per cent and a modest two-party preferred increase, it was also one of Labor's best results in Queensland and across the country. I just want to note that because I think it is interesting to look not just at the figures and what they mean but beyond them to what other candidates got in the seat. More interesting for me than a Liberal or Independent candidate was the One Nation candidate in my seat—somebody who actually did not live in the electorate but nonetheless attracted a reasonable vote. The One Nation vote did drop quite dramatically, about seven percentage points lower than last time. It is still a very high and significant vote at about the 10 per cent mark, but it is certainly a long way from where it was in the heady days when One Nation were looking very much as if they were in control of many votes and in control of some agenda. In my area it was as high as 30 or 40 per cent primaries in some polling booths—which was very worrying. At that stage in 1998 One Nation secured 11 seats in the Queensland state parliament and got one Senate spot in the federal parliament, so the recent vote is a long way from those days. What I found even more interesting was where the One Nation vote actually ended up. In almost 100 per cent of the polling booths that I examined, the One Nation vote correlated directly to the Liberal Party vote. That is—and in my area it was about seven percentage points—where the One Nation vote dropped by seven percentage points almost 100 per cent of it went directly to the Liberal Party as either a primary vote or through a preference. This shows a fair bit about the whole campaign: it speaks volumes about which buttons were being pushed by the Liberal Party and which levers were being pulled. John Howard changed his tack about six months out from the election from one of trying to woo the preferences of One Nation voters through populist policies and rhetoric to actually deciding to go directly for their No. 1 vote. This was at the expense—and the evidence is in the election results—of One Nation candidates, not that I am worried about them.The whole campaign was about creating division; it was about creating fear; and it was about creating a sense of a `them and us' world in our society. When I spoke for the first time in this place, in 1998 after I was elected, I spoke on a range of issues regarding Oxley and One Nation. Specifically, I said a couple of things about One Nation which I want to put back on the record today because I think that it has some relevance. I said:People are shocked and unsettled by the rise of political opportunists pushing an antagonistic cause.And I went on to say:Yet, without any of the theatre or hyperbole that ushered in this astonishing shift in our community, it has suddenly retreated and almost disappeared. They have lost any credible place in contemporary Australia. The remains of this self-proclaimed political force lay strewn like the ruins of the empire of Ozemandius:... Half sunk, a ... colossal wreck, boundless and bare.I went back to those words because I felt that they were maybe not so relevant when I made them to start with but that in history they would resound quite strongly in terms of what actually took place. To a greater extent, as I said, these words are truer today than they were in 1998.There is another issue that I want to raise that I believe deserves much closer scrutiny and analysis. I ask the question of anyone who is listening: what would you say of a person or a group that engages in deception, deceit, racial vilification inciting terror or fear, misrepresenting the truth, distorting facts to suit a situation or failing to give full facts, again to distort a situation which causes fear in our community and terror in our people? Most people would say that, if you found that person or that group, you might introduce legislation, as the government is trying to do right now in parliament about terrorism, fear and inciting all these things. But what if I said to you that I believe that that group is actually the government? It is actually the government and its own legislation about the thing it is trying to prevent that is causing terror. Terrorism is the act of a person or a group to implement terror in other people. This is exactly what took place. I am very clear on this point as I remember exactly what happened at the last election. I remember the fear in the faces of people I spoke to. `Oh, no, we can't change government right now, even though we'd love to.' That is what they said to me. `We can't; we're too frightened; we're too frightened because we fear terrorist attacks.' Who was telling them these things were actually going to happen? Who was out there inciting this fear, this terror, in these people? I do not have to answer that question, because I think people listening know the answer as to who was that group in our society that was inciting that fear.I will go on to what exactly the government did. It took the situation of the boat people and actually used it as a political tool. It took the situation of the September 11 attacks and decided to use that to create fear at home. It actually created more fear. It did not try to console people and do or say things that might actually give people some confidence in themselves; it actually created fear at home. It took the issue of refugees and created demons out of them. It took the issue of asylum seekers and gave itself an excuse to incite racial vilification. It took the issue of national security and border control and decided to use that to create racial tension. This government saw those opportunities to bring out the worst in people and it exploited people's darkest fears and worst prejudices. It did all of those things just for one thing: to win an election. I know it is important to win an election. To tell you the truth I would have very much liked to have won the last election, because Labor could have introduced some of its very worthy programs like Knowledge Nation and a whole range of other things, which I think would have been of great benefit to all Australians. In all things there is a price to be paid, and this government decided that no price was too high and no debt was too large to be repaid for what it had decided it would do. I am not talking about monetary debt, although that is an issue in itself, but about the government's exploitation of our local media and advertising. To slightly stray and talk about advertising, the No. 1 advertiser in this country is the federal government. What is it advertising? It is a good question. It is the No. 1 advertiser; it spends more money than any other organisation. It beats Qantas, Telstra—you name it. It is the biggest advertiser in the country.I tried to draw some parallels with what is happening in current affairs in the world. We can look at nothing more current or probably closer to home in our mind about democracy than what is happening in Zimbabwe with the Mugabe election. I looked at it and tried to draw some parallels and I went back to what I just said before about inciting fear in people. Whether you incite fear in people about who is going to own their land and who should have their land or whether you incite fear in people about other people coming in boats to take their land, there is not a great deal of difference. It is a case of semantics and there might be a bit of an argument.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—That's stretching it!83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL— I do not think it is stretching it. Your view is that it is stretching it. Maybe it is and maybe it is not, but the fact is that it happened. Whether it is stretched or not, it actually still took place. You incited fear; you created fear. Everyone I spoke to was very worried and scared—and they still are. Your legislative program shows that you just want to continue that fear. You cannot run from that; the facts speak for themselves.There is a parallel with what Mugabe does in Zimbabwe in scaring people. `You can't change. Things will be very bad for you. People will take your land. We are going to have terrorists on boats coming across': that is inciting fear. Where are the terrorists? The terrorists could be coming across as employees of some foreign company on a container ship delivering something. How are you going to prevent that? Would you stop all transport to Australia? It is just a ridiculous proposition—and this was the view being put by the government—that everyone who came across on a boat was a terrorist and that was why we needed this tough border protection legislation. They may not have been the exact words the government used but they are pretty close to the exact words. It certainly created vilification, fear and hatred—everything that is the worst in people. That is what took place.I am not saying these things to make an excuse about a win or a loss, because I accept democracy—it is one of the great institutions of this country. Who we are as people, who we are as Australians and what this parliament is about is that you accept the loss but you analyse it. When you analyse it honestly, you see what the main issues were. On every day of the official election campaign, about 85 per cent of the front pages of the print media and of radio and television coverage was taken up with one of these issues—the September 11 attacks, terrorists, refugees and boats. There was not much coverage of the government's legislative program or anything else. But despite all the political point scoring and the rush that took place at the last election, I think there are some things that are happening now which are even more concerning. They come out of what the government did in trying to win the election. It took all the conventions and all the normal processes and protocols of this place, threw them out the window and pushed through legislation on border control. In the government's Orwellian speak: `Border control protecting people,' and that sort of thing. I remember a bill they introduced which talked of higher wages and better conditions when the actual intent of the bill was lower wages and worse conditions. Again, we see the same thing in all the bills they put forward today.What we saw yesterday in the House was a parliamentary secretary having to come in and fix up the botched government work. They botched the legislation because they rushed it in so fast. No-one had time to look at it; no-one had time to analyse it and find out what the effect of the legislation would be. They bypassed process in trying to win an election and now they are trying to fix it up. So what do they do? They try to rush in more legislation. You know you have stuffed up. You rushed in legislation, instead of taking time. You had plenty of time; the parliament did not resume for months. You had time to sit down and think about it but the government were on holiday the whole time. So what happens? You rush more legislation in to fix the bad. So what do we have now? More bad legislation before us.All we ask is that the government give us due process. We ask that when it comes to important national security issues—like border protection, what we do about people coming across on boats and asylum seekers—that you treat the Australian people with respect and give them the time to hear your arguments, that you give us time to analyse your legislation, that you give this parliament the due respect it deserves so that it can go through the program, and that you give us time to put across alternatives and have a look at what this means for the Australian people. If you do that, at least you have the opportunity to say that you got the legislation right. Even if we do not agree with it, at least it will be right.The government is spending the majority of its time in crisis meetings because its legislative program is up in the air. It does not really know what it is doing. If it rams through and guillotines debate, cuts off speakers and not let people debate the issues, it will get its legislation up—we understand it has the numbers; we do not have a problem with that. But if it is going to circumvent the due process of this parliament, then Labor will be forced to do whatever it can under the protocols and standing orders of this place to find ways to slow it down, so that we can have time to look at what it is trying to do.I think that is the great tragedy: the government no longer respects the institutions of this House. It decides that because it has the numbers it will just do whatever it likes, that debate is no longer important—and good policy is no longer important. It is all about creating straw men and false images. It is now just about the front pages—you have to keep the issue that won you the last election alive. I think people will move on quickly. They understand the complexities of these issues because the issues are not that complex.What we are seeing now is the so-called Pacific solution. It does not work. We always knew it would not work, but the government just had to ram everything through. It was not the Pacific solution; it was the election solution. That is what you should have called it. It is more Orwellian speak: there is no solution in the Pacific solution. I remember quite clearly hearing from people that John Howard actually told the media that over his dead body would anyone on the Tampa ever step foot in this country, that they would never get here. Well, he has already broken another promise, because they will get here. The people who deserve to get here will get here, because, under the international convention of 1951, he cannot stop real refugees, genuine asylum seekers, getting that acceptance by Australia. He can try to change laws, he can excise zones of Australia to try to keep people out, but it will not work. The government threw away hundreds of millions of dollars in the so-called Pacific solution, which, at the end of the day, does not work. It has done absolutely nothing except win an election—and I will grant them that; it did work for its intended purpose. But it did not work for the intent that they told people it would. People expected it to be a solution to a perceived problem which did not really exist in the first place. I will move on to a couple of other issues that are of great concern to me and to my constituents in the electorate of Oxley. Regardless of how the government won the last election, there still remain burning issues such as social welfare, Centrelink, employment and training opportunities, health care and local GPs. I spoke in this place just a couple of days ago about the lack of GPs and how hard it is for people to get Medicare provider numbers. People are just not being serviced. I would like to examine one particular issue a little closer, and that is the issue of the government's punitive victimisation and punishment of people on any sort of payment—the breaching system. I have no doubt there are quotas in the way it operates. There is this new mentality that, to service the system put in place by the government, you have to breach people. That is why it is there. People are given no opportunities.There are genuine cases out there—and yesterday we heard the minister talking about it. You are always going to find that Joe Bloggs or Jane Bloggs did the wrong thing. Sure, if people do the wrong thing, they should pay the consequences, but there are so many innocent victims of the system whose cases should be looked at and who should be given a bit of compassion. Some people have literacy problems; some people do not quite understand the first time exactly what is required of them. That is not denigrating people, because when I talked to the managers of Centrelink and the people who work there—fine people that they are and great public servants—they did not understand the government system either. You ring on Monday and ask a specific question about what someone should do in a particular case and you are given answer A. You ring later the same day about someone else and you are given answer B. If they do not know and we do not know, how is a young person coming off the street supposed to know? That young person may have a whole range of difficulties in finding work and trying to make ends meet. They may have very little money to pay their bills, their housing, their food and to get around and use public transport—all those sorts of things. But the first thing the government do is to breach them. They get breached for everything. If they are two minutes late for an interview, they are breached. `Why didn't you turn up there? You're breached. Sorry, you'll have to go and see your federal member; they'll fix it up for you.'But why can't this government fix it up? Why can't this government give these people a fair go? It is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the pain these people suffer and the way they are victimised and punished. They are not victims. They should not be punished for what happens to them. The majority of people generally go out and look for work. They do not want to be in the system; they want to be out of the system. But the system makes it hard for them to get out of it. What really upsets me is to see the people who come to my office pleading for help.The other area in which the government truly lack is respite care, hospital beds and aged care. They genuinely do not care. We see the lack of resources, the lack of funding and the lack of commitment. We saw that last year through the minister. Nowhere else could you ever find a minister who was so bad, who did not even know where to start in her own portfolio. It was an absolute disgrace, and I am glad to see that the government took responsibility for it and got rid of her. That was the first thing they did right.There are also child-care issues at the moment. Not only has the government victimised and punished innocent people who are trying to find work; if you are a child-care service provider you are going to be slugged $40,000—tens of millions of dollars in total. The government seems to think that, if it gambles away $4.8 billion, it has to recoup the money. And where should it be recouped from? Child-care centres. This government should be condemned for its acts at the last election; it should be condemned for its current program. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.Adjournment1447Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler) (1.04 p.m.)—I move:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.144713:05:001447O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—As I outlined in my contribution to the address-in-reply earlier this week, there is an urgent need to develop programs and initiatives to revitalise the sleeping giant that is rural and regional Australia. I firmly believe that it is currently this nation's greatest untapped resource. No-one disputes that this country once rode on the sheep's back. Equally, no-one disputes that the non-metropolitan areas of Australia currently experience greater levels of unemployment and population drain than their city counterparts. Whilst programs such as decentralisation of government departments and services and incentives for businesses to establish outside the major centres are longer term proposals, there can be an immediate injection to the system in other areas. The most obvious area for such initiatives is tourism.Many areas of rural and regional Australia have an excellent understanding of the value that tourism can bring. Many have the basic infrastructure in place. Many in fact are already very successful in promoting their regions and drawing substantial numbers of visitors. But we cannot escape the reality that the tourism industry, wherever it is located in Australia, has taken a double hit over the last year. The tragedy of September 11 and the demise of Ansett have caused a loss of confidence not only amongst the travelling public but equally amongst those involved in tourism and its dependent industries. For many enterprises there has been a triple hit where for them the rise in public liability insurance premiums has also been a factor. Incentives to invest in and expand tourism infrastructure are sorely needed right now. Additional funding for promotion and marketing is also essential. A leap of faith by governments at all levels as well as business investors is required immediately.In Tasmania the state government has bitten the bullet and invested $200 million in Bass Strait passenger shipping to reposition the state as a tourist destination. As many as 90,000 extra tourists per year are being predicted as a result. But one cannot be completely critical of the federal government. Programs such as the regional tourism infrastructure package are actually heading in the right direction. But what rural and regional Australia need is help right now. Future funding committed under federal programs should be brought forward to the forthcoming financial year. Funds earmarked for availability in 2003-04 and beyond should be able to be drawn upon immediately if the programs are ready to proceed.We are constantly asking Australians to be realistic in their expectations about the viability of certain industries, and we have implored communities to accept that change is inevitable. But this cannot be said of tourism. Much of rural and regional Australia is capable of participating in the tourism revival which is sure to come in the immediate future, and surer to come if programs are put in place to encourage tourism and to enable areas to be viable tourism locations. Even if the international market remains reluctant for a little longer, domestic tourism can be a greater focus in the meantime. Whilst the Australian dollar remains at its current level there is a greater incentive for Australian families to holiday at home. With the picture clearer, albeit somewhat sadder in terms of the domestic aviation market, we can progress with more certainty than in recent months. If ever there was a time for a massive injection of investment and faith in the Australian tourism industry, I think the House and this committee would have to agree that it is certainly now. All three tiers of government have an opportunity to help all Australians. Government, the business sector and local communities can work together with a common purpose but leadership from the top is required. In Tasmania it is reported that there may be insufficient high quality accommodation to cope with the extra tourists expected. The Chairman of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, Lloyd Whish-Wilson has already called for better promotion of all areas of Tasmania. But we must also ensure quality. We must also make sure that we can offer the best. In Monday's Launceston Examiner, the Tourism Council of Tasmania's Accreditation Advisory Board Chairman, Mr Damon Thomas, said that new players coming into the tourism industry would need to meet the quality standards expected by interstate and overseas visitors. He quite rightly pointed out that they must do proper research, establish business plans and find out what it is that potential visitors are actually asking for. All three areas of tourism, the holiday market, conferencing and events—areas that the Tasmanian industry is very interested in—are capable of providing the basis for renewed growth in rural and regional Australia. For many, a kick-start, seed funding or high quality advice is all that is actually required. But there is no doubt that the most that can be achieved for this vital area can be achieved through a cooperative effort by all parties—all levels of government and all areas of the industry—and an immediate investment of faith in one industry that can certainly contribute to the revitalisation of rural and regional Australia: tourism.144813:09:001448Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to pay tribute today to a friend of mine, one of the truly great characters of Queensland radio, Colin James Michael Thompson III. He is not really `the Third', but in keeping with his jocular style he claims the title. Col's great love of entertainment commenced as a young man when he joined Chandlers in Elizabeth Street, Brisbane, in their record department. His first appointment to radio was with 4IP Ipswich in the early 1970s, when the concept of `colour radio' was developed by that station and took the Brisbane entertainment market by storm. It was so successful that 4IP had to shift its studios from Ipswich to Brisbane because it had taken so big a share of the Brisbane market.Col was the promotions manager and took that station to a very high level of listenership in the Brisbane market. He was one of the first people to introduce pre-game and half-game entertainment at Rugby League. It is something we take for granted now, with someone singing the national anthem, a lot of dollybirds and other people putting on turns in the arena and lots of other forms of entertainment, but Col was really one of the first who developed that. He has also played a key role in the signing of Jeff Thomson by 4IP and his transfer to cricket in Queensland. He also worked with other famous cricketers—West Indian cricketers Viv Richards and Alvin Kallicharran. He stayed in this role for 10 years before he moved to the Sunshine Coast. That is where I got to know him in my days with regional development, because one of my duties was with the promotion of the Wide Bay-Burnett area—which was known as Bundaberg and the Coral Isles region—at Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation promotions.At that time Col was promoting Pine Trees Resort and lifting the profile of Noosa. Let me say that his team did a remarkable job because from that point forward Noosa has been one of the great magnets of Australian tourism. I can well remember him at the promotions in Sydney and Melbourne as one of the key people who lifted those days when the QTTC actually drove Queensland tourism to an unexpected level, much to the discomfort of all the other states. After many years in this role, he returned to 4BK in Brisbane in a promotion and sales role and later went to 4BH in an executive role. As recently as 2 March, the Queensland Radio Time Club, which is the peak body of radio in Queensland, inducted Col Thompson into the Radio Hall of Fame at its 27th annual Goldies Award, held at the Brisbane Sheraton. I have had a long association with him, and I think that award was richly deserved. He was not just good for Queensland radio; he was very accomplished in the television area as well. Honourable members would probably remember the coach ads—the big coach with the shock of blonde hair in the grey sweat jacket revving up the troops to go on the field and sell their Toyota cars. Those ads were so successful that they were done not only in a Rugby League idiom in Queensland but also in an Australian Rules idiom in Adelaide. Col also did a lot of commercials for the Central Queensland area— and I see the member for Capricornia here—that were also very highly successful. He was one of those people who could bring a team around him and make it work. I suggest that not only the radio industry of Queensland but the television industry of Queensland and the tourist industry owe him a great debt. I think his induction into the Radio Hall of Fame is richly deserved. 144913:14:001449Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—Anyone who has listened to my speeches in this place over the last three years would know that I am very proud of Rockhampton's title as the beef capital of Australia. Part of the reason for that title is the large meat processing sector that we have in Rockhampton. The meatworks in Rockhampton are a very important source of jobs and economic activity in our region. That is why the current situation, which has seen the Consolidated Meat Group plant at Lakes Creek closed since late last year, is so devastating to our city.The company has given many reasons for the early closure and the failure to reopen the plant, but essentially this is an industrial dispute and one where the company has seen an opportunity to use market conditions to its advantage in negotiations over a new enterprise bargaining agreement. Mr Deputy Speaker, 1,350 people are employed at CMG. That is a very significant number in anyone's terms, especially in a city of 60,000 people. Those workers have now been out of work for four months, and the effect on our city, its economy and local businesses, has been more the effect of a tidal wave than of a ripple.Thirteen hundred and fifty people and their families mean support for a lot of businesses in Rockhampton—their wages keep a lot of other people employed. Rockhampton already has an unemployment rate well above the national average. The government should be ashamed that it is in double figures and has been for most of the last five years. I know that this government has an appalling record on regional development strategies, but even it should be able to work out that allowing a dispute like this to drag on is doing enormous harm to our region and its ability to focus on the future and seize opportunities.This has been a huge shock to the CMG work force and their families. The workers at CMG fully expected to return to work after the normal closure period and expected to be back at work by the middle of January this year. They had no hint of the tactics the company was planning. You can just imagine a family going through the normal drain on their budget around Christmas and the holiday period and counting the weeks until they go back to work to relieve some of the pressure—and then the blow comes that there is no work.There is no time today to go into the government's role in this dispute, although it is clearly a product of the industrial relations regime designed by Peter Reith and supported by the Democrats. Today I want to focus on the workers and their families. There was a community rally in Rockhampton on 2 March. I was very proud to march alongside the meatworkers and their families and the many other supporters who came along from the Central Queensland community. I promised at that rally that I would tell John Howard and Tony Abbott exactly what their unfair industrial relations system is doing to ordinary working families and businesses, big and small, in Rockhampton.Today there is another event along those lines that I would like to mention. At this very moment, about 60 or so women, both meatworkers and the wives of meatworkers, are having lunch in Rockhampton, to support each other and just for a little while to take their minds off the terrible pressure they are under. The lunch is going on at Bartlett's Tavern, and I would like to say thank you to Gary Ward and his staff for making their very nice facility available for that lunch. They have also organised for a psychologist to speak to the women, to give them ideas about where they can go if the pressure really gets too much for their families. There will also be a financial counsellor there today. The event has been organised by Stephen Dick, Deb and Jim Bronson and Mike Pihama, amongst many others. They are just some of the people who have come together to help the families and the workers overcome the pressures of the last four months. There have also been a lot of other helpers throughout the community, doing things such as collecting grocery items at the various shopping centres and channelling those items through to the local charities, which have been inundated by requests for assistance over the last four months, as you can imagine. The meatworkers are very careful to point out that this is not just for the meatworkers; it is for all those people who have been affected so badly in other businesses throughout Rockhampton as a result of this dispute. My final message to John Howard and Tony Abbott on behalf of the meatworkers and of those women who are meeting right now in Rockhampton is that, when you attack workers and unionists, you are attacking and hurting family people, community people and the whole community around them.145013:15:001450Dutton, Peter, MPMr DUTTON00AKIDicksonLP10—I rise today to speak about a fantastic program operating in my electorate of Dickson and in electorates right across the country. It is the Work for the Dole program. I had the opportunity last week of visiting a project in this program—the South Pine River project—and watching how, in a very practical and real way, it changed the lives of many of the participants and the environment surrounding the Eatons Hill area. It is a credit not only to the Howard government, with the emphasis that they have placed on Work for the Dole, but also to the local operators, including Mission Australia and the Work for the Dole coordinators that have made the program a great success. I presented certificates of completion on that day and took the opportunity to speak to many of the participants. I spoke with them about the very real outcomes that they had achieved through their involvement. It was not just the sense of worth and self-being because of what they had achieved in a very real way on the work, but more so the opportunities and the motivation that it had provided them to go forward and experience new things in life. We hope it will have a positive outcome for them in their future employment.Work for the Dole is helping job seekers improve their work skills and at the same time letting them give something back to their community. Since Work for the Dole was introduced in 1997, more than 7,560 projects have been funded nationally and provided places for more than 157,000 young job seekers. A study into the Work for the Dole program has found that job seekers who had participated in the program had a 76 per cent better chance of finding jobs than those who had not been involved. Work for the Dole is a practical plan that is providing real benefits not only for local job seekers but for the local environment and the district in general. It is another example of the Howard government working to provide a secure future for all Australians.There are many examples in Dickson of successful Work for the Dole projects. That is quite surprising when you reflect on the last three years of Labor in the seat of Dickson. They were ideologically opposed to the program, despite enormous support for it from the vast majority of constituents in Dickson because they saw the very real outcomes that it provided. But despite that ideological opposition to the Work for the Dole program—projects were not put forward, they were not supported by the previous Labor member in the seat of Dickson— it is amazing that the local community got behind some of the local projects and the outcomes were very real and very tangible for the constituents of Dickson. Another fine example of a Work for the Dole project in my electorate is the Amy Quinn Handihome. It is a fantastic project that I visited recently. I spoke with the staff there about some of the challenges that they face. The services that they provide in an area of high demand are really a credit to them. Their work was made easier, certainly as much as it can be, by participants from a Work for the Dole project who assisted in outside development programs. I also pay tribute to Amy Quinn herself, a person who has given tirelessly to the Dickson community for many years. That house was named in her honour, and rightly so.There is also another fine program which has been operating very successfully in Dickson, the Dairy Regional Assistance Program. That has helped the area of Dayboro and the surrounding areas in my electorate to rejuvenate into what is now a burgeoning and very successful regional tourism industry, with the development of some wineries, some bed and breakfasts, horse riding for visitors—all sorts of things. It is a tribute to the people, particularly the Dayboro Progress Association and the Dayboro community in general, that have made such a fine effort in promoting such a great region.145113:24:001451Vamvakinou, Maria, MPMs VAMVAKINOU00AMTCalwellALP00—I rise to bring to the attention of the House the outstanding work of a local supported employment training provider in my electorate of Calwell, Brite Industries of Belfast Street in Broadmeadows. Brite is a community based business that provides education and training opportunities for people with disabilities. More recently they have taken it upon themselves to provide training for people who are now known as the vocationally disadvantaged. The Broadmeadows site covers some five acres, with a large factory, a modern warehouse, a plant nursery and training rooms. In February I met with the chief executive officer, Mr Michael Alcock; operations manager, Mr John Wood; and the horticulture manager, Mr Michael Shelley, and I was given a tour of this outstanding site in Broadmeadows. One hundred and fifty-four people are currently employed on site, with 129 of those employees with varying degrees of disability.The federal government subsidy to support Brite workers does not cover all the expenses of running a modern manufacturing site. And Brite Industries is not a charity. It is also not just a sheltered workshop. It is a business with the same commercial considerations as the neighbouring manufacturing sites at Broadmeadows. Chief executive officer, Michael Alcock, describe as follows the primary aim of the organisation: Whilst Brite provides employment for people with disabilities, I also see it as a training and transitional experience leading to open employment.It has successfully supported the transition of more than 80 employees into open employment. The progressive and dedicated management and staff who work there have as their vision the following statement. Again I quote the organisation:Promoting dignity through achievement and community enterprise.They have a mission statement that states:To offer quality training, personal development and community support for people with a disability and people who are vocationally disadvantaged, and to operate commercial businesses for the purpose of generating funds to support and expand its services to the community.Formerly known as Northern Brite Industries, the company is a corporate division of the Victorian Vocational Rehabilitation Association. In its history Brite Industries has been at the forefront of national advances in education and training for people with disabilities. Recently it has expanded its role to take up the challenge of vocationally disadvantaged people. It provides training in a working factory environment, which has given many young people their first taste of working in a fully functional factory. On top of on-site training, Brite offers time release for supported workers to attend TAFE courses. Other employers could learn from the example set by this organisation in its commitment to training. People with intellectual and physical impairment of a severe nature have a lower level of labour force participation than the population as a whole. Official ABS data from 1998 has this disparity in national labour force participation measured at 34.7 per cent to 63.3 per cent nationally and 32 per cent compared to 63.6 per cent for the Victorian population as a whole.The operation divisions of Brite Industries are primarily plastics and packaging and a wholesale nursery business. The organisation's divisions are subcontract packaging, a wholesale retail nursery, garden property maintenance, vocational training and education and work/life skills education. Employees work together on a modern factory floor dealing with vacuum foaming and the latest thermoblasting equipment to wrap, pack and dispatch. At the end of June 2000, Brite had sales of up to $1.5 million. Brite Industries is an example to the rest of the community of a successful commercial model for integrating people with special needs and assisting them into open employment.Brite has formed cooperative partnerships with private industry in the area, including Ford Australia. Ford, like many other manufacturing organisations in the city of Hume, work within a corporate citizenship program. This of course has benefited Brite with technical advice on plant layout, production and handling methods. This has helped improve productivity and occupational health and safety. I would like to think that the engagement between the two organisations also benefits Ford Australia. I was happy, following my visit to the factory site, to nominate this firm for the Prime Minister's employee of the year awards. As CEO, Mr Michael Alcock not only says but practises, `Australia will be judged one day on how we look after our disadvantaged, our aged and our disabled,' and of course how true that is.Main Committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing1453The following answers to questions were circulated:1453(Question No. 145)1451453Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 14 February 2002:(1) Did Australia accept the provisions of Part II of the International Labour Convention No. 173 on Protection of Workers' Claims (Employers' Insolvency) Convention 1992 on 8 June 1994.(2) On what dates, in what circumstances and with what results have there been subsequent communications between the Commonwealth Government and the governments of each State and Territory concerning the Convention.1453Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. When the Keating Labor Government ratified Convention 173 in 1994, it accepted only Part II concerning Protection of Workers' Claims by Means of a Privilege, but not Part III concerning Protection of Workers' Claims by a Guarantee Institution. The terms of the Convention enable ratifying Member States to accept either Part II or Part III, or both Parts.(2) The then Commonwealth Department of Industrial Relations advised the States and Territories on 1 July 1994 that Australia had formally ratified Convention 173 on 8 June 1994, and that Convention 173 would come into force in 12 months.This advice followed correspondence from the then Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon Laurie Brereton MP, to his State and Territory counterparts on 2 June 1994, which advised that the Commonwealth was proposing to ratify Part II of Convention 173 on the basis of compliance by the Commonwealth's law and practice.Since July 1994, the Department has referred to Convention 173 in its routine correspondence with the States and Territories concerning Australia's reporting obligations relating to ILO Conventions, on the understanding that Convention 173 was ratified on the basis of Commonwealth law and practice alone. Consequently, there have been no substantive responses from the States and Territories.1453(Question No. 148)1481453Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, upon notice, on 18 February 2002:(1) What progress has been made on the project to develop an Australian Standard for European STORZ-type coupling since the answer to question No. 2576 (Hansard, 28 June 2001, page 29091).(2) During the NSW bushfires in December 2001 and January 2002 which of the fire-fighting teams from NSW and other States were equipped with STORZ-type hose couplings.1453Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr MacfarlaneWN6GroomLPMinister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The project to develop an Australian standard for European STORZ-type coupling is dependent upon assistance from representatives of the fire services industry and, in particular, from the Australasian Fire Authorities Council.The Australasian Fire Authorities Council (AFAC) has advised that, at its General Meeting on 13 August 2001, it accepted a recommendation from its Community Safety Strategy Group that AFAC withdraw support for the development of a standardised Australian hose coupling of up to 70 mm, as its member agencies now have in place coupling adaptors to enable inter-agency operations.AFAC also advises that, since the NSW bushfires, it has requested each participating agency to prepare a detailed Tour Report covering all aspects of their involvement. From these agency reports, a national report will be prepared to critically analyse all aspects of the fire fighting operations. This will involve issues such as adaptor success.The national Tour Report will be provided to the NSW Coroner and the NSW fire agencies, and will be considered at the next AFAC meeting to be held later in 2002.1454(Question No. 158)1581454Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 2002:(1) What is the revised budget in 2001-2002 for his Department's spending on appreciation of cultural diversity.(2) From this allocation, what sums are allocated for (a) grants under the Living in Harmony initiative, (b) Living in Harmony administration and (c) the New Agenda for Multicultural Australia. (3) What other specific items are funded under departmental output 2.4 and what sums are allocated for each such item in 2001-2002. (4) What is the forward allocation for 2002-2003 for each item referred to in parts (2) and (3). 1454Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HardgraveCK6MoretonLPMinister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) $13.607m(2) (a) $1.500m (b) $0.998m, including Living in Harmony partnerships and public information strategy (c) $1.030m(3) One specific and identifiable item is $0.351m funding for the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia. State and Territory Offices have approximately $5.100m and Central Office has a further $4.600m for other Output 2.4 activities. (4) For items mentioned in part (2): (a) $3.500m was committed for Living in Harmony in the 2001 Federal election, and is now subject to Budget deliberations. (b) Administration costs for Living in Harmony is included in the $3.500m in (4)(a) above. (c) $1.042m.No significant funding changes are expected in 2002-03 for items mentioned in part (3).1454(Question No. 159)1591454Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 2002:(1) What is the revised Budget allocation in 2001-2002 for departmental spending on migrant settlement services in 2001-2002.(2) From this allocation what sums are designated for (a) grants for Migrant Resource Centres, (b) grants under the Community Settlement Services Scheme, (c) assistance to refugees and humanitarian entrants under the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy, (d) his Department's settlement planning and information provision and (e) other items, if any.(3) What is the forward allocation for 2002-2003 for each item referred to in part (2).(4) In respect of the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS), what amount of the 2001-2002 Budget is allocated to (a) initial information and orientation assistance, (b) accommodation support, (c) household formation support, (d) proposers' support, (e) service providers' support, (f) community support for refugees and (g) early health assessment and intervention.(5) How many refugees and humanitarian entrants received assistance under the IHSS in 2000-2001 and how many are estimated to receive such assistance in 2001-2002.1454Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HardgraveCK6MoretonLPMinister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) $193.4m which includes settlement services (covered under both Administered and Departmental components of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs' budget) referred to in question 2 as well as Translating and Interpreting Services and Adult Migrant English Program - tuition.(2) (a) $9.2m for Migrant Resource Centres, (b) $15.5m for Community Settlement Services Scheme, (c) $18.7m for Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy, (d) $5.2m for settlement planning and information provision and (e) $103.9m for the Adult Migrant English Program, $25.2m for translating and interpreting services and $15.7m for other settlement services costs. (3) The forward allocations are not set at this stage however, they are expected to be similar to the current allocations.(4) (a) $2.1m for initial information and orientation assistance, (b) $2.6m for accommodation support, (c) $1.8m for household formation support, (d) $0.2m for proposers' support, (e) $0.7m for service providers' support, (f) $0.2m for community support for refugees and (g) $2.6m for early health assessment and intervention. The balance of $8.5m is for refugee accommodation ($3.0m) and other departmental support services ($5.5m).(5) In 2000-2001 4,900 refugee and humanitarian entrants received assistance under the IHSS. It is expected that between 5,600 - 6,500 refugee and humanitarian entrants will receive assistance under IHSS in 2001-2002.1455(Question No. 160)1601455Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 2002:(1) How many projects currently receive funding in NSW under (a) the Migrant Resource Centre program and (b) the Community Settlement Services Scheme.(2) What is the estimated sum of Commonwealth funding that will be provided to these projects in 2001-2002.(3) What is the additional extra cost to these projects in (a) 2001-2002 and (b) 2002-2003 as a result of the implementation of the revised Social and Community Services (SACS) Award in NSW.(4) Will the Government provide additional funding to projects in NSW to assist them to meet their increased obligations under the Award; if so, what amount; if not, why not.(5) If the Government does not propose to provide NSW projects with additional funding to cope with their award obligations, how will it ensure that (a) service operation hours are not reduced, (b) client caseloads are not cut and (c) staff classifications are not downgraded.1455Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HardgraveCK6MoretonLPMinister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) In NSW there are currently (a) 13 Migrant Resource Centres (MRCs)/Migrant Service Agencies (MSAs) receiving core funding and (b) 133 projects receiving funding under the Community Settlement Services Scheme (CSSS).(2) Funding provided to these projects by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) in 2001-2002 under the CSSS and as core funding for MRCs/MSAs is $10,330,627. We do not have information about current funding from other Commonwealth agencies for these organisations and could not obtain it in the time available. (3) It is estimated that the extra cost to these projects will be on average (a) approximately $1,830 per project in 2001-2002, and (b) approximately a further $60 per project in 2002-2003, after a further increase of 3 percent to all pay rates on 28 November 2002. These estimates are based on a small sample of NSW CSSS grants and MRC/MSA core funding taking into consideration an average of the new pay scales for all community service worker grades. (4) No. The Government is not able to provide additional funding to projects in NSW. Funds for this financial year are fully committed. CSSS grants provide a funding contribution for specific projects and are not allocated to fund social/community worker positions.Core funding to MRCs/MSAs does not contain a specific amount for salaries. MRC/MSA management committees manage their budget, expenditure and employment of staff independently, and make their own operational decisions. On average, approximately 2 percent indexation per annum is applied to core funding to MRCs/MSAs.(5) The Department will, where necessary, negotiate adjustments to current CSSS work programs in order to manage the impact of the award rise in NSW. These adjustments do not necessarily involve a reduction in service hours or a cut in client caseloads. The shortfall may be managed by some changes to the more discretionary aspects of their work programs and operational plans. While a small number of organisations have raised this issue with the Department, at this stage, no work programs have had to be adjusted. Where an MRC/MSA is experiencing a shortfall in funding, it is the responsibility of the Committee of Management to consider operational options to manage this shortfall. Staff classification is a matter for the MRC/MSA committees of management, the employer, not DIMIA.1456(Question No. 169)1691456McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 21 February 2002:(1) Is he aware that since 2 October 2001 the ship CSL Pacific registered in Nassau and manned by a Ukrainian crew has regularly carried cargoes of cement powder and associated products for Adelaide Brighton Cement on voyages from Port Adelaide to Melbourne, Sydney, Port Kembla and Brisbane.(2) As the voyages are not part of an overseas voyage is he able to say whether the crew are illegal non-citizens without visas.(3) Was CSL Pacific formerly registered in Australia and operated by an Australian crew who have now been replaced by illegal non-citizens.(4) Is he able to say whether there are Australian seafarers available to work on CSL Pacific.(5) Will he direct that all necessary steps be taken to ensure the deportation of the illegal non-citizens who constitute the crew of CSL Pacific.(6) What steps will he take to ensure that illegal non-citizens are not engaged as crew on ships in Australian waters.1456Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware that the ship has been in Australian waters since 2 October 2001, involved in the activities mentioned. (2) The vessel is considered by the Australian Customs Service not to be imported. Therefore the crew are, by operation of law, holders of Special Purpose Visas and are not unlawful non-citizens.(3) I am informed the CSL Pacific was formerly registered in Australia and operated by an Australian crew. The present crew hold Special Purpose Visas.(4) I am unable to comment on the availability or otherwise of Australian seafarers.(5) If any of the crew of this or any other ship were found to be unlawful non-citizens then the appropriate steps would be taken to ensure they depart Australia.(6) Arrangements are already in place to ensure that unlawful non-citizens are not engaged on ships in Australian waters.