2002-05-164012REPS230902002-05-16—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills2309R15502309Bill presented by Mr Anthony, and read a first time.230909:32:002309Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10— I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Australians Working Together and other 2001 Budget Measures) Bill 2002 gives effect to the legislative measures in the Australians Working Together package of measures announced as part of the 2001-02 budget. The measures in this bill, along with other administrative measures in the package, are a first step towards building a modern and responsive social support system for people of working age.Australia's welfare system is not adequately meeting the needs of Australian communities. There are a large number of jobless families and jobless households. Many households of working age rely heavily on income support, and there are inadequate incentives and rewards for self-reliance.Australia is not alone in this need for change—across the OECD nations, changes in labour markets and demographics have driven a move away from passive income support systems to more active labour market policies and reform of welfare arrangements.In 1999, the government set up a reference group, chaired by the CEO of Mission Australia, Patrick McClure, to provide advice on possible approaches to welfare reform. The report of the reference group set out a number of recommendations, both short- and long-term, for reforming the welfare system.The Australians Working Together package announced in the 2001-02 budget is a first step in welfare reform.AWT is a whole-of-government package of measures to be phased in gradually over four years. The package is consistent with the five areas for action identified in the McClure report:individualised service delivery;a simple and responsive income support structure;incentives and financial assistance;mutual obligations; andsocial partnerships.AWT is a balanced package comprising expanded assistance, improved financial incentives and assistance to work and train, and modest changes to requirements.The government has undertaken extensive consultations with community representatives, peak organisations and lobby groups on AWT implementation in all state and territory capital cities and in rural and regional locations. There was strong endorsement of the package as a whole and evidence that communities are willing to work with government to overcome any local barriers to the effectiveness of the package.While AWT is only the first step in a longer term process of welfare reform that will take a number of years to complete, it is nonetheless a significant step forward that will deliver better outcomes from our social support system.The working credit will make a real difference to working age customers who are trying to get into the work force. It will give incentives for them to try out a job, whether it is full-time, part-time or casual, by letting them build up credits at times when they have little or no income, which they can use to let them keep more of their payments.If payments do eventually stop after they use up their working credit, it will be easier for people to get back on payment if they lose the job in the following 12 weeks. Their work efforts will also be encouraged by letting them keep for 12 weeks certain benefits such as concession cards and supplements that are normally only available to people on payments.The measurement of earnings for income testing purposes will also be simplified and made consistent across work force age payments. This will help customers better understand how their payments are worked out and when to tell Centrelink about their earnings. It will also assist in the accurate and efficient operation of the working credit. The new treatment will mean that earnings in a person's entitlement period—usually a fortnight—will be taken into account evenly over that period. It will replace the complex averaging rules currently applied to earnings of pension and parenting payment customers, and the arrangements for allowance customers where their entitlement ceases once they start full-time work.From 1 July 2003, parenting payment customers with a youngest child aged 13 to 15 will be subject to a part-time participation requirement. The requirement will be to undertake one or more of a broad range of activities designed to lead to, or overcome barriers to, increased economic participation, for up to a maximum of 150 hours in a six-month period.Parents, both partnered and single, who remain out of the work force and on income support for long periods of time often face great difficulty in returning to the work force later on when the children are older. This is due to a lack of recent experience, skills, contacts and/or confidence. This can create a significant risk of poverty and long-term welfare dependency for both themselves and their children.The introduction of a part-time participation requirement will encourage and help parents prepare to return to work as children grow older, the usual situation for most parents with school-aged children.The government will encourage and support people whilst they undertake approved language, literacy and numeracy training, by providing a fortnightly supplement of $20.80 to help with the incidental costs associated with attending that training.Poor language, literacy or numeracy skills make it more difficult to get a job. Training for people lacking these skills is an important part of helping them to re-enter the work force. The supplement will be available from 20 September 2002.The new Personal Support Program— PSP—commences operation on 1 July 2002.The PSP will assist people with multiple non-vocational barriers to employment, such as homelessness, drug and alcohol problems, domestic violence or mental illness. These are people who, because of their personal circumstances, are generally unready to benefit from the employment assistance currently available.The new program will not only focus on employment outcomes but will also help participants to stabilise their lives and enable them to become more involved and contribute to the community over time.Amendments are made to the activity testing provisions for Newstart and youth allowance, so as to enable people to participate in PSP in order to satisfy their activity test obligations.Activity testing arrangements for PSP customers will be administered sensitively, having regard to individual circumstances and the multiple barriers faced by those customers.For many people, the biggest barrier to getting more involved in training and other activities is the cost of child care. By simplifying procedures for accessing child care special fee assistance currently provided under the Job, Education and Training program, a wider range of families will receive much-needed assistance with the cost of child care. More parents will be able to get help to meet the `gap' fee for child care.The bill also provides for the closure of access to mature age allowances and partner allowances. Non-activity-tested allowees can face a greater risk of long-term dependence than the activity-tested customers, as there are currently no measures in place to require, encourage or facilitate participation.No new claims for mature age allowances or partner allowances will be able to be made from 1 July 2003. Customers who are already receiving these payments at that time will not be affected by these changes.The bill introduces more flexible participation requirements for Newstart allowees aged 50 and over. People who would formerly have been eligible for mature age or partner allowance will be able to claim Newstart allowance, which will have a more flexible approach to the application of the activity test. There will also be access to an expanded range of services and programs.This measure assists older people on income support to improve their labour market prospects through assessment of barriers, development of a participation plan, and referrals to programs. The new participation framework maintains the current focus on economic participation for those with the capacity to undertake paid work, but provides a broader range of accessible activities to accommodate those with limited prospects of employment in the short term. It is important that penalties still be applicable in situations where people fail to comply with their statutory obligations without a reasonable excuse. However, the new arrangements will provide for any residual part of that penalty to be waived when a failure to comply is rectified.Customers aged at least 50 who are complying with an activity agreement that does not require the person to undertake job search will have similar portability rules to those that currently apply to recipients of mature age and partner allowance.This bill also contains amendments to enable customer information to be used for the purposes of the Family Homelessness Prevention and Early Intervention Pilot. The aim of the pilot is to identify families at risk of homelessness, by using relevant Centrelink data. These families would then be assisted to regain stability in their housing and financial circumstances, and to access community services, labour market programs and employment.I now present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The question now is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.09:43:002311Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALPManager of Opposition Business00—I move:That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:`the resumption of the debate not occur until the House has had the opportunity to consider the following motion: `that this House condemns the Howard Government for its failure to proceed with the McClure reforms.'The truth is that the McClure reforms are now dead. This morning on radio, the author of the McClure reforms, Mr Patrick McClure, said openly that the Howard government was in breach of the spirit of his report. This government has a proposal to cut the disability support pension by—Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (9.44 a.m.)—I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put:09:48:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 74Abbott, 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.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.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. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.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.Kemp, D.A.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.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.60Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Fitzgibbon, J.A.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.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Kelly, J.M.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion agreed to.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?09:55:002312Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00—I second the motion. It is clear that the government has sacrificed the interests of—Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (9.55 a.m.)—I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put:09:56:00The House divided.(The Speaker: Mr Neil Andrew) 74Abbott, 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.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.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. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.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.Kemp, D.A.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.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.60Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Fitzgibbon, J.A.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.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Kelly, J.M.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion agreed to.Original question put: That the amendment (Mr Swan's) be agreed to.09:59:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 61Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.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.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.74Abbott, 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.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.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. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kemp, D.A.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.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.Burke, A.E.Kelly, J.M.* denotes tellerQuestion negatived.Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills2314R15492314Bill presented by Mr Anthony, and read a first time.231410:09:002314Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This bill gives effect to two new measures that represent the next stages in the process of reforming the social security system to engage people of working age in active social and economic participation.Schedule 1 of the bill makes changes to the legislative framework governing qualification for disability support pension, building upon the changes announced in the Australians Working Together package.In August 2000, the final report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform, the McClure report, recommended that the government review the work capacity criterion for disability support pension with a view to ensuring a better match with contemporary patterns of labour market participation. The government response to the McClure report indicated an intention to move towards disability support pension qualification criteria more strongly focused around work capacity. Results of the Department of Family and Community Services' assessment and contestability trial for people with disabilities have influenced this process, showing that the work capacity of people with disabilities can be markedly improved when people are linked to the right services.Over 650,000 people are currently in receipt of the disability support pension. This number has been growing at an average rate of around four per cent per annum over the past four years. In the 1990s, Australia had the highest rate of growth in disability related payments of all OECD countries. Almost half of all people granted a disability support pension are aged 50 years and over, suggesting a widespread view that the disability support pension provides an early retirement option.The social and economic costs associated with people prematurely withdrawing from the labour force are significant. Boosting labour force participation will lessen the potentially adverse impacts of an ageing population on prospects for future economic growth.Currently, the qualification provisions for the disability support pension effectively enable people with disabilities to withdraw from the labour market by drawing distinctions between those who have capacity to work full time and those who do not. This approach does not reflect shifts in the labour market towards increased part-time work opportunities and the benefits this can bring in terms of greater financial independence and social engagement.The government is committed to developing a social support system that more effectively encourages all people of working age to participate in work and community life, according to their capacity to do so. These measures aim to ensure that the qualification criteria are changed so that the disability support pension is only payable to people with very restricted work capacity— that is, less than 15 hours at award wages a week. The amendments also extend the range of interventions and activities that Centrelink will be able to consider in determining whether a person has a continuing inability to work. Those aged 55 and over will no longer have their local labour market conditions taken into account in determining their eligibility for the disability support pension. Most of those people affected by the new rules will receive an alternative income support payment such as Newstart allowance.These measures will apply to all people who claim the disability support pension on or after 1 July 2003. The measures will also apply to disability support pension recipients current at 1 July 2003, through a gradual process of review under the new rules over a five-year period following implementation of the changes. Applying the new criteria to current disability support pension customers on review will ensure equitable treatment between existing and new customer groups.The changes to the disability support pension qualification criteria will be complemented by an additional $258 million in funding over three years for services such as employment assistance, rehabilitation, education and training to help people with disabilities to realise their assessed work potential. This will build on increased funding for services for people with disabilities announced in the last budget in the Australians Working Together package.The bill also makes amendments in schedule 2 and 3 to restrict exemptions from the activity test requirements for Newstart allowance and youth allowance. Currently, people receiving those allowances can get an exemption from the activity test if they cannot undertake eight hours or more work a week as a result of injury or a medical condition. However, nonactivity tested customers can face a greater risk of long-term dependence on income support payments than activity tested customers as there are no specific measures in place to require, encourage and facilitate participation by this group. Providing people with easy access to an exemption from an activity test does not encourage people with an incapacity to participate to the best of their abilities.The changes made by this measure will make it possible to refer people who are incapacitated for work to appropriate activities—for example, rehabilitation—which they can undertake and which will help their long-term employment prospects. The focus is on a person's capacity rather than their incapacity, through better assessing people's capacity to participate. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Snowdon) adjourned.Bills2315R15452315Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.231510:16:002315Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.As part of the government's reform of business taxation, this bill introduces an innovative and comprehensive consolidation regime for resident entities that comprise a wholly owned corporate group. The consolidation regime represents a significant change to the taxation of corporate groups. Because of its magnitude, the measure will be enacted progressively via a series of bills. The consolidation regime is optional, although a choice to consolidate is irrevocable. Where a group makes such a choice, all its eligible resident wholly owned companies, trusts and partnerships, including wholly owned entities acquired in the future, must be included in the consolidated group. The proposed regime will promote business efficiency, improve the integrity of the Australian tax system and reduce ongoing income tax compliance costs for groups that choose to consolidate. The proposed amendments will address the efficiency and integrity problems in the current taxation of wholly owned groups. These include:· high compliance costs; · the double taxation of gains which are taxed when realised and taxed again on disposal of the underlying equity; · tax avoidance through intragroup dealings; and · value shifting to create artificial losses where there is no actual economic loss.After extensive consultation, the Ralph Review of Business Taxation recommended, in A tax system redesigned, that a consolidated regime for wholly owned groups be introduced for income tax purposes. In December 2000 an exposure draft was released which contained the general principles for consolidation. In February of this year a further streamlined exposure draft was released taking into account submissions on the earlier exposure draft. The accompanying explanatory memorandum to the 2002 exposure draft provided a comprehensive overview of the regime as a whole. It discussed proposed legislative amendments not included in the exposure draft at that time. Throughout this period significant private sector contribution was made to the consolidation regime's development by both submissions and ongoing consultative groups. The consolidation regime will treat wholly owned corporate groups as a single entity, rather than on an entity by entity basis, for income tax purposes. This `single entity rule' means that, when subsidiary entities join a consolidated group, they lose their separate income tax identities. Instead, each such entity is treated as a part of the head company of the consolidated group for the purposes of determining income tax liability. As a result of the single entity rule, the group lodges a single income tax return and the assets and liabilities of the subsidiary members are treated as those of the head company. For income tax purposes, during the period an entity is treated as part of the head company of the group, the actions of that entity are taken to be the actions of the head company and all intragroup transactions are ignored.This bill contains the core rules necessary to treat a subsidiary entity as a part of the head company of a consolidated group. It also contains the rules dealing with the formation and membership of a consolidated group, including provision for eligible companies, trusts and partnerships to access the benefits of consolidation. It also explains the notification requirements that will apply when an entity becomes, or ceases to be, a member of a consolidated group.The bill sets out rules to determine the cost, for income tax purposes, of assets, including membership interests, when one or more entities join or leave a consolidated group. Broadly, the head company's cost for the assets of a joining entity reflects the cost to the head company of acquiring that entity. This alignment between the cost for the membership interests in an entity and the entity's assets is preserved where a subsidiary member leaves the group. Special transitional rules that will allow groups to retain the subsidiary members' existing costs for assets will be included in a later bill. This bill also deals with the transfer of a joining entity's losses to the head company of a consolidated group, and how these losses may be subsequently used by the head company. A head company's use of transferred losses is subject to an annual limit which is intended to approximate the amount of losses that could have been used by the transferor entity outside the group. Concessional rules apply to increase the rate at which the head company can use certain transferred company losses where a group consolidates during the transitional period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2004. Another component of the bill allows the transfer of a joining entity's franking account to the head company of a consolidated group. During the period of consolidation, the head company will maintain a single franking account for the group while the franking accounts of subsidiary members become inoperative.The head company of the consolidated group retains any losses and franking credits transferred to it by a subsidiary member if that subsidiary should later leave the group.Foreign owned groups of Australian resident entities currently access existing grouping provisions despite not having a single resident head company. To prevent these groups having to restructure, the bill allows the Australian resident entities to form a multiple entry consolidated group. The bill also determines the membership of the group in those circumstances.In general, the head company will be liable for the income tax-related liabilities of the consolidated group. However, where a head company fails to satisfy a group income tax-related liability on time, the bill provides rules for the recovery of this group liability directly from other members of the group unless certain exceptions apply.The bill also contains consequential amendments that ensure that the members of a consolidated group are treated as a single entity for the purposes of PAYG instalments once the head company of a consolidated group is given an instalment rate worked out from its first head company assessment. There are also transitional rules setting how instalments are payable by a consolidated group's members until that time.Amendments in this bill generally remove certain existing grouping provisions, including those allowing the transfer of losses between wholly owned groups, from 1 July 2003, subject to special rules applying to consolidated groups that have a substituted accounting period. Consequently, wholly owned groups that do not choose to consolidate will, in general, no longer have access to grouping rules outside of consolidation. However, loss transfer will continue to be available where the transfer involves an Australian branch of a foreign bank.The proposed amendments to implement the consolidation regime are necessary to ensure greater consistency in the taxation of wholly owned groups in Australia. The existing grouping provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and 1997 allow groups of companies to currently obtain benefits of single entity treatment for some purposes. However, for other income tax purposes, the existing income tax law continues to require each entity to account separately for intragroup transactions and intragroup debt and equity interests. The proposed regime will remove such inconsistencies for consolidated groups by permitting intragroup transactions to be ignored for income tax purposes.Further, the proposed consolidation regime will provide a basis for more robust investment decisions in Australia by improving the consistency and transparency of the taxation of wholly owned groups, reducing ongoing costs of compliance and providing fairer, more equitable outcomes. For this reason the consolidation measure has widespread support among Australian corporate groups.The consolidation regime will apply from 1 July 2002.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Snowdon) adjourned.Bills2317R15472317Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.231710:26:002317Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The government announced last year in its superannuation policy statement, A Better Superannuation System, a range of measures designed to enhance the overall attractiveness, accessibility and security of superannuation.With the introduction of the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002, and associated amendments through the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations and Retirement Savings Account Regulations, the government will have delivered on a significant proportion of these commitments.Over recent years there has been a growing realisation throughout Australian society of the importance of retirement planning and saving for the years ahead. Superannuation is seen as a vital element in planning for a comfortable and secure retirement.The government recognises that it is essential that superannuation is safe, easily understood and fair for every Australian. Amendments in this bill together with the proposed amendments to the regulations will help achieve the aim of a safer, fairer and less complex superannuation system.This bill introduces amendments to the superannuation guarantee law to require employers to make specified levels of superannuation contributions on at least a quarterly basis on behalf of their employees to avoid the superannuation guarantee charge.Currently an employer has until 28 July following a financial year to make the required level of superannuation contributions on behalf of its employees, or be subject to the superannuation guarantee charge. While the majority of employers currently make superannuation contributions quarterly or more often, the law will be amended to require all employers to make contributions at least quarterly.A number of enhancements to the superannuation guarantee law will also be made by this bill to facilitate the introduction of the new quarterly contribution regime.Other measures contained in this bill will make superannuation more attractive and support retirement incomes policy including:· allowing a working person the opportunity to make personal undeducted contributions to a superannuation fund until age 75;· reducing the superannuation and termination payments surcharge rates from 15 per cent to 10.5 per cent over the next three years;· allowing contributions to be made (by third parties) on behalf of children who are under the age of 18 and otherwise do not receive superannuation support; and· increasing the fully deductible amount available to the self-employed for personal superannuation contributions made to complying superannuation funds or retirement savings accounts. Self-employed who claim an income tax deduction for personal superannuation contributions will now have an increased limit where full deductibility is available for the first $5,000 of contributions plus 75 per cent of the excess over $5,000 up to the taxpayer's age-based deduction limit.Full details of these measures and some minor technical corrections are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Snowdon) adjourned.Bills2318R15462318Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.231810:31:002318Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2002, in conjunction with the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002, establishes the basis for requiring employers to make at least quarterly superannuation contributions on behalf of their employees. These amendments will enable the superannuation guarantee charge, which underpins the compulsory superannuation arrangements, to be imposed on a quarterly basis.Full details of the measures in this bill are included in the explanatory memorandum for the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Snowdon) adjourned.Bills2318R15512318Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.231810:32:002318Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This bill extends the eligibility provisions of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme to retail and hospitality businesses who use diesel and like fuels to generate power for their own use where there is no ready access to a commercial supply of electricity. It gives effect to a policy initiative announced by the government during the 2001 election campaign and will principally benefit small business operators in remote areas of Australia by providing a rebate of the customs or excise duty paid on diesel and like fuels used by them to generate power for their own use.The extension of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme will mean that small retail/hospitality businesses will now be able to claim a rebate in relation to their commercial operations. Examples of the types of businesses generating their own power that will benefit from the measure include caravan parks, tourist resorts and roadhouses.Businesses will need to use diesel and like fuels in the course of carrying on an enterprise to qualify for the rebate, in the same way as is required in the eligibility provisions for the marine and rail transport categories in the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme.This bill provides that the rate of rebate applicable to diesel fuel for electricity generation by retail and hospitality businesses will be the same as that applying to primary production. The rate is currently equal to the full amount of excise paid on the fuel.The extension to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme will apply only in relation to diesel fuel that is purchased on or after 1 July 2002.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills2319R15522319Bill presented by Fran Bailey, and read a first time.231910:35:002319Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This bill will transfer responsibility for the Australian Protective Service from the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police.Last year, the government initiated a high level review of Australia's security and counterterrorism arrangements.This review identified some significant gaps in Australia's legislative framework.In addition to these significant reforms, the government has also reviewed the relationship between Australia's key counter-terrorist agencies to ensure that Australia can best meet the demands of the new terrorist environment.As a result, the government proposes that the Australian Protective Service become an operating division of the Australian Federal Police.The Australian Protective Service is the Commonwealth government's specialist protective security provider.The service provides counter-terrorist first response (CTFR) at major airports and security services at Parliament House, the office of the Prime Minister, the residences of the Governor-General, the Prime Minister and high office holders, sensitive defence establishments, foreign diplomatic missions, and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.The service operates under competitive arrangements, where private security agencies may bid against the service for certain Commonwealth guarding activities.The proposed amendments will allow the closest possible coordination between two of Australia's key counter-terrorist agencies.Better coordination between the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Protective Service will strengthen both organisations and their ability to fulfil their counter-terrorism responsibilities.This initiative consolidates and enhances the government's national security initiatives that are currently being implemented following the terrorist attacks in the United States.These include the commitment of $14 million for the 2001-02 financial year to the Australian Protective Service to expand and improve airport security, including expansion of the explosive detection canine program. Ongoing funding will be provided over future years.The upgrade in airport security will result in the deployment of additional specially trained Commonwealth uniformed protective service officers. The enhanced security capability expands from Sydney and Melbourne airports to Adelaide, Perth, Canberra, Darwin, Hobart, Cairns, Brisbane, Coolangatta and Alice Springs airports.This upgrade of security standards and staffing levels at 11 major airports is expected to be completed by 30 June 2002.Under the new arrangements, which are intended to take effect from 1 July 2002, responsibility for the Australian Protective Service would transfer from the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police.The current relationship of the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department with the Australian Protective Service would cease.The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police would be in control of the Australian Federal Police through the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 and the Australian Protective Service through the Australian Protective Service Act 1987.The Australian Protective Service would be established as a statutory agency and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police would be the agency head.The Australian Protective Service would continue to be governed by the Australian Protective Service Act 1987, and the powers and duties of the Australian Protective Service would remain unchanged.Following the amendments to the legislation it will be business as usual for the Australian Protective Service and its approximate 1,000 staff, which include managers, administrative officers, protective service officers and the recently appointed air security officers.The current competition arrangements applying to the Australian Protective Service would be preserved, including arrangements allowing private security agencies to bid against the Australian Protective Service for the Commonwealth guarding contracts.Employees of the Australian Protective Service would remain public servants and retain their conditions and entitlements under the Public Service Act 1999 and various industrial awards.No provisions governing Australian Federal Police employees would apply to Australian Protective Service employees.Nothing in the proposed arrangements would affect Australian Federal Police employees and their relationship with the commissioner.The government will explore steps to further align the Australian Federal Police and Australian Protective Service, following the passage of this bill, having regard to current competition and efficiency arrangements applying to the Australian Protective Service.This will be done in full consultation with the employees of the two organisations.The legislative changes contained in this bill are relatively simple.The Australian Protective Service Act 1987 would be amended to transfer responsibility for administering the act from the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to the Commissioner of the Federal Police.This amendment would be made by replacing references to the secretary and the Attorney-General's Department with references to the commissioner and the Australian Protective Service respectively.The act would establish the Australian Protective Service as a statutory agency and would ensure that the new agency is consistent with the Public Service Act 1999 and the Workplace Relations Act 1996.Additional minor amendments would: update obsolete terminology used in the act in line with the Public Service Act 1999; clarify the distinction between employees of the Australian Protective Service and `protective service officers'; broaden the delegation powers of the Australian Protective Service Director so that the director can delegate powers to administrative employees as well as protective service officers; and clarify that general orders are not only subject to the Australian Protective Service Act 1987, other acts, regulations and section 24 determinations (as per the current provisions), but are also subordinate to the Public Service Commissioner's directions, the Prime Minister's Public Service directions and the Public Service classification rules.The financial aspects of the alignment of the Australian Protective Service with the Australian Federal Police may be reflected in appropriation bills Nos 1 and 2, where the appropriation for the Australian Protective Service will be simply redirected within the Attorney-General's portfolio from the department to the Australian Federal Police, both of which are prescribed agencies within the portfolio under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.The Attorney-General's portfolio budget statements will also reflect the necessary movements from the department to the Australian Federal Police.In addition, we propose to amend the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations to reflect this change in alignment.While the control of the Australian Protective Service would be transferred to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police by 1 July 2002, the Australian Protective Service would still be a separate agency to the Australian Federal Police, employing separate staff.As I have noted, any further steps required to implement the decision to make the Australian Protective Service an operating division of the Australian Federal Police will be developed in consultation with relevant parties.The move of the Australian Protective Service to the Australian Federal Police is a win-win for both agencies and provides for greater operational coordination of Commonwealth law enforcement resources. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills2321R15352321Bill presented by Fran Bailey, and read a first time.232110:47:002321Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The Statute Law Revision Bill 2002 continues the work of repairing the Commonwealth statute book, which began in 1996 with the Statute Law Revision Act 1996 and was continued by the Statute Stocktake Act 1999.The bill deals with two aspects of repairing the statute book.The bill corrects minor clerical and drafting errors in various current acts. The kinds of errors being corrected are spelling mistakes, mistakes in punctuation, mistakes in the numbering or lettering of parts of acts— for example, incorrect numbering of subsections or incorrect lettering of paragraphs— and misdescribed amendments. A misdescribed amendment is one that either incorrectly describes the text to be amended or specifies the wrong location for the insertion of new text. In general, these amendments do not affect the operation of the law. Although the intended effect of the amendments is usually clear, it can be confusing or misleading to leave these errors uncorrected. In particular, misdescribed amendments can affect the accuracy of government and commercial consolidations of acts.For instance, an amendment that purports to require a new provision to be inserted after a nonexistent provision would probably be given some meaning by a court if the general intention of the amendment was clear. However, consolidating the act may be difficult, because the proper location of the new provision is not clear.Correcting errors of these kinds does not change the law. However, it ensures that consolidated acts can be published, and without confusing mistakes. In some cases, this may have a significant impact on the accessibility of legislation.The bill also replaces existing references to `the Standards Association of Australia' with references to `Standards Australia International Limited', with effect from 1 July 1999, when the name change took effect.The bill, while not changing the substance of the law, makes many useful improvements to the statute book. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills2322R14742322Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Mr Abbott:That this bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr McClelland moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words :“this House declines to give the Bill a second reading and :condemns the government for: (a) attempting to pre-empt of a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the issue of whether bargaining fees “pertain to the relationship of employer and employee' ; (b) introducing legislation which unreasonably restrains the ability of parties in the workplace to voluntarily enter into service agreements concerning industrial representation and advocacy; (c) introducing legislation which is primarily designed to discourage workplace organisation rather than to facilitate agreement-making; and(2) confirms that it is appropriate that the House await the decision of the Federal Court prior to legislating in this area”10:50:002322Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Last night in this place I began to relate a story about the collapse of the former Soviet Union. I was driven to it after listening to contributions to this debate by members opposite, particularly after the member for Charlton. It reminded me of an interesting parallel but I was cut off by the time clock just as I got to the punchline, so here we go again.In 1991 Mikhail Gorbachev, the then Soviet Premier, left Moscow for a brief—so he intended—holiday in the Crimea. At the time, he was presiding over the collapse of the former Soviet Union. It was in a mass of its own contradictions and outrages. On 18 August soldiers and government agents, acting on behalf of a conspiracy known as the `Gang of Eight', arrested Gorbachev as the first stage of a neo-communist coup. Of course, that coup was doomed to fail. In fact, the attempted coup hastened the collapse of the communist state, passing power from the hands of a reluctant reformer to those who represented a new Russian democracy. The then US President, George Bush Sr, made perhaps the finest assessment of the coup, its failure and its aftermath. He said:You can't put democracy and freedom back into a box.No, you cannot. Freedom has her own battalions—I have a budget theme happening here. Freedom has a way of bringing tyrants to heel and, as Douglas MacArthur said, `Whether in chains or in laurels, liberty knows nothing but victories.' That is a lesson that the opposition and their trade union masters are yet to learn. They are desperately trying to stuff workplace freedom and democracy back into a box. At every turn, they have tried to quash the freedom of association and they have sought to thwart the free association of non-union workers. Labor is desperately trying to push the toothpaste— the workplace freedoms that our workers now enjoy—back into the tube. You just cannot do it—you can try, but it is very messy.Perhaps the most insidious weapon has been the compulsory union fee or the bargaining agent's fee. It is a fee designed to penalise non-union workers and force them to bear the cost of negotiations entered into by trade unions of which they are not a member. In a number of cases, the fees demanded have been set at $500—above and beyond the level of annual union dues. As the minister noted in his second reading speech, these fees are, by their character, premeditated in their coercive intent.In June last year, I spoke on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibition of Compulsory Union Fees) Bill 2001. That bill was the forerunner of this legislation and lapsed in the Senate with the calling of the 2001 federal election. In my speech on that bill, I applauded the response of the Western Australian Labor government to those fees, for the Premier was quick to condemn the Western Australian branch of the Australian Nursing Federation when it threatened to apply a $400 fee to non-union nurses in 2001. At the time, Premier Gallop described that threat as a `red herring' and `not desirable'. But, in the nine months since June 2001, Western Australians have had the opportunity to witness an emboldening of the trade unions in our state. In days past, we have seen union thugs block the streets in an attempt to intimidate the royal commission into the building industry that has been duly convened by the Commonwealth. We have heard some appalling evidence in that royal commission—evidence that, in September 1999, the CFMEU closed down the Westfield Carousel site in Perth, called a meeting of all workers on the site, closed all exits to prevent workers from leaving and then interrogated all workers as to whether or not they were union members. They were then `encouraged' to join on the spot. I guess it is pretty hard to resist if you want to be allowed out to go home for the evening. Then we heard about an official from the CFMEU who actually said on oath that he would shut down a work site if he found non-union members working there and that he had made a successful threat in January at a demolition site at the Western Australian cricket ground, at the WACA. He was asked if such action was appropriate, and Mr Joe McDonald replied:I think it's all in a day's work for a militant union official.Indeed! Then we heard the evidence of companies admitting to paying illegal strike pay on Perth building sites to prevent the trouble the union threatened on non-union work sites. In the past months, we have seen the proliferation of `no ticket, no start' signs and the violent disruption and picketing of non-union work sites in Perth, as well as the escalation of demarcation disputes. These developments have been aided and abetted by the state government, with union leaders egged on by Labor's amendments to Western Australia's industrial relations laws. But I hope, nonetheless, that the Premier has not lost his expressed contempt for bargaining fees and that he will both take a stand against those fees being introduced into Western Australia and support the passage of this bill through the federal parliament by communicating his stance to his federal colleagues.ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr Barresi—Don't hold your breath.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—I will; I have some hope that the Premier will continue to express contempt for these bargaining fees. It is worthwhile to revisit what this bill will actually do. It will prevent collective agreements certified under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 from containing provisions that would require non-association members to pay bargaining service fees to an association—a trade union or an employer organisation— that is party to the agreement. It will also prohibit any conduct designed to force the payment of such fees, whether that conduct takes the form of discriminatory behaviour towards people who refuse to pay a bargaining fee or the encouragement of discriminatory or coercive behaviour or demands by an industrial association for such a bargaining fee. The amendments will deal with the hundreds of federal certified agreements into which compulsory union fee clauses have already been inserted.I do not wish to revisit at length the arguments for this reform, but I shall note the particular inadequacy of the principal argument utilised by opponents of this bill, and that is the question of the free rider problem: are these fees not simply a form of user-pays? Last year I quoted the riposte of Mark Paterson from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to this false argument. He said:... unions negotiate agreements on behalf of their members, and have a clear interest in applying the outcome to non-members to ensure that their members are not undercut by other employees. This has been the traditional approach of unions to awards, and they are now using the same technique with agreements. In short, they act to prevent competition.So, far from being a free rider problem, there is an absolute opposition on the part of organised labour in this country to the differential remuneration of union and non-union workers. As the minister noted in his second reading speech on this bill:`User-pays' involves an exchange that is freely entered into by willing and properly informed parties.What this legislation does is oblige industrial organisations to meet the same standards we demand of businesses, which are prevented from demanding payment for unrequested services by fair trading laws. That is an obligation that ought to be observed by union officials. I commend this bill to the House.10:59:002324Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00— The Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibition of Compulsory Union Fees) Bill 2002 is an interesting bill, when you look at the speakers list for the government, which is extended, and when you think about the fact that this bill was before the House in 2001 and has already been fully debated but could not be put through. It is also an interesting bill when you think about the history of similar bills that have been before the House and the Senate, and about the 1980s discussion of this and the recommendation from Senator Harradine's committee about what the appropriate mechanisms were to deal with this problem. It is a terrific bill to bring out the essential ideological nature of the approach of the government and government members. It is one where they are red in tooth and claw, because they have before them the body of trade unionism. It is the one great enemy that they can concentrate on, and they want to turn it into a carcass and then rip it into pieces.The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who is driving this, like the minister previously, has a series of misnamed bills, full of misnomers, before this parliament. He brought in an unfair dismissals bill that he turned into the `fair dismissals bill'. This is doublespeak and newspeak—a Nineteen Eighty-Four-ism from this minister. We have the same thing here. The title of the bill is `Workplace Relations Amendment'—that is fair enough, because it is to amend the Workplace Relations Act—(Prohibition of Compulsory Union Fees) Bill 2002', when actually it is about prohibiting a bargaining services fee, not prohibiting compulsory union fees. This is an ideological, propagandistic tag to place upon this bill that entirely misrepresents what it is about. When you go to the explanatory memorandum, you find that item 3 would define the term `bargaining services'. Excuse me, but where is the compulsory union fees part of this in the explanatory memorandum? The bill itself says `bargaining services fee'. It states:Bargaining services means services provided by (or on behalf of) an industrial association—that is, an employer or employee association—in relation to ... the negotiation, making, certification, operation, extension, variation or termination of the agreement)—that is, under part VIB of the Workplace Relations Act. So in the very definition in the bill this is about bargaining services. It is not about compulsory union fees. That is a propagandistic tag, a sales tag that this government is putting onto this bill.The United States, given its history of being run most of the time by republican governments, is really not a place that you would think would be union friendly. It is not a place where you would think they would accept anything like compulsory union fees or bargaining services fees. The reality is that for decades in the United States they have legislated to allow for bargaining services fees to be brought into place. They have allowed the unions to seek redress for the money that they have spent bargaining on behalf of their members. When nonmembers of unions get the benefits the unions have bargained for, United States legislation says that the unions should be compensated for that by being able to charge a bargaining services fee. In this country, where there have been attempts to put a bargaining services fee into place, a number of unions have made the key mistake of placing the amount of the bargaining services fee above that of a union fee. That is a key mistake. If you have $750 versus $400 or $500 in union fees it is open to be argued and it is open to be attacked—as the government is trying to do here, saying that this is really trying to force people into the unions.The core recommendation of the Harradine committee in the 1980s was that a bargaining services fee should be allowed but that that bargaining services fee should be the cost of joining the union, less the industrial aspects. The award mechanisms, which they primarily were in the 1980s, are still operative—and you can widen this out to workplace agreements and the fact that we have had collective bargaining through the 1980s and 1990s. The Harradine committee effectively said that it is right and proper, given that the unions, and the people who pay their money into the unions, argue for better awards or a better certified agreement under this Workplace Relations Act. I would add—and it is not in the Harradine committee report—that you have a simple situation where the minister effectively demands of a union that they represent not only their own members but members who will get a benefit from their bargaining but who are not paying in for it.It is a pretty simple situation. The Harradine committee said that they thought it was fair that you take a union fee and you extract from that union fee the propagandising that the union would do, their industrial activity, the push and the argument to try and say to people, `You should join our union,' and any affiliation fees that are paid to a political party or paid to other entities. Take all of that out, and the discounted fee relates directly to bargaining services undertaken by the union on behalf of its members—and on behalf of nonmembers, because they actually get the result. That is an utterly fair approach to take. That is where those unions which have argued for a higher bargaining services fee than the Harradine committee would recommend are out of kilter. They need to rethink their situation and they need to adjust to those circumstances—which have not changed much but they have taken a different tack on it. I will come back to the Harradine committee; I think it is the foundation of a sensible approach.There are a number of jurisdictions apart from the United States—Switzerland, Sweden, I think, and Israel—where bargaining services fees are not only allowed but countenanced by legislation. This is not something that has come from Mars or Jupiter. It is not something that is so outrageous that conservative governments have not allowed for it. When you look at the effect of that, we are still in a situation, as we were in 2001 when this bill was last debated, where these matters are before the Federal Court and the High Court.If you take a very narrow definition of what is proper in a relationship between an employee and an employer, you can argue that bargaining service fees are not properly part of that, because the key underlying part is whether or not an employer can be forced, through a certified agreement, to deduct from an employee's wages moneys that would go into a union account. We have a bit of experience of that in Parliament House. I am a member of the Community and Public Sector Union. Before 1996, I had a facility within Parliament House where my union fees could be deducted and paid into that union directly from my pay. When this government came in, they made sure that that was not going to happen. They completely prohibited that. So we made a set of other arrangements: I paid those union fees directly out of my own bank account. But it is an ideological approach to say that you should not be able to have a payment on a regular basis if you choose to do it, if you freely decide to do it. If you have the choice—which should be important to people on the other side of the House; they say it is, but it is not—you should be freely able to say, `I want that taken directly out of my wages before I get them. I do not want to have to muck around to set up another set of arrangements.' That is an indicator, right at the start, of where this mob are going.They want that spread across the entire work force, but they have directly tied that deduction question—which has been held up in the Federal Court and the High Court—to the question of the bargaining services fee. I am in the simple situation that there is no bargaining services fee that I would be up for in relation to the Community and Public Sector Union, because their position now is that they cannot directly represent me. They cannot do anything in relation to my position in terms of remuneration and so on, but our party rules say that you have to be a member of a union. In my contribution to that, that cannot be part of it. For me, what was important was a question of being able to deduct from payroll. At source, that is where the government has attempted to attack this, and this is where it is a question of whether it is part of the employer-employee relationship that you can then actually do that.If we look at the broad range of countries—generally conservative in nature through most of their elections—that allow this bargaining service fee, if we think of all of the arguments that have been put forward on the other side of the House about how horrendous a thing it is that someone could actually charge for this, I think you have to start to think of it in a different way. In previous debates, when Arch Bevis, the member for Brisbane, was the shadow minister, he outlined the vast, long list of lawyers on the other side of the House—most of whom are still present—who, of course, if they wish to practise as a solicitor or a barrister, have to sign up and pay a fee to their association. As it is for lawyers, so it is for people in the medical profession. The trade union ticket for lawyers and doctors in this country is a university degree in law or medicine. That is their right to work. That is their trade union ticket. Married to that is a simple stipulation that, if you do not sign up to the AMA or if you do not sign up to the other doctors' organisations, if you do not sign up to the College of Surgeons and pay the entry fee— the bargaining services fee, the compulsory fee, to the College of Surgeons—if you are not part of the association and you are not paying in, you cannot practise. They are not going to allow you to do it. We all know that, with orthopaedic surgeons, the history of that group is that the entry fee is not only a degree in medicine, the entry fee is access to the college of orthopaedic surgeons. We know too that they have deliberately kept the number of people down. It is a closed shop. There is not open access for everyone in the field of medicine to become an orthopaedic surgeon. They have kept a very tight, very closed shop and there is higher remuneration for orthopaedic surgeons as a result. But you have to pay the association fees. They are the effective equivalent of bargaining services fees. If we go more broadly—and the minister's argument here is about freedom of association—in my case, as someone who wanted payroll deductions made to the Community and Public Sector Union, I did not have a freedom of decision making. I did not have a freedom of choice in regard to that. That is a key element when you are dealing with these issues. I would use another analogy. A lot of people these days live in either blocks of units or in other arrangements where there is a strata title to their property. If you go into one of those places and sign up, you do not have a Torrens title to the land. The strata title means that you join a body corporate. In that body corporate, you have rights but you also have duties and responsibilities. Amongst the duties and responsibilities you have are that you have to pay certain levies. There are two key levies: one is a levy to go into an administrative fund and the other is a levy to go into a sinking fund. The people who are in the body corporate gain protection in terms of the value of their property by putting money into a sinking fund. Over time, as those sinking funds build up, they are there to pay for future maintenance to the property or to fix up future problems that occur with that maintenance. The administrative fee, however, is for the day-to-day workings of that corporate body—what they do from year to year, the things they have to pay out in preparing tax returns or dealing with electricity, lights, stationery and so on, or pay out to an agent who will do the business for them. I would simply argue that the bargaining services fee is the equivalent of the administrative levy in a corporate body— as you could say it is an equivalent to the entry fee that lawyers, doctors and surgeons have to pay into their entities. It is the equivalent of this. It is for an ongoing maintenance.Prior to entering parliament and prior to working in the office of former Treasurer and Prime Minister Keating, I was a teacher for just on 10 years. As a member of the Independent Teachers Association teaching in the Catholic school system, I taught with people who paid the money and were in a union and I taught next to people who did not pay any money at all. They had their free choice not to be a member of a union—fine. We were under an award system. I was a unionist who paid, out of the money that I paid to the union, for my union to bargain with the employer to get a better deal for me as a teacher. For everyone else who was a union member, there was a bargaining services fee that came out of our freely chosen union membership in order to get a better deal from the employer in wages and conditions. It cost a lot to do it. It cost the union a lot and that means it cost the union members, because they are the ones who provide the funds for the union. The people teaching beside me who got the increases in wages and the better conditions did not put a brass razoo into that process. They did not pay a thing: no union fees— they did not want to be in it—and no bargaining services fee. For nothing, they got all of the benefits.There is a prohibition on doing it the other way. If you are part of an award or a certified agreement and if you are a union member then the benefit should only go to union members because they are the ones who put the money up in order to get that award or certified agreement made. The people who were not part of that should be excluded— they should be left to bargain for themselves. So there should be no bargaining services fee in that regard if they had to bargain for themselves. But the laws in this country prohibit that. That is one genuine solution.Given that we do not have that—given that the benefits flow on to people who do not put any money into the process—it is right and proper to argue that it is reasonable to have a base bargaining services fee. That is the core of what this situation is about. If you are willing by free choice not to join a union, you actually should cop by free choice the fact that you should have to go out and bargain totally to get your increases in wages and conditions. The minister demands through legislation that, under either an award or a certified agreement, people who are not in unions have to get the results. So in that case it is reasonable to say that there are costs associated with this and that therefore it is right and proper that a sensible bargaining services fee be imposed on those people and that it be able to be taken out by automatic payroll deduction.It is not blindingly difficult to do that. This was clear in the 1980s when the Senate had a major review of this area in the award system and said that it was possible. It said that it was not only possible but in fact right and proper to do it because it was fair to those people who had put their money on the line to try and get an improvement in wages and conditions. For this government, for its members, for those who want to turn the union movement in Australia into a carcass that they can then claw at, the approach we have seen here with this bill and with every other bill that has dealt with unionism demonstrates that this is a mob red in tooth and claw. This is one where it goes to their head; this is one where they can savage the body of trade unionism. Trade unionism is a collection of people in a workplace or across an entity where people have got together to try and do better for themselves. They are ordinary Australian workers trying to protect their families and trying to do the right thing by themselves. This bill is part of the class warfare of this government. It is composed differently from what it was in the past but, as the member for Corio said, it is a Tory bill. This is a conservative thing that should be knocked right out. (Time expired)11:19:002327Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—It is once again my pleasure to be in this House speaking in favour of an important piece of industrial relations legislation, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibition of Compulsory Union Fees) Bill 2002. As the member for Blaxland demonstrated in his speech, industrial relations will continue to be a policy area that will distinguish the two sides of this chamber more and more throughout this term. I think the Australian public will be very grateful that there is a voice in this nation opposing the very stance that the member for Blaxland is purporting to hoodwink the Australian public with. It is an area we have clearly marked out as one which will create significant advantages to the Australian public. We have already seen such advantages in the workplace and on the waterfront with the recent figures that have come out and with the record low industrial disputes that have taken place around Australia.So I am very pleased that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations continues to introduce bills into this House that will be debated and brought into law to give greater power to employees in the workplace to determine their own fate. In his second reading speech the minister stated:Freedom of association is the cornerstone of the government's vision for a more productive and more prosperous workplace.Indeed, it is. A fundamental freedom in any democratic nation must be the freedom of movement and the freedom to belong or not to belong to organised groups, be they religious, political or industrial in their objectives.Recently, I had the good fortune—I cannot say the fun but certainly the good fortune—of spending nine days walking the Kokoda Trail in Papua New Guinea. We take a lot of our freedoms for granted. Sixty years after the battles in our northern waters to save Australia, we must ask: are we, the members of this parliament, the protectors of such freedoms, freedoms that were hard won by the heroes of Kokoda and those other battles in Milne Bay and the Coral Sea, just to mention a few? The answer to that question must be yes. Those on the other side of the chamber, who cannot distinguish between their service to the nation and their obligations to their union masters, will continue to oppose bills such as these as they are introduced into the chamber.In May 2001 we saw the introduction of a similar bill to address compulsory union fees for non-union workers. That bill was before the Senate when parliament was prorogued for the federal election. However, in the coalition's 2001 workplace relations policy, the government again reiterated its commitment in this area. This bill confirms the government's resolve on that commitment. While the Workplace Relations Act already protects certain freedom of association and freedom from discrimination rights, this bill extends that protection to the imposition of compulsory bargaining service fees. This government supports the right of workers to decide whether or not they want to join a union and rejects any notion of compulsory union membership. The opposition, on the other hand, conveniently has an industrial relations policy that fails to deal with this issue. In his address, the member for Blaxland gave the impression that bargaining service fees do not equate to compulsory union fees, that the two are separate items. That is a great con. On the surface it may appear to be the case that a bargaining service fee is not a compulsory union fee, but the effect is that Australian workers who are not members of unions are conned by that statement; they will be hoodwinked.In recent years, we have seen a dramatic increase in provisions under certified agreements requiring the payment of bargaining service fees by non-union members. Quite often these fees, which are purported to be charged for services rendered over the bargaining period, are actually higher than union membership fees. So one must then ask: is there a legitimate reason for pursuing such a practice? Surely any reasonable person could see through such an obvious facade. In fact, unions are merely using this type of provision to coerce non-union workers into joining the union movement. Why would I pay $750 for a bargaining service fee when it would cost me perhaps $400, $450 or $500 to be a member of the union? It is a con. It is coercion in order to get people to join the union movement.The Victorian Police Association, as was mentioned by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in their submission in 2001 to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee, is a prime example. The Victorian Police Association proposal to charge a $750 bargaining service fee to non-union members while the union membership fee was only $420 is a perfect example of the kind of coercive intent I am referring to. The member for Blaxland is just one of the voices on the other side attempting to mask the real intent of this practice and to say that it does not equate to compulsory union fees.Unions often attempt to hide behind the principle of user pays; in fact, they have distorted the truth by claiming that principle applies. User pays involves an exchange, I would have thought, between two willing and informed parties. Trade practices legislation exists that prevents regular businesses from providing unsolicited services and then demanding payment. Why, then, should it not be so for trade associations as well? In a competitive market, businesses must rely on the reputation and the quality of their service or product in order to attract customers. Unions should be encouraged to adopt the same approach to attracting new members. Instead, for obvious reasons, unions prefer to rely on bargaining service fees as a means of keeping their numbers up and, hence, their coffers full. If they are struggling with membership, they should go out and demonstrate the added value rather than coercing people to join through the back door by having a bargaining service fee.The usual rhetoric behind bargaining service fees—and often we find that these are in the $500 range—is that they are to cover bargaining negotiation costs required to achieve benefits to which non-union members also have access. Clearly, when you look at examples like the one mentioned earlier about the Victorian Police Association this seems a little far-fetched, to say the least. Perhaps a more realistic view of the situation is that these fees are, in fact, just a de facto way of compelling workers to join the union movement. The unions reap the benefits of a larger membership base and, of course, the effect is that there is a dramatic increase in the size of their respective coffers. If they could con the other 5.6 million non-union fee paying workers into paying, they would end up better off to the tune of $2.8 billion. So there are big stakes involved for the union movement. It is no wonder that members on the other side of the House find it very difficult to support the government on this bill, because they know that their masters in the union movement need that money. Of course, we know where that money in turn flows to, and I will say a bit more about that in a moment.Unions have been encouraged to pursue this type of arrangement by the ACTU, which in June 2000 passed a motion calling on the federal government to legislate to allow all unions to charge such fees. This call was reflected in the heading `ACTU seeks new fee' in the Canberra Times on 30 June. Let us have a look at why they were moved to pass such a motion in June 2000. Let us look at some of the figures that we have on union membership that have come out in recent times. If we go back 20 years to around May 1982, we will find that 49.5 per cent of all employees were members of the union movement; that is, 2.5 million workers in Australia were members of the union movement. In 20 years—and a good 13 years of those were under the helm of an ALP federal government—we have seen trade union membership drop from 2.5 million to 1.9 million. It now stands at only 24 per cent of all employees. A good percentage of that, of course, will be in the Australian Public Service and various state public services around this country. So there are big stakes involved and, based on the rewards they could reap from having such a bargaining service fee, I dare say they will be opposing this bill tooth and nail all the way.There seems to be confusion, even among members of the Labor Party, about the worth of this strategy. The member for Barton expressed his reservation in relation to bargaining fees in the Australian on 26 November 2001:Before I felt comfortable with that concept, I'd want to know why unions are unable to recruit members in a particular area—and again when he says that unions—... can't expect to control the whole workplace agenda, given they have coverage of such a small percentage.And so it is. If they were representing an increased percentage of workers, imagine the kind of power that they could wreak around the countryside and exert on their parliamentary representatives. So even among the Labor Party ranks there is scepticism. What is Labor's position? Item 45 of the most recent ALP policy—ALP industrial relations policy 2000—allows union service fees by couching them in terms of allowing trade unions:... to take action on behalf of their members and on behalf of workers generally.Where does the opposition leader stand? Is a $500 Crean tax on 5.6 million workers to be tolerated? Of course not. It is plain wrong and yet another example of the bad policy being put forward by the Labor Party.The CEPU has been pursuing this strategy. In 1998-99, the CEPU gave $463,121.73 to the ALP; in 1999-2000, that figure rose to $583,274. That is a substantial contribution to the ALP by one union, a union that is very much at the front line in introducing a bargaining services fee. With the new Crean tax, I shudder to imagine how much policy they will be able to buy from the Labor Party should things continue. I also shudder to think how much of that money is going to their marginal seats in order to unseat this government, because we know that money flows all the way through.I go out there when I run my campaign at each election and I have to convince people that I am worth supporting, in terms of votes and financial contributions to help me with some of the costs; the ALP just walk up to an election with their chequebook already filled by the union movement. I was at a railway station during an election and a guy next to me said, `Which electorate am I in?' He had no idea which electorate he was in, because he had come from the other side of town— someone had paid him to stand at the railway station, handing out brochures. Of course, people like this had no idea who they were supporting; all they knew was: `The union movement told me to be here. I am here. By the way, here's my money as well.' It is a sham; it is laziness on the part of the union movement and on the part of the ALP that they want the Australian public to be roped into some sort of compulsory system of providing money in the first instance to the union movement and in the second instance to their mouthpieces in the federal parliament.The recent decision by the Federal Court in the Electrolux case reveals that the bargaining services fee would not be enforceable under the Workplace Relations Act. This is due to the fact that the court determined that the bargaining services fees clause could not be validly included in certified agreements. Bargaining services fees, it was decided, did not satisfy the requisite employer-employee relationship as required by section 170LI of the Workplace Relations Act. The judgment focused on several claims by the unions, but of most interest is how the Federal Court characterised the union claim for a compulsory bargaining fee. The major features of this claim are that it required, firstly, for Electrolux to inform employees who are non-union members that they are required to pay the unions a bargaining fee of $500 per year; and, secondly, for Electrolux to provide a direct debit system to pay the bargaining agents fee to the unions. What gall! The court notes that, in essence, what is then being created is an agency relationship. This occurs since the employer collects the fee and then passes it on to the unions. The agency, it would seem, is created for the benefit of the union rather than the employees, who would also face an involuntarily imposed fee.Justice Merkel in this case also speculated that it was unlikely that the involuntary bargaining fee would be allowed under the freedom of association provisions in part XA of the act. He even goes so far as to say:... I doubt that those difficulties can be overcome by altering the form of the claim, or by phrasing it so as to appear non-discriminatory, when it is plain that, if acceded to, the claim is intended to operate in a discriminatory manner against non-union employees.Despite the ruling in the Electrolux case in favour of the government's stance on the issue, the government still believes it is necessary to once and for all exhibit clear legislative purpose on the issue. Furthermore, if such bargaining service fee clauses are invalidly included in many agreements, they should be removed so as not to give them a false sense of legitimacy. The bill will streamline the approach to future certified agreements by eliminating the possible inclusion of such clauses.It should also be noted that the proposed agreement put forward by the unions in the Electrolux case, if approved, would have lasted until 31 March 2003. This would have meant that any new employees entering the work force during that time would have been subject to the compulsory fees for services previously rendered by the unions. How could it be justified that they rendered any service if the employee had not even worked there during that time? It is ludicrous for the Labor Party to refuse to admit the need for reform in this area. They need to come out and admit that their support for bargaining service fees merely constitutes a cheap con designed to compel worker involvement in unions to arrest a downward spiral in member numbers.This bill will ensure that the freedom of association provisions in the Workplace Relations Act can be realised by all workers. It also protects workers' rights by prohibiting retaliatory measures from unions, employers and others merely because a worker has elected to exercise the right to freedom of association. Misrepresentation as to the liability to pay such a fee is also addressed and prohibited through the bill. Through slight adjustments to the IRC powers to approve agreements, the system will be streamlined to allow only agreement not containing such provisions to be certified.As all in the House will be aware, this government is committed to upholding freedom in all its forms. These freedoms were hard won. As we celebrate and commemorate what took place 60 years ago in the battles to save Australia, as we commemorate the deeds of all those who sacrificed their lives for these hard-won freedoms, let us make sure that, as members of this chamber, we continue to uphold the freedom of association to which ordinary Australian workers are entitled. As was revealed in the budget, Australia has again shown its commitment to defending freedom abroad. Let us show our commitment to demonstrate the freedom of those right here in Australia by supporting this bill.11:38:002331Smith, Anthony, MPMr ANTHONY SMITH00APGCaseyLP10—I thank the member for Deakin, who so eloquently laid out the case why the Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibition of Compulsory Union Fees) Bill 2002 should not even be necessary in the parliament of Australia. However, the fact that it is necessary at all is a sad reflection on the union movement and on many of those opposite. The fact that it is necessary is yet another stark example of how those opposite will always choose the interests of union leaders and their own party finances over the rights, choices and freedoms of individual Australian workers. The fact that it is necessary also dissolves some of the myth-making we have seen since the last election about how those opposite are seeking to modernise themselves and change their relationship with the union movement.This prohibition of compulsory union fees bill is necessary because the union movement is trying to force workers it cannot force to join their union to pay a fee in any event. If they cannot enforce compulsory membership, they will enforce compulsory payment. To simply get a job, the Labor Party and the union movement insist that Australians be compelled to belong to a union. That is their policy. If they ever have a chance to implement it again, they will, but in the meantime they will settle for just forcing you to pay anyway.That is what the bill is about. It is about forcing workers who do not wish to join a union to pay a fee to a union anyway. The farce of this situation has been well exposed by many members in this debate and by many spokesmen for various organisations outside the House. Mr Andrew Craig, the Executive Director of Queensland Commerce, said:Bargaining fees are simply a poorly disguised attempt to introduce compulsory unionism.Similarly, HIA spokesman Glenn Simpson put it quite eloquently:It's taxation without representation. How would you feel being forced to pay for a service you didn't ask for, didn't want and may have even strongly opposed. It's just a way of using the industrial relations system to extract money from people who don't want to be union members.I could not have put it better myself. That last statement says so much about the union movement and where it finds itself today in that more and more Australian workers find the union movement irrelevant to their day-to-day concerns and, as the member for Deakin said, of little value or benefit to them. That is why we find ourselves debating this bill here today. Even if unions cannot extract a membership from a worker, they will settle to try to extract the fee. You need only look at union membership figures to see the story of decline and shrinkage.The member for Deakin went through some of the key statistics, but it is worth tracking them with some of those opposite who had responsibility for running the union movement. When the current Leader of the Opposition was President of the ACTU in the mid- to late-1980s, union membership stood at about 45 per cent. By the time he left to hand the baton over to the present member for Batman, who took over in 1990, it had declined to 40 per cent. When the current member for Batman left to hand the presidency of the ACTU to the current member for Throsby, it had declined to 31 per cent. When she just dropped the baton to run for preselection and entered this House, it had fallen to 25 per cent. Over three ACTU presidents, who are now members of the parliamentary Labor Party, union membership fell from 45 per cent to 25 per cent and it hovers a little below that today.As the member for Deakin pointed out, if everything the union movement and the Labor Party said was true, if everything those opposite said in the debate was true, if the services that the union movement provided were so valuable, if the representation they provided was so vital, you would not have seen a fall in union membership. In fact, you would have seen an increase or at least a constancy about it. However, the fact that we have not seen an increase and that we have seen a massive decrease speaks volumes for what Australian workers really think about the union movement and its relevance to their day-to-day lives.The Labor Party know this is the case and they know that it is their big problem. Their union base is shrinking and a number of members on the other side have, in recent months, written, spoken, pontificated and engaged in newspaper article wars about the need for the ALP to modernise its structures. The member for Hunter is just one of those who have been engaged in that debate. In the Newcastle Herald in December last year, the member for Hunter spoke about a number of failings of the modern Labor Party, including the 60-40 rule and how that needed to be changed. He also spoke about his wife, who runs a small business. He said:My wife is a self-employed beauty therapist and runs her own salon. The thought of forking out hundreds of dollars each year to join a union which can be of no assistance to her whatsoever is an anathema to her.Of course he is right, but the tragedy for those opposite is that even though he knows it is right and he knows the situation is an anathema, he will still come in here and vote against this legislation when it is put to the House—along with every other member opposite. In doing so, they will be voting for compulsion and for unrepresentative union leaders who cannot recruit members through the virtue of their organisation but only through compulsion of membership—or if this bill is not passed, through the straight confiscation of fees.As I said a little earlier, in the months since the last election we have seen and heard a great deal by Labor Party figures about their need to modernise. That debate has centred on something which is really quite small: whether the Labor Party should reduce its representation of unions in party bodies from 60 per cent to 50 per cent. We saw on the weekend the Leader of the Opposition fly here to Canberra to address a party conference and walk away empty handed yet again. It is worth going back, because on attaining the leadership of the Labor Party six months ago—almost to the day—the opposition leader set himself the goal of reducing union representation. Six months later he is no closer. But the important point in all this, in my view, is that the Leader of the Opposition is not genuinely trying to modernise Labor. The unions should not have any fear. What he is desperately trying to do is dress up a very minor change—60 per cent down to 50 per cent of union representation in party bodies—to pretend to the electorate that Labor has changed. When he conjured up this PR exercise, it was all meant to be simple, but it speaks volumes that the union movement will not even allow him a simple change. So in trying to get a small change, he has been slapped down by those in the Labor Party and the union leadership.The real point is this: if the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite were really concerned about modernising their party structures, they would not start with the 60-40 rule, the 50-50 rule or whatever it is that they are trying to change. They would start right here on this bill, because it goes right to the heart of the fundamental freedoms that the member for Deakin spoke of. They would come in here and they would say, `This is a matter of important principle. It is the simplest principle. We admit failure. We acknowledge the farce.' They would say to the union movement that the days of forcing people to join or pay a fee—as this bill seeks to prevent—are over and that we live in a modern world where, if you want members, like any other organisation, you have got to go out and get them and convince them of the relevance of the union movement, rather than just arrogantly assume that role and conscript everyone to the cause. But they will not, and the reason they will not is not necessarily that they disagree with what I said; it is that they are just as hostage to the union movement as the union leaders are. That is because the system they are engaged in is one they cannot walk away from—it is a life support system for the Labor Party.It works like this: unions extract compulsory fees which are donated to the ALP and which fund the campaigns of those opposite. That is the point every worker needs to understand. You pretty much cannot join a union in Australia without donating money to the ALP and contributing to their election campaigns. The worker has part of his or her wages taken. The money sits in the union, and then at election time a portion of it goes to the Labor Party election campaign fund. No matter your view, your stance or how you wish to vote, when you are making up your mind on how to vote, if you have been forced to be a member of a union or you have had a fee extracted, you know that that money is going to the Labor Party—every election, every year.Since 1996 more than $27 million has been donated to the ALP by trade unions. If I ran through the list, it would take until question time. Here are just some: $200,000 from the New South Wales CFMEU energy division; $53,000 from the South Australian shoppies union; $8,500 from the WA branch of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union; $7,000 from the Queensland CFMEU construction division. The list goes on and on for pages. So if you work in industries—and some of those people are some of the lowest paid workers in our country— and you are paying your union fees and you are wondering where they are going, at election time, when you see television and newspaper advertisements, realise that you have made a contribution to that campaign, whether you like it or not. For the same reason that happens, the Labor Party, with the same arrogant view as that of the union movement, would probably justify it by saying that they are representing you, whether you like it or not.As I said at the outset, this bill should not even have come before this House. It is here because the union movement is trying to subvert and bypass the voluntary membership provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. It is before us because those opposite rely on forcing Australian workers to finance the union movement who, in turn, finance them. When they vote against it, every Australian worker should know that those opposite are voting to force them to pay part of their salary to a union so that unions can give them a political donation. This bill deserves to be passed. It should be passed without dissent, and if those opposite were not captured and owned by the union movement, it would be.11:50:002333Hartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER00AMMCowperNP10—I compliment the member for Deakin, the member for Casey and, yesterday, my colleague the member for Dawson on their fine words in relation to this very important bill. This bill focuses on a matter of principle: what is fair and reasonable, what is decent and what is just. The subject of this bill is of concern to every Australian who believes in a fair go—that is, compulsory union fees or, if you like, bargaining service fees. I believe that in a democracy there is no place for the dead hand of compulsory union fees. Compulsory union fees are the domain of trade unions which are irrelevant to their members and irrelevant to the communities in which they operate. A union which represents its members well does not need compulsory union fees—bargaining service fees. A union which represents its members well should attract a strong following by virtue of the services it provides its members. It should not require or force families to pay up to $500 for bargaining service fees. A union which represents its members well should survive in the labour market on its own merit. It may be that, in the past, many unions which have been controlled by members opposite would not have survived except for compulsory union fees. It is an interesting thought. I say to those members opposite: tell your union mates to take the challenge of the brave new world where unions will need to survive on merit and not by virtue of compulsory fees.This bill is a little gem, as it serves to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to prevent the Industrial Relations Commission from certifying or varying any agreement that contains a provision requiring the payment of a bargaining service fee. This bill serves to amend clause 298Y of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to make it clear that a certified agreement is void to the extent that it requires payment of a bargaining service fee. This bill is indeed a fair bill. Not only does it outlaw the disgraceful practice of compulsory union fees but it is balanced because it prohibits employers from discriminating against those who refuse to pay union fees—or should I say the bargaining service fee. So you can see there is equity. There are obligations on the employer as well as obligations on the union, and rightly so.The bill is a fair bill because it prohibits unions from encouraging or inciting others to take discriminatory action against those who are merely exercising their democratic rights: their democratic right not to pay trade union fees, their democratic right not to pay money to an organisation that does not represent their interest, and their democratic right not to pay money to an organisation with a political agenda different from their own. This bill will prevent a trade union or industrial organisation from demanding a bargaining service fee from another person. Dear oh dear, it could be a very lonely time down at Trades Hall when this bill is passed! This bill will prevent a person from making a false or misleading representation about another person's liability to pay a bargaining service fee. This bill is a balanced bill. It applies equally to employer associations and trade unions alike. No trade union or employer group which is truly representative of its members should fear this bill. On the contrary, it should welcome it.We are yet to see if members opposite support this bill. We are yet to see if members opposite believe that the trade union movement is sufficiently relevant to its members to survive without those despicable compulsory trade union fees. I suspect that the union movement does not feel it is up to the challenge of surviving in the brave new world. I suspect it is still going to attempt to lean on that dreaded method of obtaining members: compulsory union fees. Members opposite will probably dance to the tune of the ACTU, as is their habit, and will ignore the democratic rights of ordinary Australians—the democratic rights of fair and reasonable people who would seek to choose not to have to pay compulsory union fees.This government has been focused on looking to the future. The budget which the Treasurer brought down gets the settings right for our economic prosperity. The Intergenerational Report looks forward to 2042. But with members opposite it is a case of back to the future; back to the good old Labor dogma; back to the old ways—they cannot help themselves—and backing trade unions which are irrelevant in the labour market and which must conscript their members, not obtain members by virtue of the services they provide. For instance, I think you would agree with me that if the member for Lilley was walking down the street and a shopkeeper came out and forced him to buy a bag of bananas—I must say that my electorate of Cowper produces some very fine bananas indeed around the areas of Coffs Harbour and Woolgoolga—that he did not want, he would be a bit upset, and rightly so. In the same way as ordinary Australians have the right to choose not to buy a bag of bananas, they should have the right to choose not to pay compulsory union fees. Why do members opposite continue to support those dinosaurs of the labour market in this matter? I call on members opposite to support the rights of workers and ordinary Australians to exercise their democratic right as to whether they pay money to a union or whether they do not pay money to a union.This bill is indeed a good bill. It is a bill which guarantees the rights of the individual to choose, and that is what we are about here. We are about choice; we are about the ability of a person to choose between not being represented in the labour market by a union or being so represented and paying for that opportunity. Choosing to pay union fees should be an act of will and not occur by compulsion. We would not countenance any form of extortion in any other area of our activities or in any other area of our community, so we should give the power to this bill to give workers their freedom to choose. I do not agree much with what Bob Carr says, but recently he said: You can't put a tax on other members of the workforce and a state can't require the collection of union fees from non-unionists.I would have to agree with him on that. Also, the Western Australian workplace relations minister, John Kobelke said:We think unions need to get out and provide services to their members and attract members on the basis of what they can offer. I think that is totally appropriate. The member for Casey chronicled the rather dramatic decline in trade union membership under the stewardship of a number of former leaders of the union movement who now sit opposite. Those membership levels would not be declining—they would be increasing—if the union movement were truly relevant to the people whom they masquerade to represent. If it were truly relevant, we would see the number of trade unionists swelling. But in fact that is not happening; it is going the other way. Membership is declining, and that shows that unions are not relevant to their members. They are not representing their interests in the way that members would wish to happen.I maintain that compulsory union fees have no place in this country, and this bill gives effect to that. It outlaws those dreaded compulsory union fees. If the Leader of the Opposition were in touch with ordinary, everyday Australians—if he were in touch with the people out there—he would be supporting this bill. It is a good bill. It preserves the right of choice. I commend the bill to the House.11:59:002335Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10— The coalition's 2001 workplace relations election policy was about choice and reward. They are two words that I believe are the key to progress right around the country. That is why I speak in support of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibition of Compulsory Union Fees) Bill 2002. It is about choice. What the National Party and this government are about is the ability of people to choose where they work and to choose to come to an agreement with their employer. It is about choice. It is about choice right around Australia, whether you choose to work for yourself or whether you choose to work for somebody else. The minute you interfere with that choice you put in jeopardy the reasons we are in this chamber and the reasons we are all proud to be in this country and a part of it.The bill seeks to address the union movement's attempts to circumnavigate the prohibition of compulsory union fees by imposing service fees. While unions probably find it hard to make the fees compulsory, they are certainly coercing workers to join. This is undemocratic and, without doubt, harks back to the old days of standover intimidation. I came to this place, like all of us here, to try to make this country even better than it is today.Members this morning have spoken about the reasons for the union movement's shrinking. The plain fact is that, if an organisation represents people well enough, they will be very pleased to join it. Prior to coming to this House, I was President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, which represented about 50 per cent of the serious farmers in the state. Those farmers joined the association of their own free will. The association never attempted to coerce a member—in fact, I would not have been a part of it if it had. We dealt with issues that revolved around a free world market and not, as unions do, in a regulated domestic labour market. It was a much harder job, with a much higher membership. That says quite a lot of things. People are not joining the union movement, because they are very unhappy with it. They do not like being stood over, they do not like being tricked and they do not like having to pay a service fee or a union fee unless they voluntarily choose to do so.A similar organisation is the Country Women's Association. Obviously I am not a member, but many country women are. It operates in a very similar vein to the New South Wales Farmers Association and probably has as large a membership. These organisations do not coerce anyone. Both charge far less than the union movements do for the average person to be a member, and they have far greater success in attracting that membership. If you represent your people and do a good job, you will without doubt reap the rewards of increased membership. Can you imagine the outrage if the government tried to legislate that everybody in their electorates had to be members of their party? It is not much different.It has become standard practice for the trade unions to demand a service fee without consent when they collectively bargain and, as I understand it, do not seek the views of the workers involved. This fee is quite often set above the union fee; in other words, the unions are saying, `It is actually cheaper for you to join the movement than to pay the service fee.' That is the act of an organisation that knows it cannot attract members. Membership is about choice. What possible reasons could there be for either chamber to vote against this amendment to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibition of Compulsory Union Fees) Bill other than for financial greed and because the union movement cannot attract members? Not long after the election, the Labor Party talked about the need to become less union oriented. The best way to do that would be to pass this bill in both chambers.Surely we have gone beyond the time when everything was done by intimidation— `If you are not with us you are against us.' The fundamental right of an employee to choose whether or not he wants to be represented by a union is paramount, in the same way that the introduction of compulsory secret ballots amongst employees to get an absolutely true vote as to whether strike action should happen is true democracy. This bill seeks to underline that fact by taking away intimidation and coercion.The ACTU formally supports unions pursuing compulsory fees in collective agreements, which attempts to give their demands a legal status or a legal aura where obviously they cannot have it. This bill should not be necessary. It is something that the opposition and the unions should be ashamed of. By including such provisions in collective agreements, unions are able to use the cover of a majority employee vote to coerce non-union members who may have voted against the agreement to pay the fee or to join the union, and thereby deny the right to freedom of association.I think it was mentioned earlier that the Premier of New South Wales is against unions being able to collect this type of fee and is against compulsory unionism. It is wonderful to hear Bob Carr make a statement like that. I wish he would respect farmers' rights in the same way because he is certainly not concerned about what it costs them when dealing with them in what I call his `environmental righteous manner'. We have also heard that the Western Australian Labor government seeks to disassociate itself from this type of action. This bill has been introduced to address all those certified agreements that contain bargaining fee service clauses. As I said earlier, one of the great problems is that they are setting the bargaining fee higher than union membership fees and therefore making it cheaper for people to join a union than pay the fee. The bill will not prevent contractual arrangements between a union and a nonmember. That is free choice and I support free choice absolutely. It has been said in debating these sorts of bills that, when we try to provide free choice—when we try to keep Australia open to those people who wish to make an arrangement between themselves and their employer without being coerced into adding other aspects to it—they have no hope of passing through the Senate because the Labor Party will not support them. If the Labor Party wants to fix up its problems, it will have to look very hard at whether intimidation in the union way is the way for Australia because in recent times Australians have said that they have had enough of it. I commend this bill to the House.12:09:002337Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—It seems that almost no-one has a good word for these compulsory union fees except the ACTU and some members of this House who feel that it is vital to support the ACTU line. Even decent, honest members of the ALP, who are in a position to express themselves without fear of ACTU coercion, believe that there is something wrong with compulsory union fees. As we have just heard from the member for Parkes, the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, said: You can't put a tax on other members of the work force and the state can't require the collection of union fees from non-unionists. The Western Australian workplace relations minister, John Kobelke, has said: We think unions need to get out and provide services to their members and attract ... members—on the basis of—... what they can offer. Even the federal shadow minister for workplace relations, the member for Barton, said: Before I felt comfortable with that concept—that is to say, the concept of compulsory union fees—I would want to know why unions are unable to recruit members in a particular area. That is what he said late last year. It is not quite what he is saying now because, unfortunately, the member for Barton's decent instincts have been overridden by the instructions of his caucus, in turn operating on the basis of instructions from the ACTU. But nearly everyone, when asked to consider this matter free of that kind of organisational heavying, realised that there is something wrong with the idea of extracting compulsory levies from nonmembers. It is a little bit like coming along and saying, `Political parties provide everyone with a service. If we did not exist, democracy under the Westminster system would not be able to function. We provide the vital quality control in the system that enables citizens to be confident that the vast majority of their members will be reasonable, decent people. We do this service for everyone, therefore you must all pay a levy to one or other of the political parties.' Of course that is a ridiculous position to put forward, yet what we are seeing is the industrial equivalent of compulsory levies to political parties. What we are seeing, in fact, is industrial conscription. That is what members opposite are supporting with their attitude to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibition of Compulsory Union Fees) Bill.This bill that the government has put before the House today is designed to ensure that freedom of association is a reality in practice, as well as in theory, in Australian workplaces. It is designed to stop the practice which is now becoming widespread in sections of Australian industry of trying to bring about Clayton's compulsory unionism—compulsory unionism through the backdoor—by imposing on all workers in a workplace, through the vehicle of a certified agreement, a bargaining agents clause, as it is called, but which is, in effect, a compulsory union levy. Hundreds of certified agreements, particularly in the Victorian construction industry, now have these bargaining agents clauses included in them. The bargaining agents clause usually provides that non-union members should pay a levy of up to $500. Invariably the levy is set at a higher rate than union membership fees. My department advises me that there are bargaining agents clauses in more than five per cent of the certified agreements which were sought to be registered in the last 12 months. So this really is a blatant attempt by unions, that cannot persuade people to join, to coerce them to join through the device of these fees. The Industrial Relations Commission has considered this matter and a single senior member of the commission has, indeed, said that these clauses breach the freedom of association principles. Nevertheless, a single member found technical reasons not to strike these clauses out of certified agreements and that decision was upheld at the level of a full bench.Subsequently, the Federal Court has found that these clauses are actually unenforceable, but they are still there in hundreds, if not thousands, of certified agreements and they will proliferate if this House, this parliament, does not pass legislation before it. Let no-one be in any doubt: coercion is taking place in the workplaces of Australia to try to ensure that people do sign up to a union and that, if they do not sign up, they pay these fees. After the evidence that has been made available day by day to the Cole royal commission into the construction industry, anyone who does not believe that coercion is taking place in the workplaces of Australia plainly believes in the tooth fairy. Although members opposite, I suppose, think that you can have higher spending, lower taxes and a bigger surplus so maybe they do, after all, believe in the tooth fairy.I want to address some of the generic points made by members opposite. First of all, members opposite claim that these compulsory union fees are in fact some kind of an industrial version of the fee for service principle. In order for something to be a valid exhibition of the fee for service principle, you have to actually ask for it. Informed consent is an essential part of anything that is reasonably described as fee for service. There is no informed consent in the case of these compulsory union fees. If a business sought to charge someone for a so-called service that was not requested and was not necessarily needed, that would be nothing but a rort. It is in fact illegal to do so under various pieces of corporate legislation. If someone walked past my house and decided that it was in need of a bit of paint, pulled out the paint brush and started painting without asking my permission and, then, when I came home tried to present me with a bill for hundreds of dollars, that would be nothing but a rort, a rip-off and a racket. These compulsory union fees are the industrial equivalent of that.The point has been made by members opposite that this is some kind of industrial version of the mutual obligation principle—that if you get the `benefit' of union work you should pay the price of union membership. I have to say that it is a pretty dubious benefit in many instances. I think most of the unions that we are familiar with are not benefiting their members and other people in the industry. In fact, if the AMWU and the CFMEU are any guide, these unions specialise in destroying the jobs of everyone in their industries, let alone the jobs of their members. So it is indeed an extremely dubious benefit. The fact is that, for something to be legitimately described as a kind of mutual obligation arrangement, the benefit in question has to be sought. You have to ask for a benefit before anyone can say that there is some kind of mutual obligation or reciprocal obligation involved.The third generic point made by members opposite is that the government's legislation in some way infringes ILO conventions. Let me read to the House paragraph 100 of an ILO general survey which says:... systems which prohibit union security practices in order to guarantee the right not to join an organization, as well as systems which authorize such practices, are compatible with the Convention.The relevant convention is ILO Convention No. 87. So, plainly, this bill does comply with Australia's obligations to the ILO. I want to take up a couple of particular points that were raised by the shadow minister, the member for Barton, and I think he really did struggle to fill his half-hour with relevant objections to the government's bill. He said that, first of all, the bill had the wrong title. That is a very weighty objection! Let me point out to the member for Barton that only unions are seeking to apply these compulsory levies; there is no talk of business organisations seeking to impose compulsory levies on their nonmembers, even though they could probably use the money. The fact is that it is a perfectly adequate title for the bill.The member for Barton said that there was no proof of coercion offered. I do not think the member for Barton has been reading his press clippings. Every day we hear of rampant coercion and intimidation in the construction industry which, of course, is the very place where most of these compulsory union levy clauses exist. Listening to the member for Barton I could not help thinking that, while he is no doubt genuinely and sincerely—as are his colleagues—against coercion in general, it seems that they have never found a piece of coercion in particular that they cannot find some kind of justification to support.The final point that the member for Barton made was that this bill in some way pre-empts a decision of the Federal Court. This House has never regarded itself as excluded from legislation because there has been a decision by the Federal Court. The fact is that the relevant decision by the Federal Court is under appeal anyway and, in any event, even if that particular decision is upheld on appeal, unless the House passes this legislation, these clauses will remain in hundreds, if not thousands, of certified agreements and the union activists, the union heavies, will be fanning out across the workplaces, trying to demand that non-union members pay these fees.If this practice of compulsory union levies under the guise of bargaining agents fees is not struck down, the reality is that up to six million non-union members in Australia will face, over time, paying $500 a year in a union tax. I do not think this would be good for them, I do not think it would be good for Australia and, ultimately, I do not even think it would be good for the union movement, because it is old-style unionism in all its ugliness and coercion. If the union movement is to have a dynamic future in this country it must move with the times. It must sell itself; it must persuade people to belong rather than expect the state or the party to do that job for it.Listening to the member for Barton, I felt that his problem was not so much that this particular bill pre-empts a Federal Court decision so much as the fact that it pre-empts the ALP resolving the struggle for its soul. Right now, members opposite are engaged in a bitter internal debate over what their party really stands for. It is a debate which is far from resolved. On the one hand, there are the forces of light, including the member for Kingston; on the other hand, there are the forces of darkness, led for the time being by the member for Rankin. The forces of light believe that the ALP must be a genuinely democratic party rather than a union quasi-dictatorship. The member for Rankin, for reasons best known to himself, seems to have put himself at the head of the old guard—no doubt because big Bill Ludwig has provided the instruction of the day. In all of this, the member for Barton, who is a thoroughly decent human being and a highly intelligent former union lawyer, strikes me as the Tariq Aziz of Australian politics—the reasonable face of a union dictatorship. He did his best with this bill, but I am afraid it was a thoroughly unconvincing effort. The bill should be passed by the House, and I commend the bill to the House.10000Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wilkie)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton 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.Question agreed to.Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 2339Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:24:002339Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) to (3):(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 23), after “provision”, insert “, or purported provision,”.(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (after line 4), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) Nothing in this section prevents an industrial association from demanding payment of a bargaining services fee that is payable to the association under a contract for the provision of bargaining services.(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (after line 14), after section 298SB, insert:298SBA Industrial associations not prevented from entering contracts To avoid doubt, nothing in this Division prevents an industrial association from entering into a contract for the provision of bargaining services with a person who is not a member of the association.These are very technical amendments. They are designed to address issues that were raised in the Senate committee process and to ensure that arrangements which are indeed voluntarily entered into are not struck out by the legislation. I commend the amendments to the House.Question agreed to. Question put:That the bill, as amended, be agreed to.12:29:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Wilkie) 75Abbott, 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.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.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. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.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.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.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Windsor, A.H.C.Worth, P.M.62Adams, D.G.H.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.Fitzgibbon, J.A.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.Jenkins, H.A.Katter, R.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Zahra, C.J.Kelly, J.M.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.2341Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (12.36 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills2341R14722341Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane:That this bill be now read a second time.12:36:002341Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—It is fitting that we should be debating the Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002 on this day because it was on this day that the second Star Wars movie, Attack of the Clones, was released. I have had the opportunity of having a briefing on that. The movie Attack of the Clones, in summary, was about a war that took place involving the clones. It was a war that was referred to by Obi-Wan Kenobi all those years ago in the original Star Wars movie—Obi-Wan Kenobi told Luke Skywalker that he fought with Luke's father in the clone wars. We subsequently learn, in that first trilogy, that Luke Skywalker's father was Darth Vader. So it is fitting that we are debating this legislation today for all those fans of space activity.I am also informed that there was no definition of outer space provided in the movie last night, so it is convenient that a definition of outer space be provided in this legislation here today. That definition is `100 kilometres from the earth'. I thought people would be interested that we do know what we are talking about when we are talking about space, whether it be in relation to Attack of the Clones or the Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002.The major amendments made by the bill include the capping, at $750 million, of the amount of insurance required to be procured by proponents for each launch. It provides for the Commonwealth to accept liability for third-party Australian nationals above the insured amount for up to $3 billion. It is a fact that the Commonwealth is already liable, under the United Nations convention, for damage to foreign third parties, so this relates to Australian nationals. The bill also provides for a tightening of the safety test being applied to commercial applicants for instruments, by making provision for a test of risk that is `as low as reasonably practicable' instead of `sufficiently low' as is the case in the current legislation.The bill also provides for a less onerous application and assessment process and a lower fee regime for scientific and educational organisations. The argument here is that scientific and educational launches are usually on a one-off basis and do not involve the construction of major infrastructure, and for these reasons such organisations should not be subject to the same licensing requirements as commercial launches. I think that is fair enough. Finally, the bill contains a number of minor administrative and technical amendments, including defining the point at which the act becomes effective, clarifying the fee regime and making provision for an annual review of a space licence. Labor will not be opposing this bill, but I do intend to move a second reading amendment which goes to the question of the government's priorities in providing insurance cover of more than $3 billion to a commercial operation when around Australia it is well known that there are school fetes and country shows and sporting associations that are struggling under the weight of exorbitant insurance premiums. Those organisations around Australia have been screaming out for some relief but the government has declined to provide it. I think that that reflects an unusual set of priorities, to put it mildly. While we do not oppose this piece of legislation, I think it is important for the government to hear the calls of small organisations, just as it hears the call of large organisations—in this case, in assisting with space activities.The second reading amendment also goes to the point that the government has managed to identify and provide $100 million in assistance for this project on Christmas Island. Again, we are not opposing that—that money appears to be coming from the strategic investment coordination program—but it is a sad indictment of the government that, at the same time, it has frozen the R&D Start program. I want to talk about that, because it again reflects an unusual set of priorities. The R&D Start program is an important program for this country's future because it assists small and medium sized enterprises that are engaged in research and development activity, and the government has not been able to find funds to continue with that program for at least the foreseeable future. In relation to the R&D Start program, the government has frozen all applications for an indefinite period. In a statement straight out of George Orwell's Ministry of Truth in the book Nineteen Eighty-Four, the minister has said that there is no freeze, it is just that the government is processing no more applications for the foreseeable future. In fact it has instructed 115 small businesses to withdraw applications under the R&D Start program in order that the government not be embarrassed by the large number of applications that will not be processed as a result of this freeze.Returning to the bill at large, the purpose of this legislation is essentially to make it easier for space launch activities in relation to a proposal at Christmas Island. My assessment of the market is that it is a highly competitive one and therefore there must be some question as to whether those activities will in the end be commercially viable. But the government has certainly received representations from the company and, as a result of those representations, has made the legislative and regulatory framework more conducive to those particular activities. That is something that we do not oppose but I do need to express some reservations about the commercial viability. Ultimately, that will be tested in the marketplace. I do not think the government needs to do any more in relation to that than it already has.I turn now to the second reading amendment, which has been circulated, and move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House (1) noting that the issue of insurance is a central part of the Government's proposal, expresses concerns about the Government's priorities in offering $3 billion of insurance cover for space launching when school fetes, country shows and sporting associations are struggling to meet the exorbitant cost of public liability insurance; and(2) notes that the Government has been able to find $100 million to support the Asia Pacific Space Centre while freezing the R&D Start Program.I think it is time that the government did resolve this very pressing issue of public liability insurance in relation to school fetes, sporting associations and country shows. It has been going on long enough, and I think every member of parliament would have examples from their own areas of these small community organisations either not being able to proceed with their activities this year or, if they are able to proceed, facing much higher costs—many multiples of the costs that they faced in previous years. Any profits in relation to these activities that are ploughed back into schools, sporting associations and the like will therefore be greatly diminished. The government has been messing around on this for a considerable time. It does not seem to have been able to reach any agreement with the states. As a result of that, we find these small organisations in a very difficult situation; yet, on the other hand, the government says that it is not a problem for it to provide insurance cover amounting to $3 billion in relation to the launch site on Christmas Island. As I say, it is a strange set of priorities that the government has.I now move on to this further concern about the priorities that the government have, and that is that they have managed to find a full $100 million in support of this program through the Strategic Investment Coordination Program but have frozen the R&D Start program. I want to draw the attention of the House to the impact of these sorts of decisions. It is an impact that is already predicted in the budget papers. It is well known that, since the government came into office in 1996, research and development as a share of GDP has declined in each and every year. That is a very bad portent for Australia's economic future because obviously innovation is a key driver of growth in this so-called `global knowledge economy', yet the government are saying, `Look, we have already done enough on innovation.' In fact, the minister made that very statement just a few months ago, on 29 January, in the Australian Financial Review when he said:Sure we'd love to do more, we'd love to spend more money ... but we've got the balance pretty right for R & D.If the balance for R&D is `pretty right', the minister's definition of `right' is that R&D spending by the private sector as a proportion of GDP has fallen in each and every year of the Howard government—and he says that that is `pretty right'! To make matters worse, the rest of the world is not standing still. The OECD is spending an increasing proportion, on average, of GDP on R&D investment, while Australia each and every year is spending a declining proportion. How is the government responding to that? By cutting the R&D Start program.The government, as I say, has in fact predicted quite clearly the impact of such decisions—of its neglect of research and development and innovation in this country, including this decision to freeze the R&D Start program. I referred to the Intergenerat-ional Report, budget paper No. 5, that was included in the most recent budget, the day before yesterday. I have to advise the House that I think one of the most astonishing admissions that this government has ever made—it does not make too many, but it has made an astonishing admission here—has gone essentially unnoticed and unreported. What the government is saying is that productivity growth by the middle of this decade will slump back to the mediocre levels of the last 30 years. The report says:Over the next four decades, economic growth is projected to slow relative to the outcomes achieved over the past decade, reflecting lower productivity and employment growth rates. Productivity growth is assumed to return to around its 30-year average, below the growth of the 1990s.It further says:Productivity growth indicates a higher level of output for a given level of inputs and will be the key driver of GDP growth in the decades ahead. Faster productivity growth would enable higher rates of growth of both GDP and real wages over the projection period, other factors unchanged.... ... ...... productivity is projected to grow at its long-term average rate (30 years) of about 1.75 per cent from the middle of this decade to the end of the projection horizon—which is 40 years out. So the government is saying that it is content with its forecast that Australian productivity growth by the middle of this decade—just three years away—will slump back to the mediocre 30-year average. The government has had a lot to say about the importance of productivity growth, and I agree with the government on that. I will give some examples of what has been said. For example, on 8 December 1999, the Treasurer said:We have had high productivity and, along with the government's reform agenda, this will drive Australia into the next decade.The Prime Minister, talking about a `better than golden age' productivity growth, said that this `must be duplicated in future if we are to maintain the great improvement in the Australian economy'.There are a range of other statements by both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer pointing to the importance of ongoing productivity growth. On 9 October 2000, the Prime Minister said:... the measurement of whether an economy is in the current language `old' or `new' is, in my view, overwhelmingly determined by the capacity of an economy to use the benefits of technology, particularly information technology.... ... ...One of the reasons ... that over the last four years we have been able to increase the real incomes of Australian workers is that productivity has gone up.So there is the Prime Minister again pointing to the importance of productivity growth. The Treasurer on 18 February this year here in the parliament said:... productivity is very important to the growth of the Australian economy. One of the reasons why the Australian economy has done comparatively well over the course of the 1990s, particularly over the last five years, is the strength in productivity growth ...3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Hear, hear!83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—I am glad that the parliamentary secretary agrees, because I agree with him, and I agree with the Treasurer and with the Prime Minister, that productivity growth is very important. Again, the Treasurer said:Because productivity has been increasing, wage levels have been increasing under a coalition government ... We think that if you have increasing productivity, living standards can increase, and if you have good economic management you will have better productivity. Again, I think that is true. He said that on 8 February last year in the parliament. On 10 October 2000, the Treasurer said:It is important that we continue, that we take every step we can to enhance productivity in this country ...I am sure the parliamentary secretary would agree with that. I am sure everyone in this parliament would agree with it. But what is the result of the government's own Intergenerational Report? Is the government investing in the drivers of future economic growth, of future productivity growth and then enhanced future economic growth in this country? No, because it says that productivity growth will slump back to Australia's mediocre levels of the last 30 years. This is a startling admission, and I am astonished that the media has taken no interest in this whatsoever, because many people in the press gallery were around right through the Hawke-Keating period. You might recall some of Paul Keating's famous statements about the galah in the pet shop, squawking about micro-economic reform. Labor not only squawked about micro-economic reform but implemented micro-economic reform right through the period of the Hawke and Keating governments. We can start with the floating of the Australian dollar, with the liberalisation of financial markets. We go through to the tariff reducing programs in relation to whitegoods, automobiles and obviously textiles, clothing and footwear. All of these and more were important micro-economic reforms, and as a result of those major investments in the country's future, the dividends started flowing in the early 1990s in the form of a doubling of Australia's productivity growth. The Treasury and the Productivity Commission in fact have attributed the surge in Australian productivity growth to those very micro-economic reforms initiated by Labor.Now, when we come to a crucial new point in our history where there is evidence already of productivity tapering off, we are in a situation where the government in its budget has said: `We are doing nothing more on this. We are investing no further in Australia's economic future. We are investing no further in the drivers of productivity and hence in the drivers of economic growth and—it follows—in the drivers of improved living standards for Australians.' This is a startling admission by this government that it is not investing any more in education. I understand the total new spending on education is $12 million. It is certainly not investing any more in innovation when it freezes the R&D Start program.So where are we in Australia's history? We had this surge in productivity growth right through the 1990s. The Treasurer, when the Prime Minister was on his feet one day here the parliament lauding this golden age surge in productivity, advised the Prime Minister that in fact it was faster than the United States—and it was, and it is a good achievement on Australia's part to have achieved those massive increases and sustained increases in productivity. But the government has said—the Prime Minister has said this in the parliament—that it is good enough from now on to rely on Australia's capacity effectively to absorb technologies basically invented and developed in the United States and other Western countries. He is on the record as saying that, and I will repeat it:... the measurement of whether an economy is in the current language `old' or `new' is, in my view, overwhelmingly determined by the capacity of an economy to use the benefits of technology, particularly information technology.That was on 9 October 2000. So he is saying that it is based on the capacity of an economy to use technology—to absorb and use it—that is, the Internet, personal computers and so on. The government in an incredibly complacent state of mind has said: `Well, we've got all of these inventions being done by Microsoft and other big businesses in the United States. Just as long as we absorb those enabling technologies, we're fine. We don't need to invest in the country's future; we'll just get Australians doing what they do best and that's absorbing and using overseas technologies.' The consequence of that is here for all to see: the government is saying, `We've done enough; we've racked the cue on economic reform; we've racked the cue in terms of investing in innovation, investing in education. We've done enough and we are now happy to forecast that productivity growth will slump to its 30-year average by the middle of this decade.' What an admission! That means that the economy will slow down—and that is also contained in the Intergenerational Report—and the growth of living standards in Australia will slow down, and the government will not do anything about it. I know what the government's response to what I have had to say will be, and that is: `Oh, this is just a series of projections. It is not necessarily what is going to happen.' I have two responses to that: it is what is going to happen, because nothing has been going on in terms of further investment in research and development and in education in this country and, secondly, if the government is arguing that it is just a series of projections, why did it put the lower productivity growth figure—that is, reverting to the mediocre 30-year average—into the Intergenerational Report? The answer to that question would be that, if it is only an assumption, it put those figures in in order to produce less optimistic forecasts in terms of Australia's economic growth and as a consequence of the budget situation. In the Intergenerational Report the government says that, if nothing is done in terms of budget pruning of expenditure, there will be a deficit in 40 years time equal to five per cent of GDP, and that deficit works out at $87 billion in today's terms. So the government is ringing the alarm bells saying, `This is what we genuinely forecast is going to happen,' and quite clearly in the Intergenerational Report then says, `That is the reason we are making cuts to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.'You cannot have it both ways. The government cannot say that this is just a set of projections that are not really going to happen, when those projections provide the justification for the announced cuts in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. You cannot say that. The projections also provide the justification for the cuts in the disability support pension. The government says that we have got to get into a budget repair mode now to stop the emergence of a fiscal deficit of five per cent of GDP, or $87 billion in today's terms, by putting in that productivity growth figure. The truth is that that is a reasonable forecast of what is going to happen to productivity growth in this country. It is a reasonable forecast because it is based on the fact that since its election the Howard government has cut government investment in research and development and in education.As a consequence of that we have a crisis in our universities. We still have alarmingly low high school retention rates and we have had, in each and every year of the Howard government, a decline in business expenditure on research and development as a share of gross domestic product. It follows that if the government has racked the cue in terms of these investments in the nation's future then the key driver, productivity growth, will slump. So it is not just a projection; it is a realistic assessment, an admission by this government of what is going to happen as a result of its wilful neglect of investment in the nation's future.There is the contrast. On the one hand Labor, through its agenda and commitment to additional investment in innovation, research and development and education, has an economic reform agenda for the future. The government's economic reform agenda does not exist. All it has is the sort of legislation that was put through this House of Representatives a while ago: further changes to the industrial relations system, which it says will have some impact on productivity. Those changes are simply an attack on Australian workers. They have nothing to do with lifting productivity in this country—because the future of this country is as a high skill, high wage country. How do we become a high skill country? By investing in education and training—two areas where the government has said that enough has been done and the states can do the rest through the so-called growth tax in the GST. I believe that at present none of the states have actually benefited in net terms from the GST at all.We are at a crucial point in Australian history. I do not think anyone would be proud to be around in this place in another six or eight years time where a leader of the country has to say, `Whoops! We got it wrong again.' Just as it was folly for Australia's future economic growth for us to rely for too long on Australia being a farm and a quarry, just so is it true today that it would be folly to rely on Australia being able to absorb and use overseas technologies. We do not have time up our sleeves. This is the time when those vital investments in the nation's future must be made, yet the government has no third-term agenda with regard to ongoing economic reform. All it wants to do is make some industrial relations changes, which are not designed to take Australia to the high road of a high skill, high wage country producing high value manufactured goods and services for the export market but are designed to compete globally on wage costs and to take the low road of low wages.When that happens, when Australian businesses get in the situation where they are not innovating anymore and when the product becomes standardised, then the forces will come to bear for the production of that product to go overseas in search of lower labour costs and a larger scale. We will always be under pressure in this country by taking the low road, by taking the road that the government is taking now. This is the time to take the high road to a high skill, high wage economy—an economy for the future built on innovation, skills and a highly educated work force. But the government is not doing that. The government knows that that is the only decent and proper economic agenda for this country. Instead of doing that, it is embarking on a series of industrial relations changes designed to do nothing more than remove the remaining rights of workers in this country. That is taking us to the low road.I hate to be so pessimistic, but I have to be, because that is where the government is taking us. I looked at the budget documents in the lock-up the night before last and, 3½ years after the government announced the great innovation of Backing Australia's Ability, I would ask this House: how much of the money allocated to that will have been spent 3½ years after that announcement? The answer is less than 20 per cent. So it was all fanfare and fairy floss: when it comes to actually spending the money, less than 20 per cent will have been spent 3½ years after that announcement at the beginning of the year 2000.Further than that, industry department funding—one of the key departments that should be driving the new economic agenda of investing in research and development and innovation—is forecast to fall by more than 30 per cent over the next four years. It will not even stay steady but will fall by more than 30 per cent. That is the largest fall for any spending department in the Commonwealth government.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—You love spending money, don't you, Craig? Spend, spend, spend!83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—It is not a question of spending money in this case in relation to the industry department; it is trying to justify a 30 per cent reduction in spending. And wait for it! Staffing is being cut by more than 10 per cent. How could anyone justify a 30 per cent cut in spending by the industry department and a 10 per cent cut in staffing? That is the set of priorities. No wonder the minister is named Chainsaw. He makes Al Dunlap look like a teddy bear. Old Chainsaw Dunlap would come in here and look like a teddy bear. This minister has only been in the portfolio for a few months: a 30 per cent cut in departmental funding, 10 per cent in staffing and no plan for this country's future.10000Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lindsay)—Is the amendment seconded?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—I second the amendment.13:07:002347King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10— Whilst the Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002 before the House cannot be described as one giant leap for mankind, it is nonetheless more than a small step for a government. In the world bid for space relevance, this bill, which contains a new framework for space activities, is a significant advance. I wish to speak on four aspects of this legislation: firstly, the international obligations that it contains; secondly, certain language and textual changes that have been brought about by the act; thirdly, an insurance issue; and, fourthly, aspects of the regulatory framework. Finally, I will make some remarks about the commercial imperative behind the bill.The international framework, or the UN space agencies convention, which is correctly described as the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, is at schedule 4 to the bill. It is a most interesting convention. As a member of the treaties committee, I took some interest in examining its terms. I note that the text of the convention itself has required some variation because of the number of problems in the drafting and textual infelicities when the convention was first put forward. The UN has conceded that there are some problems with this convention. It has brought it back, and that is one of the reasons that it has been annexed to this bill. The convention deals with the question of sovereignty in relation to the moon and other celestial bodies within our solar system in a way which is a very important guide to future space activities, should they ever lead to any commercial or other, even leisure, activities. Article 3 prescribes:1. The moon shall be used by all States Parties exclusively for peaceful purposes.2. Any threat or use of force or any other hostile act or threat of hostile act on the moon is prohibited.... ... ...4. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on the moon shall be forbidden.The interesting aspect of this is that the hopes of those who were first involved in space and in the exploration of space appear to have been given some support in the wording of the convention. L.B.J., President Johnson, on 29 August 1965 in Johnson City, Texas, on the eve of an important US satellite launch, said: `No national sovereignty rules in outer space and those who venture there go as envoys of the entire human race. Their quest, therefore, must be for all mankind and what they should find belongs to all mankind.' This convention does encapsulate the spirit of those who first launched satellites—both the United States and the then Soviet Union—and others since that time.Another important topic dealt with by the convention includes exploration activities on the surface of the moon and other bodies within the solar system. Again, the prescription is of a general beneficial kind, and article 4 states: 1. The exploration and use of the moon shall be the province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development.There are similar provisions for informing the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as well as the public and the international scientific community, of an intention to explore and to use the moon as soon as possible after launching any mission and for informing the Secretary-General of any phenomenon discovered in outer space. There is also a principle of freedom of scientific investigation on the moon.Coupled with that is an important provision providing for measures to ensure that there is no disruption of the existing balance of the environment on the moon. It is called, rather oddly, `extra environmental contamination'. Those provisions, the detail of which I will not go into now, provide for a regime which I—and, I suggest, all those who are interested in this topic—believe establishes a sound basis for exploration activities, if and when they become relevant, as we hope they will in the near future. Also, the more difficult topic of mining and utilisation of the surface of the moon is dealt with in article 8 and in following articles. A provision in article 8 states:1. States Parties may pursue their activities in the exploration and use of the moon anywhere on or below its surface, subject to the provisions of this Agreement.Article 9 says:1. States Parties may establish manned and unmanned stations on the moon.That is for the purpose of insuring that the natural resources on the moon are able to be exploited. Interestingly enough, in article 11, there is a general provision consistent with the nostrum that I mentioned earlier. It says that the moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind and are not subject to national appropriation. Normal rules as to ownership have no relevance. It will be interesting in due course, once activities on the moon lead to actual exploitation through mining activities, to see precisely how any advantage is to be obtained. The convention does contemplate that an international regime at that time will be established, but at this stage that has not occurred—for obvious reasons.The final aspect of the convention that I will mention is most interesting and reflects back on L.B.J.'s comment that I mentioned earlier. It deals with the control of personnel and structures on the moon. Article 12 says that state parties shall retain jurisdiction and control over their personnel, but article 15 says that all space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations shall be open to other states parties, subject to advance notice. The concept of sharing and of the moon and other celestial bodies being part of the natural heritage of mankind is very much built into this convention, which is at schedule 4 of the bill.The second aspect that I wish to address concerns some aspects of the language and textual comments contained in the bill. One of those is the definition that is given to the terms `launch' and `outer space'. For the first time `outer space' is clarified as being `an area beyond the distance of 100 kilometres above mean sea level'. For those of us who have enjoyed, and perhaps still enjoy, a somewhat poetic bent, this idea of closely defining `outer space' and where it starts and ends is of some amusement. Nonetheless, this bill does clarify what was a problem in the earlier legislation. It does mean that once one goes beyond 100 kilometres above mean sea level there will be an automatic operation of the bill. Consequently, `launch vehicles', `return' from outer space to the earth's atmosphere and `space objects' are defined in like manner. I think it was English astronomer and author Fred Hoyle who said in his book on the nature of the universe that space is not remote: it is only an hour's drive away if your car could go straight upwards. It seems to me, having regard to the definition that is written into this bill, that is probably about right.The second textual aspect of the bill that I want to mention concerns the incorporation of section 51(xx) of the Constitution. In item 8 of the bill it is provided that any space applicant must be a corporation to which the Constitution applies. For my part, I would like to see, in due course, an agreement between all the states over the ceding of power to the Commonwealth to ensure that, whether the body involved in space activities is a corporation or an individual, the Commonwealth has proper jurisdiction over those activities—because, in the world of insurance and corporate veils, there is a certain guarantee in having individuals being involved and personally responsible for those activities. Perhaps that will occur in due course, and I hope it does.The third matter that I want to mention concerns insurance. This bill does deal with a number of important aspects of the insurance regime in ways which I believe are very beneficial. We heard some comment from the Labor Party a little earlier about that but I suggest—having regard to the detailed provisions of this bill—that at the end of the day those concerns are amply met. Under the act, before a launch company will be allowed to conduct any launch activity, the company must either obtain insurance or demonstrate the financial capacity to self-insure—known in the statute as `direct financial responsibility'.The act currently requires that a company obtain insurance for damage to third parties up to an amount known as the `maximum probable loss'. The insurance required is calculated according to a methodology which estimates the maximum casualty or damages that might occur within the probability threshold. That threshold is where the probability is less than one chance in 10 million. The new measures proposed will cap the company's liability and therefore the level of insurance it is required to hold. It is expected that the new measures will therefore enable companies to obtain sufficient insurance to cover their liabilities and ensure that the insurance is available at rates consistent with commercially viable launch operations.The amount of insurance required under this proposed legislation is capped at $750 million or a probability threshold, which may be less. That is, if the probability threshold worked out in accordance with the methodology I have mentioned is lower than $750 million, that will be the cap per launch. This amount is to be indexed in accordance with an agreement between the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and will be specified in the regulations.In addition to the new cap on liability, the Commonwealth has agreed to accept liability for damage to the assets of Australian nationals up to an amount of $3 billion over and above the insured amount. Because of the rigour of the assessment procedures under the act and the MPL threshold, which I have just mentioned, there is only a remote risk that the Commonwealth will actually be called to account on this liability—although I want to say something a little more about the detail of the legislation on that in a moment. It is also important to note that Australia is a party to various UN conventions—and I mentioned a little earlier that attached to this bill—which place unlimited liability on the Commonwealth for any damage to foreign nationals caused by Australian launch activities. The new measures in respect of liability extend equivalent protection to Australian nationals but limit it to $3 billion and entrench this protection in domestic law. It is interesting to note that the proposed limit has been benchmarked against and is of a similar magnitude to the US arrangements, where the United States government accepts liability to a limit of $US1.5 billion.The two provisions in relation to insurance that I wish to draw attention to are items 31 and 53. Item 31 deals with the cap of $750 million to which I referred a little earlier, and the question of general principle is whether or not the imposing of a cap on third-party liability insurance is the right way to go. Of course, it must be remembered, in considering this question, that the act imposes obligations on the launch activity owners to ensure not only their own obligations but the obligations of the Commonwealth. One way of dealing with it would be to exclude all common law rights altogether. The alternative—and the measure proposed here—is to place a cap on those liabilities. It is anticipated—or it was anticipated, as I read the second reading speech—that insurance would be available at about one per cent. I hope that that is the case and I do hope therefore that the minister and the department will keep under consideration and monitor the cost of insurance as against the ability and the capacity of those involved in space activities to undertake them.The second issue I want to mention is the $3 billion cap which is contained in item 53. That item provides: (4) If: (a) the responsible party has paid compensation for the damage of an amount equal to the insured amount ...It goes on to speak about that amount—I have already made mention of that—and then says that, for an excess amount over and above the insured amount:then the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation to the Australian nationals for the damage of an amount equal to so much of the excess amount as does not exceed $3 billion.One of the concerns that I have—and which in due course should be monitored and perhaps given consideration to once this regime comes into effect—is whether or not that cap relates to any one incident and whether or not the Commonwealth might be exposing itself to a notional liability in excess of $3 billion in the event that, in relation to an incident, there is more than one claimant with a claim in excess of $3 billion. I suspect it would certainly be argued by those who have such claims that that would be the case, in which case I suspect it would be important from the taxpayer's point of view that that issue be clarified. It is not difficult to imagine, for example, a launch that might damage oil facilities in the Timor Sea or elsewhere where exposure to large amounts are involved. One of the aspects of the bill that might be worth monitoring is the question of the operation of that provision.I turn finally to the issue of regulatory processes. The bill provides for operators to stipulate flight path plans; it establishes a launch safety officer; it gives certain powers to the launch safety officer to ensure that those that might be affected by the pathway are made safe; and it gives powers with criminal penalties to the launch safety officer to ensure that the launch is as safe as possible to Australians. It also provides for space licences, launch permits and overseas launch certificates to be amended in accordance with new powers to be given to the minister and for a fee structure to be established.One of the issues that I suggest may arise for comment in due course—and, again, this is something that may be monitored by the department—is the question of the number of government agencies involved in a space launch, so as to ensure that that be kept to a minimum and that there is no excessive red tape. At present, aspiring launch companies must deal with state and local governments, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Environment Australia, Emergency Management Australia and other government agencies responsible for space launches. Of course, we have the Space Licensing and Safety Office, which is within the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. In the United States, a similar office operates within the Civil Aviation Authority, and there may be some merit in giving consideration to those administrative arrangements.The commercial benefits from this legislation are significant. There are at present some three operators that are examining carefully the possibility of launching space activities from Australia. One of those, the Asia Pacific Space Centre at Christmas Island, is well advanced. That organisation has been assisted by a significant investment from Invest Australia. I commend, in those circumstances, this bill to the House and the program which the government has put forward. (Time expired)13:28:002350O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—I listened with interest to the contribution made in this debate by the honourable member for Wentworth. It was certainly a well constructed and well thought out contribution. I have not had the opportunity of hearing the honourable member for Wentworth in this place debating these issues before. It is not an area that perhaps is a native one to a lot of members in this chamber. I found his comments on the issue of the regulatory arrangements quite interesting. There are a lot of regulatory agencies that are involved in this issue of space launches, and I think it is a worthwhile suggestion that he makes that perhaps we ought to look at a structure within government that rationalises to some degree the processes by which companies approach government and get their particular proposal considered.The agencies that he mentioned are, of course, very important agencies. However, that is not to say that, in this potentially very important new area of economic activity for Australia, we cannot do better in getting a better set of regulatory arrangements. Having said that, I think there is a legitimate criticism of the government in the way that it has handled the Asia Pacific Space Centre proposal. It is a carbon copy of how things ought not to be done, and I will be speaking a little more about it later on in this debate.The Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002 is an extension of the original Space Activities Act 1998, which established the legislative framework for space launches conducted in Australia and for overseas launches where Australians have an ownership interest. The amendment bill is necessary for the ongoing development of the legislative framework that surrounds the launching of space vehicles in this country. The major amendments made by the bill have already been canvassed in this debate. They are: the legislation caps at $750 million the amount of insurance required to be procured by proponents for each launch, and it provides for the Commonwealth to accept liability for third-party Australian nationals above the insured amount for up to $3 billion. It has already been noted that the Commonwealth is already liable for damages to foreign third parties under United Nations conventions—an issue which was canvassed in detail by the previous speaker in this debate.Another amendment in this bill tightens the safety test being applied to commercial applicants for instruments by making provision for a test of risk that is `as low as is reasonably practicable' instead of `sufficiently low', as is the current case. The bill also provides for a less onerous application and assessment process and for lower fee regimes for scientific and educational organisations.All people in this House, especially those of my vintage, have quite a strong fascination for things related to space. We have probably all sat outside on a moonlit night— I was always by myself of course—gazing into the southern skies and outer space and wondering whether there is life out there. I have often gazed at the other place and asked that very question in this parliament! We have all had this strange fascination with space. I grew up in the sixties—as did many honourable members here—and witnessed the first satellite launch and man's quest to walk on the moon. We did not have a television in the early days of my upbringing, but later on when we did acquire one I became a fan of Star Trek, with Captain Kirk and the good ship Enterprise boldly going where no man has gone before. That famous line from Star Trek reminds me of what it would be like tuning in to an agenda session of the Howard cabinet: `Beam me up, Scotty— there's no sign of life down here.'Space has also been immortalised in song. Of course, we know the propensity of honourable Parliamentary Secretary Entsch to burst into song in the oddest of places: `Fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars; let me see what spring is like on Jupiter and Mars'—I think it goes something like that. I think we all have a very strong fascination for matters relating to mankind's quest to go to the stars.I would like to recall for the House an incident that occurred to me in the early stages of my tenure as the member for Corio. As honourable members would know, the election of a new member always brings out the maddies in your electorate, the people who have tried it on with the previous member. That member has retired, so they try it on with the new member. I can recall the day I was visited by a young man from the northern area of my electorate. Beside the note in the diary where my staff booked him in was the notation `Wants to talk about space launches'. I thought, `Well, here we go! This'll be an interesting one.' I was absolutely fascinated because in came the 17-year-old son of a worker from the northern suburbs. Anybody who knows the physical aspects of my electorate would know that in the seat of Corio is Avalon Airport, which was owned by the federal government and was sold by the coalition to Lindsay Fox. It is a military airfield and it will take the heaviest airfreighters known to man, from the United States and the former Soviet Union.I note the presence in this House of the member for Corangamite, who on many occasions, I am sure, has been into outer space. Some of his contributions to the debate in this chamber would certainly indicate that fact. We do not know whether it was a case of somebody going up into outer space or coming down from outer space when he made those contributions on industrial relations! But I do acknowledge the member from the other side of the Barwon River in the Geelong region, and he would know what I am talking about here.To continue: this young man, a 17-year-old, came in and I sat in all seriousness and listened to his proposal to establish a low orbital satellite launch site at Avalon Airport in Geelong. It was fascinating listening to this young man. He was very knowledgable in a technical sense and he had done a lot of reading. He considered this to be an economic opportunity to pursue. I cannot remember his name, but in 1993 this young man was obviously ahead of his time as far as Australia's involvement in these activities was concerned.The honourable member in the previous debate mentioned the current proposal to build a satellite launch facility on Christmas Island. This project is being sponsored by the Asia Pacific Space Centre. It is a very interesting proposal and one of substantial cost— some $800 million, with $100 million being committed by the federal government. The estimates of demand 10 years out for the product of this sort of launch facility is around $40 billion. Estimates have been provided that Australia has the potential to win some 10 per cent to 20 per cent of that market. At the moment, the market is dominated by the United States, Russia, the European Union and by China.The proponents of this project have selected Australia for some obvious reasons. We are a country with considerable economic and technical capacity and a nation which is politically stable; but I suppose it is the location that has largely attracted this proposal. Our sub-equatorial location is very favourable for such vehicles because it enables them to be launched with large payloads. This proposal offers considerable opportunities for Australia in the design and manufacture of satellites and in the development of communications technology and will provide $15 million for a space research centre that will link in with educational institutions. The jobs projected to be created in the construction phase are 300 to 400, and about 550 jobs when the facility is operational. It will, of course, provide significant stimulus to the air links between Christmas Island, Australia and other parts of Asia.It is a very important project and one that is worthy of real examination and debate by this parliament. There are particular concerns about this proposal, and I raise them in the context of this debate. I do not raise them in the sense of arguing against the proposal but to alert the parliament to the fact that there are significant environmental concerns with the APSC proposal, especially as it relates to the provision of water supply and the effect of noise on endangered species on the island, which is covered, in the main, by national parks. Very legitimate concerns have been expressed, and it is disappointing that despite the proposal and the ordinance having been introduced here and despite the expenditure that the federal government is making— some $100 million—the government has sought to exclude this proposal from proper parliamentary processes and parliamentary scrutiny.The government does not have to do it this way; there is another way to engage the community when handling these large projects. At the end of the day, if the government does not pursue another way of dealing with the process and the important issues, it will make it extremely difficult for the parliament to deliver the sort of support that could be forthcoming for such a project and it will make it hard for the proponents of the proposal. It is frustrating for them to eternally have to face conflicts and problems that could have been avoided if the matter had been dealt with in another way.I refer to a letter I received from the Shire of Christmas Island. The authors of the letter alerted me to their concerns about the `Christmas Island Space Centre (APSC Proposal) Ordinance 2001' and its accompanying regulations. They also sent me a copy of a letter they wrote to the Hon. Wilson Tuckey, the Minister for Territories and Regional Services, whom I shadow in this parliament. The letter makes disturbing reading for a variety of reasons. The shire has expressed some real concerns at the level of consultation on this proposal that has taken place between the federal government and the small Christmas Island community. I commend the shire for the forensic analysis that they have provided of the ordinance. They have raised some very serious matters relating to the conduct of public policy and to the legal and technical ramifications of the ordinance that the government has brought into the parliament.Their first concern relates to the consultation that took place between the government and the shire and the community over this ordinance. Apparently, there was no consultation in the drafting phase and no notification of the gazettal of the ordinance. This is simply not good enough. I do not care whether it is a small community or a large community, whether it is a big project or a small project, the processes of the national government ought to be inclusive. They ought to include the community in proper consultation and dialogue on the potential problems that might arise either from government legislation that comes before this House or from ordinances and regulations that are promulgated as a result of the activities of this parliament.It must be very disappointing for APSC, who have spent a lot of time and money on the project, to be part of any unprofessional—and some might say quite amateurish—public policy process. I remind the parliament and the minister of the current make-up of the parliament and the fact that we as an opposition are committed to the pursuit of good public policy processes and good government.I note that, following the substantial representations that have been made about the ordinance and the regulations, a dialogue is currently occurring between the minister and the community on Christmas Island. I regret that it was not done beforehand by the previous minister who had carriage of this—I suppose we cannot lump it all on the current minister—or by the current minister. There is a dialogue taking place as a result of those representations, and we are going to listen to that dialogue very closely. If we determine that the minister is in good faith negotiating and is attempting to address the very real and considered concerns that have been expressed, then we will be supportive of the government's endeavours to get this proposal up. But we put on notice that there is an avenue available in the Senate for this ordinance to be withdrawn, and we will be listening to the dialogue and its outcome closely to ensure that good governance takes place around this particular proposal.On the issue of consultation, the shire had this to say:In the shire's view, to make the APSC ordinance without any reference to the shire of the community for input, explanation or discussion goes against the spirit and intent of the Christmas Island Act 1958. The shire is also of the view that to not consult with the shire goes against the policy and spirit of the established means of consulting island residents about the application of laws to the territory.It is a small thing, but it is also a very important thing. Governments must consult with communities before they make substantial decisions on these sorts of projects. The shire has detailed very serious matters relating to the exclusion zone and the legal and technical problems that have arisen for them. They have raised serious equity issues about the cost of infrastructure on the island and the process for establishing independence and fairness in decision making about this satellite launch facility.Let me say in conclusion that I am encouraged by the dialogue that is occurring between the minister and the Christmas Island community. I regret the fact that it did not take place before the ordinance was brought into the parliament. I hope that it will be a productive dialogue and that at the end of the day we will see this facility brought to fruition and these concerns addressed. (Time expired)13:48:002353Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—I would like to open by saying that I think the House should note the erudition of the member for Wentworth's speech. I think it is also worthwhile mentioning the wit, in the first part at least, of the member for Corio's speech. I found the references to the dangers of being a new member particularly touching.Australia's involvement with space activities goes back to the beginning of the space age itself. In the years following the Second World War, our participation in British missile programs catapulted us to the forefront of the international space program and made Central Australia home to one of the world's major spaceports. In November 1967, Australia became only the third nation, after the Soviet Union and the United States, to launch a satellite from its own soil. Despite our early pioneering role, Australia's space launch activity has been somewhat limited over the past two decades. For example, there have not been any rocket launches for commercial purposes from Australian soil.However, the proposed construction of the Aurora rocket launch facility on Christmas Island has the potential to enhance Australia's prominence in the field of space launches. In light of this, the government is introducing necessary amendments to the existing legislative framework. The Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002 will do this by updating the Space Activities Act 1998 in three ways: the bill will strengthen the risk tests applying to the safety of launch activities, it will make specific provisions for scientific and educational organisations that will increase their opportunities to engage in space research and it will also introduce important measures that are necessary given the changing insurance and liability environment.I would like to begin by discussing the amendments relating to the safety of launch facilities, before moving on to some other key amendments. At present, under the Space Activities Act the construction and operation of a launch facility is considered to have an acceptable level of risk if the probability that the facility will cause damage to property and/or substantial harm to public health and safety is deemed to be `sufficiently low'. This bill will apply a stronger risk test. It will amend the act by redefining the acceptable level of risk to `as low as reasonably practicable'. The amendment puts the onus on applicants for launch facility licences to demonstrate that they have achieved, within the bounds of reasonable cost, the lowest practicable risk outcomes. It will bring the regulatory philosophy of the act into line with best practice safety regulations.Further measures that underline the bill's emphasis on safety include the extension of power to the minister to suspend a launch permit. Under the Space Activities Act, a launch permit is automatically suspended in the event of an accident causing physical harm or damage to property. However, while the minister currently has the power to suspend a launch permit for reasons relevant to Australia's national security or our international obligations, there is no provision in the act for the minister to suspend a launch permit in the event of a prescribed `incident'. Under section 86 of the Space Activities Act, an incident is defined as one which:... affects or could affect the safety of the operation of the space object or that involves circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.The bill will provide the minister with the power to suspend a launch permit in the event of such incidents. If, for example, a launch permit is issued for a series of launches and one of the launches results in an incident, this amendment will give the minister the power to suspend any subsequent launches allowed by the permit, and enable the minister to conduct an investigation. This process will enhance safety by identifying and rectifying launch practices that may result in property damage and/or serious injury or death. The bill's emphasis on safety is further reinforced by the requirement that applicants identify all of the proposed flight paths for rockets launched from a launch facility. This measure will enable the regulator, the Australian Space Licensing and Safety Office, to assess each of the proposed flight paths against the requirement of achieving a risk level that is as low as is reasonably practicable.The second major component of the bill provides for an enhancement of the existing liability and insurance arrangements for space launches. Commercial space launch organisations have expressed their concern that an open-ended liability regime would result in prohibitive insurance costs or even lead them to being unable to procure insurance for launches at all. The bill addresses this problem by capping the liability of launch operators, in order to provide a greater level of certainty to their operations, as well as providing a key foundation to their commercial viability. Under the new measures outlined in the bill, those undertaking launch activities will be required to obtain insurance for each launch up to a maximum defined probable loss or $750 million, dependant upon which is the lower amount. Beyond this amount, the Commonwealth will accept third-party liabilities to Australian nationals for damage resulting from authorised launch activities. The Commonwealth's acceptance of liability above the insured amount will be capped at $3 billion. I do commend to the House the extensive comments made by the member for Wentworth on some of the implications of this and some of the international obligations we have assumed in terms of space exploration.The bill's third major amendment relates to space launch applications made by approved scientific, educational or other non-profit organisations. As most of the launch activities undertaken by such organisations would not usually involve the establishment, management and ongoing operation of a major launch facility, they should not be subjected to the full force of the licensing regime. This bill will address this issue by providing for two things: first, a less burdensome application process than that imposed upon applicants for a commercial launch licence; and, second, an alternative fee structure. Application processes for approved scientific and educational organisations will be made less onerous, as they will not be required to provide the same levels of information that commercial applicants must. This will in turn impose a lesser burden on the regulator in assessing such applications. The significantly lower fees that will be imposed upon these organisations when applying for launch approval reflect the public good aspect of their activities as well as the typically small-scale nature of their activities, their streamlined licensing processes and the modest funding of their operations.It is important to note that the decline in revenue from launch fees derived from scientific, educational and non-profit organisations will be offset by an additional measure outlined in the bill. Under the current terms set down by the act, the regulator may only charge a fee at the time an organisation applies for a launch licence. There is no provision that allows for any further fees to be derived from an issued licence. This bill contains a measure that will allow the Space Licensing and Safety Office to charge an annual fee to recover a greater amount of its costs incurred through each space licence. In conclusion, this bill will make a significant number of improvements to the safety aspect of space launch activities, and it will make important adjustments that will enhance the existing liability and insurance arrangements for space launches. I commend the bill to the House.13:57:002355Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The opposition is supporting the Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002, which we hope will facilitate a significant resurgence of Australian participation in the space launch industry. South Australia had a long association with that industry at Woomera in the 1950s and sixties, but use of Woomera in recent years has been confined to a range of tests of proposed space vehicles, and that has not involved either orbital or suborbital space flight. Despite the current world oversupply of space launch services, there are several companies pursuing opportunities to use Australia's suitable real estate at Woomera and Christmas Island to operate in that market. The proposals range from Kissler's ambitious plans to design and build a reusable launch vehicle to Space Lift's proposal to use tested Russian ballistic missile technology. The Asia Pacific Space Centre proposal for Christmas Island also proposes to use Russian launch vehicles.All these proposals carry with them varying degrees of technical and financial risk. I am hopeful that one or more of them will ultimately be an operational and commercial success. It will certainly result in new opportunities for other parts of the space industry in Australia in satellite construction, remote sensing and communication. Those opportunities are ever widening, and I think that despite the current oversupply of commercial launches it is not too late for Australia to enter this market, particularly given our comparative advantages of geography, weather, political stability and the sophistication of Australia's related industry capabilities. It is my understanding that the current set of proponents are not seeking any special government subsidies to achieve their objectives. That has not always been the case. I can recall at least one proponent in the past seeking Commonwealth support to pay for its first three launches to prove its technology.The only subsidy that is implied in this bill is the $3 billion Commonwealth guarantee in the event of a major accident. The proponents are expected to provide the first $750 million of insurance, and the Commonwealth explicit guarantee over that is designed to ensure that their insurance policies are in fact affordable. From my understanding of the assessment of risks in this area, the high levels of risks that are contemplated by the legislation have probably been derived from American estimates of risks, which I understand were based on the possibility of a launch vehicle hitting the most expensive piece of real estate around, which would have been the Miami Hilton at a time when the American Bar Association were having an annual general meeting there; but I do not think that would happen here.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It seems an appropriate time to interrupt the member for Kingston. It being after 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Kingston will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Governor-General's Speech2356235614:01:002356SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I remind the House that the address-in-reply will be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House at 5.30 p.m. this afternoon. The sitting will be suspended at 5 p.m. I shall be glad if the mover and seconder, together with other honourable members, will accompany me to present the address.Questions Without Notice2356235614:01:002356Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of the following comment by Alan Jones this morning on Channel 9, when he said that the plight of the disabled in our country is `in an absolute crisis'? He then read out a letter from a parent in which he said that more and more it is becoming evident that we are living in an economy, not a society:I have a son who is intellectually disabled, he suffered brain damage during a series of operations when he was 14 months old, he's now 25 years old.His speech is limited. I'm worried sick that after we die he will end up homeless.Prime Minister, how many more examples do you need of the difficulty under which Australians with disabilities live before you review your unfair disability measures in the budget?2356Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware of those comments; I, in fact, read a transcript of those comments a few moments before I came into the House. Whilst I am seeking further information, if it is the case that the young man in question is unable to work, he will be unaffected by our announced changes.235614:03:002356Smith, Anthony, MPMr ANTHONY SMITH00APGCaseyLP10— My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House how sound fiscal policy underpins good economic outcomes? Is the Treasurer aware of any threats to Australia's strong budgetary position?2356Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the member for Casey for his question and I acknowledge the interest that he has in economic policy— good economic policy. The budget which the government brought down two days ago is directed towards keeping the Australian economy strong. In a global economic slowdown, Australia's economy has continued to create new jobs, with some 900,000 new jobs created since this government was elected in 1996. We propose to continue strong economic policy. By the end of this year, the government will have repaid $62 billion of Labor debt. That is giving young Australians a much better opportunity in life. By the end of this year, the government will have repaid $62 billion of Labor's debt.When the government announced its budget—the first budget after the election— in normal circumstances an opposition would acknowledge the right of a government to enact its budget and to put it into place. In normal circumstances, that is what would happen. Yet we have seen the Labor Party, over the last 24 hours, after a pathetic showing in question time yesterday—one of the worst budget replies in the time that I have been here—in order get on to a new tack, decide that it would come out and try and cherry-pick the budget to try to pull apart the government's economic strategy.It took them five years of those kinds of stunts—two election losses—to come to their senses not so long ago that the public did not believe them on economic policy. We had stunts all the way through the last one. Can you remember the lettuce packages and the Hockey bear pyjamas, and how it made the Labor Party backbench feel good at the time? Do you remember where it ended? Do you remember who the opportunist was who came in with the lettuce packages, the Hockey bear pyjamas and the stuffed bears?The shadow Treasurer went to the Fabian Society on 4 May 2002 and he said that the Labor Party, after five years of opportunist politics, was going to support the government's tax policy. The shadow Treasurer of the Labor Party, on 4 May 2002, some 12 days ago, also said:There is evidence to suggest that one public perception which distinguishes Labor's success at a local level from our recent failures at the national level has been fear of a lack of discipline in our fiscal policy and concern about the implications of this for interest rates.Why would the public have a fear of a lack of discipline in the fiscal policy of the Labor Party when 12 days later, at the first hurdle, the Labor Party, which had been calling for changes to the disability support pension, says it will not vote for them? The member for Werriwa calls for changes to the disability support pension. He runs around Australia saying: `I'm economically responsible. I support coalition policy.' His main claim to fame is that he supports coalition policies.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: there is a longstanding convention in this House that, once a member has corrected a misrepresentation, that misrepresentation should not be wilfully repeated—which is what the Treasurer is doing now. I would ask you to observe that convention and draw the Treasurer to order.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—When the House has come to order: I have been following the Treasurer's answer and, if the member for Werriwa is misrepresented, there are forums of the House that he can use to correct that misrepresentation.K26Latham, Mark, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I refer the House to this quote:Something also needs to be done about the outrageous growth in the Disability Support Pension, which is now paid to more than 550,000 Australians ... Some experts believe the size of the program should be no more than 150,000—he wanted to take 400,000 off—The DSP needs to be overhauled and mutual responsibility policies applied to all those with a genuine capacity for work.But don't misrepresent him! Don't say that he actually called for an overhaul of the disability support pension! They are your words. At the first hurdle, the person who claims the government should be bold and adventurous is apparently going to cross the floor and vote against reform. When opportunism comes knocking, the Labor Party says, `Welcome home, dear friend.' This was the kind of strategy that Labor followed under this Leader of the Opposition for five years. On this side of the parliament, we believe that it is not just a question of talking about reform but a question of doing it. We believe that the bona fides are shown when you vote on the floor of this House, not when you run around trying to show people that you have an intention which is responsible. This is the side of the House which is going to pursue real economic policy, which is going to pursue welfare reform, which is going to make our social services defendable and affordable into the future. We did it in the past, we intend to do it in the future and we will not be diverted by the cynical cheapjack opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I seek leave to table the full text of my remarks to the Brisbane Institute which clearly show that I was calling for increased investments in this program instead of the cutting we are getting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa has made his point and will resume his seat.Leave granted.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I table the transcript that I referred to earlier.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Selectively quoted.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat! The Treasurer will resume his seat!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I seek leave to quote the transcript of Mark Latham, ALP member for Werriwa on 26 July 1999 and I give permission for the full speech to be tabled as well.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa has sought leave and been granted permission to table the transcript.235814:11:002358Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it follows his refusal yesterday to guarantee that people with severe disabilities would be protected from his budget cuts. Prime Minister, what guarantee can you give to a mother who wrote saying the following:Both of my sons are in their 20s and were born profoundly deaf ... they have no speech and cannot lip read ... they rely on sign language for communication ... both work part time in lowly paid jobs working up to 25 hours per week ... under the proposed changes the boys would lose their pension ... To be eligible for the dole they would have to apply for up to 10 jobs a fortnight ... they would need an interpreter ... they cannot use a telephone ... they cannot understand the forms.Prime Minister, how many more examples do you need of the difficulty under which Australians with disabilities live before you review your unfair disability measures in the budget?2358Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—If the member for Fowler is good enough to send me some details, and perhaps you might, in elaboration of the lady's reference to low paid jobs, to find out whether in the case in question the two people are paid award wages or not, because some people with disabilities work in circumstances where they are not paid award wages and there is a clear exemption—the member for Fowler turns away—83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—I wasn't turning away.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am simply trying to assist her and to assist her constituents. If she can get me some further information about the nature of their employment, I would be very happy to investigate what she has put. I have had a number of examples put to me in relation to this and quite a number of them have been found not to be in any way affected by the changes that were announced by the Treasurer on Tuesday night. I saw some correspondence in one of the major daily newspapers today suggesting that somebody who was clearly working in the circumstances of a sheltered workshop was asserting—or somebody on that person's behalf was asserting—that they were affected by the government's changes; they are not, because when award wages are not paid they are clearly not affected. As I indicated to the House yesterday, there are a number of circumstances where the exemptions apply. I was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition based on some remarks made by Alan Jones this morning. On the face of it, that young man is not able to work and is therefore completely unaffected.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—That is not the point.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is responding to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The reality—and this is based on figures provided by Centrelink—is that the overwhelming majority of people who receive this pension do not work, and there are some exemptions in relation to people who do work. The purpose of this change, it should be understood, was to tackle and to catch areas of abuse. If we are sensible about it, we will understand—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—That was not the purpose of the changes at all.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lillee, the Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—that there are areas of abuse. Whatever might now be said, that was recognised by the member for Werriwa and it has been recognised by the member for Lillee.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—That is untrue.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It may be uncomfortable to be reminded but the reality is that there are significant areas of abuse. This government is endeavouring to tackle some of these things because it thinks that, in the long term, unless some of these things—and this applies in relation to not only disability support but also pharmaceutical benefits—are tackled in a steady, incremental fashion now, claims on the budget will mean the schemes will break down under their collective weight, and through their collective expanding cost, in the years ahead. The price paid will be much greater and the penalties imposed on taxpayers in future years will be much greater. But, if the member for Fowler would be so good as to obtain some more information from this lady, particularly in relation to the precise nature of her children's employment, I will have some more investigations made and I will respond to her, just as I have today responded to the Chief Opposition Whip, who raised a matter with me yesterday in relation to the Smiths. I pointed out in that reply that figures provided by Centrelink indicate that only around 31,000 of the estimated 652,000 DSP recipients have employment earnings that affect their entitlement to a full pension.235914:18:002359Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware of any attempts to undermine the government's economic strategy? What impacts will this have on Australia, particularly in rural and regional areas?2359Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Yes, I am aware of strategies to undermine the government's economic management. They can be seen as nothing other than a cynical attempt to undermine our economic strategy for short-term political gain, which, at a time like this for Australia, I would have thought was extremely unfortunate and not welcomed at all by the community. As the Treasurer has just said—the Prime Minister has just spoken about this as well—the rising costs of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and of disability support cannot be sustained into the long term. They have to be put on a sustainable basis. That process has to begin now or they will collapse and, just as a former Prime Minister—one of yours—observed a few years ago, the losers will be those in genuine need.We face a situation where it is very easy for the opposition to be opportunistic. They will not tell us what their alternatives really are. We are entitled to probe a little and, if necessary, to speculate. You can do that on the basis of a considerable amount of history. What are their savings measures, if they have them? If they propose revenue measures, where might they be? Or is it just that we ought to assume there will be a return to the way they managed the place during the Hawke and Keating years, when we saw— and this ought never to be forgotten—continual tax increases and a raft of new taxes? We saw never ending asset sales, with the proceeds devoted to recurrent expenditure, while all the time we saw big deficits accumulating in a $96 billion public sector debt. Their budgetary form ought to be remembered.We have not heard anything about their attitude towards fuel indexation. Perhaps we will hear a bit tonight. Perhaps they really are in favour of reintroducing automatic indexation twice a year. When they were in government they went well beyond that. Petrol excise increased from less than 7c a litre to more than 34c a litre. The fringe benefits tax was increased three times. The Medicare levy was increased. Company tax was increased. Sales tax on passenger cars went from 16 per cent to 21 per cent. Those are just a few reminders. But in that context of budgets not being disciplined and economic strategies not being thought out and pursued, one of the great and damaging effects was interest rates. Unemployment was over 11 per cent and home interest rates were hitting 17.5 per cent. Farmers well remember—I remember it well because it was at the time I came into this place, and shortly after that the Leader of the Opposition became the minister for agriculture, so he should have some sympathy with what those interest rates did out there—that some farmers were paying up to 25 per cent. I recall—somebody reminded me yesterday—that when we did the maths on what farmers who were forced to borrow from the pastoral houses were paying, the figure got as high as 27 per cent. So we ought to remember where we have come from.This brings me to a very important point in relation to Australia's national interest. When the Leader of the Opposition rises in about four hours from now to deliver his budget speech in reply, he must meet the obligation that pertains to a man who would be Prime Minister. He must put before the Australian people honestly and fairly how Labor would pay for their plans, how they would go about building an economic strategy, and how they would fairly implement the programs that they say matter. He has four hours to do something that his predecessor could not do, which is to come up with a believable economic strategy. He owes it to Australia. Australia at this time needs to be strong and secure. The Leader of the Opposition quite frankly now has a task: he has to prove to the Australian people that he does not want us weak and vulnerable for short-term political gain.236014:22:002360Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen comments by his own appointee to chair the welfare reform task force, Patrick McClure, criticising the budget for its lack of commitment to welfare reform? What is the Prime Minister's response to Mr McClure's statement that the government's plans to push 200,000 disability pensioners onto Newstart are `unbalanced' and that if you want people with disabilities to work you need to provide them with a participation supplement that recognises the cost of disability, not a pension cut? Prime Minister, who is right—Patrick McClure or you?2360Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have read those remarks, and let me say a couple of things about them. The first is that it was an unambiguous recommendation of the McClure report—and Patrick McClure did not seek to deny it in that interview—that the current measurement in relation to hours worked, and that is 30 hours, should be reviewed in the light of—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—He did not recommend that there be cuts.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley has asked his question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—There has been no cut.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—There has.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley is defying the chair.ZD4Mr HOWARD—There has been no cut. The level of the disability support pension remains the same. It remains exactly the same. He recommended that we change the 30 hours. The reason that he gave in the summary recommendations of the report was to the effect that in the light of prevailing labour market conditions and work practices it should be changed. Could I remind the opposition that when you take into account the changes made in relation to the disability support pension and the other commitments in relation to disability services, the total amount provided for in the budget for disability services actually increases by $100 million.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—It does not.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The member for Lilley, who is a resident expert on everything—the resident know-all of the opposition frontbench—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Come on!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am sorry. If he is offended by an imputation of knowledge, I withdraw. I would not want to do that. I withdraw the imputation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will come to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—One of the things that the opposition has to face up to is that if you segment out all the allocations for disability services—the additional 73,000 places and the additional moneys going to the states under the Commonwealth-state disability agreement—the resources allocated in those areas exceed by more than $100 million the consequences of the changes that have been announced in relation to the disability support pension. The member for Lilley referred to balance. What we have sought to do in this area is to rebalance support. We are concerned to ensure that people are given incentives to participate. We are concerned to ensure that people are given greater encouragement to be in the work force.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Then what are you complaining about in the Senate?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa is defying the chair.ZD4Mr HOWARD—We are concerned about abuses, which have been identified by both the member for Werriwa and the member for Lilley, both of whom are unashamed identifiers of abuse of the welfare system until such time as they are required to vote for some measures to do something about it. Both of them have identified the problem. I say to both of them and to everybody else who sits opposite that this budget actually allocates $100 million more in relation to disability support, yet you are going to vote against those measures. I find that very hard to reconcile with your self-professed commitment to the disadvantaged in the community.236114:27:002361Farmer, Patrick, MPMr FARMER00AMOMacarthurLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What has the government done to improve the spread of employee share ownership in Australia and to make shares available to Australians who have not previously owned shares? Is the minister aware of any alternative proposals to promote share ownership in Australia?2361Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Macarthur for his question and for the leadership that he is providing to the aspirational classes of Western Sydney. This is a government which believes in stakeholder democracy. This is a government which wants to make share owning as much a part of the Australian way life as home owning. In its first budget, this government doubled the tax concessions for employee share ownership schemes. Thanks to the policies of this government, including privatisation policies— which have been opposed at every point by members opposite—the percentage of Australians who now directly or indirectly own shares has risen from 37 per cent to 51 per cent.Behold: a prophet has arisen in the land! At last, a prophet has arisen in the land! The sage of Werriwa, who used to believe in the imposition of capital gains tax on the family home, now wants to encourage ownership. Last week, he released his policy to a seriously underwhelming response from his senior colleagues. The shadow Treasurer said of the policy of the member for Werriwa:... which of the individual measures ... go forward ... there's a long time before we get to the answer of that question.That is what the shadow Treasurer said. The shadow foreign minister said:There's a huge diversity of views within the party. It's unclear what will emerge at the end of this process.The attitude of his colleagues to the member for Werriwa's proposal was best encapsulated by Workers Online, the official organ of the New South Wales Labor Council, which said:Far from being Labor's new light on the hill, Latham's share ownership agenda is a dousing of the flame—a desertion of the idea of working together as a society rather than as individual players.Workers Online said:If we give up on this, we may as well all join the Liberals.Then it said:Mark could do us all a favour by leading the way.The Liberal Party is a broad church, but a Liberal Latham is a little beyond the pale! First of all, the member for Werriwa would have to do that course in anger management therapy. Secondly, he would have to put himself on a three-year good behaviour bond and promise to leave the taxi drivers of Sydney alone. Thirdly, as an act of atonement to everyone in Australia with a disability, he would have to offer a profound apology for calling a man on crutches deformed.236214:31:002362Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Can the minister confirm that the budget includes a cut to the Job Network of $64 million over the next four years? Can he also confirm that, in March this year, 37,500 long-term unemployed seeking work did not have access to intensive assistance services under the Job Network? What is the government offering people with disabilities who will no longer qualify for the disability support pension, other than a lengthening queue for intensive assistance under the Job Network? Minister, how can you be serious about getting disadvantaged people into work when you are cutting the Job Network?2362Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Kingston for his maiden question, his second question, his third question and his fourth question all at once.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The Minister for Employment Services will come to the question.2K6Mr BROUGH—I hope it does not take you as long to get up another question in your tactics committee!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! Minister!2K6Mr BROUGH—The first thing to say is that under the Labor Party over the last six years—under the stewardship of the Leader of the Opposition, who was then employment minister—the number of long-term unemployed in this country grew and grew. In fact, long-term unemployment grew by 89 per cent over that time. Labor threw people onto the scrap heap and kept them there, while spending $3,000 million of taxpayers' money. It cost the taxpayer $15,000 for every person who got a job. Today, it costs $5,000. The number of very long-term unemployed—of whom there were a multitude under the Labor Party—in the last six years of Labor increased by 90.1 per cent.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 145, it is quite obvious that the minister at the table is not answering the question.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will be aware that there were a number of questions asked, including questions that cited the number of unemployed people and the growth of unemployment. In that context, it is difficult for me to rule the minister out of order. He is responding to the questions asked, and I invite him to come to the question about the Job Network.2K6Mr BROUGH—In conclusion on that point: since the election of the Howard government, very long-term unemployment has come down by 13 per cent and today is less than half the rate it was under the peak of the Labor government. To come to question 3 or question 4 of your four questions, you asked about what we will do about limiting the services in the Job Network. What the member for Kingston obviously did not see when he was in the lockup is that this is an uncapped program. Whether you are a disability support pensioner coming off DSP into new work or into the unemployment field and into the Job Network, you will be accommodated. I inform the House that everybody will have access to the new scheme of intensive support customised assistance— everybody!The member for Kingston also makes the claim that there will be less money. In this current year, we will spend in the order of $823 million. We will be spending over $900 million in the out years. There will be more money spent on the Job Network. There will be better services that are better targeted. We will get results. The Job Network, since its inception, has continued to outperform its predecessor. The question for the opposition is this: are you going to put up a policy that damns the Job Network, or will you be in the vacuous position that you have always been in—saying nothing, doing nothing but barking an awful lot?236214:37:002362Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is to the Attorney-General. What measures has the government taken in the budget to protect Australians from any increased threat of terrorism following the September 11 incident?2362Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Fadden for his question. He has a particular interest in this subject, as the chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services. As the Treasurer pointed out on budget night, the terrorist attacks on the United States last year marked a fundamental shift in the international security environment. We can no longer sit back and assume that we are safe from such devastating events. Australia needs to protect itself from the inexplicable and horrifying violence of terrorists. It is not good enough to say, `We will take a chance with our families, our friends and our neighbours.'84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for Bass!7V5Mr WILLIAMS—It is not good enough to say, `No, we won't do anything until we see the whites of terrorists' eyes.' The September 11 attacks on the United States were not expected. Terrorists are not going to ring ahead and inform us that their sights have turned to Australia. It would be irresponsible of the government not to do everything within its power to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, and we must make sure that we are in the best possible position to identify, prevent and punish those responsible for terrorist acts and those planning terrorist acts. The government is committed to doing just that. I note that this commitment has been recognised and welcomed by our coalition partners in the war against terrorism. I recently returned from discussions with my counterparts in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, and I can report to the House that our commitment to dealing with the threat of terrorism in a comprehensive and responsible way has earned us the appreciation and respect of these important allies and, in particular, the respect of the United States. In the budget, the government committed an extra $1.3 billion over five years to upgrade security in Australia. 84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for Bass!7V5Mr WILLIAMS—In my portfolio, in particular, an additional $126.6 million has been earmarked specifically to bolster our counter-terrorism abilities. This new spending includes $110.1 million to enhance Australian Federal Police protective security services; $14.4 million for better coordination of Australia's counter-terrorism arrangements in line with the decisions of the leaders summit on terrorism and multijurisdictional crime; $17.8 million to provide specialised equipment and training for emergency services; and $16.2 million to protect the security of Australia's national information infrastructure. There is more yet: $128.5 million to enhance aviation security; $49 million to enhance the technical investigation capabilities of the AFP, the NCA and ASIO; $48.3 million to strengthen ASIO's intelligence capability and coordination; and $42.3 million to increase the ability of the Australian Customs Service—84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Bass!7V5Mr WILLIAMS—to screen air passengers for possible terrorist situations and other border security threats. This budget is compelling evidence of the government's determination—849Sidebottom, Sid, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for Braddon!7V5Mr WILLIAMS—to make the hard decisions to ensure that Australia remains safe and secure. 849Sidebottom, Sid, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Braddon!7V5Mr WILLIAMS—I call on the opposition to make it clear to the Australian community that it supports the government in these matters.236314:41:002363Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall the statement about the growth and sustainability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme made on 3 June last year on Meet the Press by his then health minister, Dr Wooldridge? Dr Wooldridge said:Now even with a very big increase this year I've been able to get that down to an average of around 13 per cent. We are giving it to more people ... We've got new and exciting pharmaceuticals coming on stream and that actually keeps people out of hospital ... there's some real public benefit here. He also said:It's going to be 4.2 billion next year and it is sustainable.Prime Minister, why did the government tell one story about the sustainability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme before the election and tell a different story after the election?2364Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will have a look at that statement, but I will be charitable to the member for Perth and accept provisionally— always a wise caveat to put on accepting anything from the opposition—that he has accurately quoted what the minister said. I notice that he quotes the minister as saying that it is rising by 13 per cent. That is broadly correct: over the last 10 years it has risen at an average rate of 13.8 per cent. If you have a look at the Intergenerational Report, which of course would not have been available to the good doctor when he made those remarks—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—That Intergenerational Report was not available to the former health minister.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—I'll fax him a copy.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Would you send him a copy?CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Yes, I will.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Send it to—I can call him Michael in this House now, can't I, Mr Speaker? He is no longer a member of this place. Would you like to send him a copy of that report? That report makes very revealing reading. What it indicates is that the cost of maintaining the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is going to rise at an ever increasing rate over the years ahead.It is indisputable that, if we do not now begin the process of doing something about that, we are going to approach a real crisis in its funding and its management in the not too distant future. We face a choice. We can start that process now in a sensible fashion. I am aided in that argument by a list that I have been provided, which has been compiled by the indefatigable member for Boothby, who takes a very great interest in these matters. It lists the 10 highest costing PBS drugs by generic name for the year ended 31 December. I will start with the first one, which is Simvastatin; the total cost in relation to that drug is $282 million. This goes to the very heart of this argument. The total cost of this first drug on the list is $282 million, of which the general body of taxpayers is now funding $251 million. The next `statin', which is the second most frequently used, has a total cost of $292 million, of which the taxpaying public—the people who may be watching question time, the people in the gallery—are already funding $250 million. The next drug on the list, which deals with peptic ulcers, totals $185 million, of which the taxpayer is providing $162 million.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—Those opposite can have their silly interjections about this.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I've got my own view about that.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Those opposite can play a silly political game about this but, in the end, we face a choice: do we allow a scheme to go on growing exponentially in cost, funded all the while by the general body of taxpayers? To anybody listening to this debate who imagines that, if the opposition is successful in defeating this measure, they will be relieved of the future cost burden of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, can I say they are completely wrong because, in the end, they will get a bigger slug.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Oh!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition interjects with feigned incredulity. In the end, the reason it will cost the Australian taxpayer more unless the sort of preventative measures that we are advocating now are adopted is that, unless you get some additional price signals, unless you get some additional discipline into this—and this has been widely recognised by anybody who has examined this—it is simply going to break down under its own weight.The evidence is there for all to see. The cheap political opportunism of the opposition on this issue does them no credit, and I believe the Australian community will see through it. In the end, they know that you cannot get something like this for nothing. Either you get some sensible discipline into it now or you face a real funding crisis some time down the track. If the system collapses, those who will suffer most will be the sick and vulnerable, and the people who will carry the most blame for those people suffering will be those in the Australian Labor Party who have brought these measures undone.236514:48:002365Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister advise the House of the impact of the budget on Commonwealth funding for public schools? How do these increases in funding compare with state funding for state schools?2365Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thank the member for Macquarie for his very strong advocacy on behalf of all students and schools in his electorate, and Springwood High School in particular. This year the government has increased its funding to schools by 6½ per cent, which takes the amount that the Commonwealth will spend on Australian schools this coming financial year to $6.6 billion. That means that, since its election, this government has increased its funding to Australian schools by 80 per cent. The funding this year to government schools increases by 5.7 per cent. That represents a 52 per cent increase in funding to government schools from the Commonwealth government in the six years it has been office. That 52 per cent increase in funding to government schools—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—Nobody believes you.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for Port Adelaide!RW5Dr NELSON—has occurred during a period in which enrolments—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—No-one believes you.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Port Adelaide chooses to defy the chair after I have drawn his attention to the fact that interjections are inappropriate.RW5Dr NELSON—That 52 per cent increase in Commonwealth funding to government schools has occurred during a period in which enrolments in government schools have increased by 1.4 per cent. Further to that, the Commonwealth government, which has primary responsibility for supporting parents who choose to send their children to non-government schools, has increased its funding to non-government schools by 9.2 per cent. That means that the rate of funding increase by the Commonwealth government to government schools is 407 per cent the rate of increase in enrolments in the government school sector. It also means that the rate of increase in funding to non-government schools is 60 per cent the rate of increase of enrolments in the non-government sector, because this year the enrolments in the non-government sector are forecast to grow at around 15 per cent.It is important that Australians understand that, of the 3.2 million students in Australian schools, 2.2 million attend government schools and one million attend non-government schools. That means that the 69 per cent of students in government schools receive 78 per cent of all the public money that goes into government schools, and the 31 per cent of students in non-government schools, the one million, receive 22 per cent—of course, parents contribute some $3 billion.I was asked about state government funding for state schools. They are called state schools because they are run, principally funded and owned by state governments. State governments provide around 84 per cent of the funding that goes to their state government schools. The Commonwealth government meets a responsibility to supplement the funding to government schools and provides around 12 per cent of the funding to government schools, the rest being made up by parents. The New South Wales education minister, John Watkins, was asked on Sydney radio 2UE yesterday about education funding in New South Wales, and this is what he said:The state government provides a huge amount of money for public education, as it should, and we will continue to increase that.This is very good news: we now have a state minister who is apparently finally prepared to shoulder his share of this important burden. In this budget, the Howard government has increased its funding to New South Wales government schools by 5.7 per cent. There is a 5.7 per cent increase in funding to government schools. In the last budget, the New South Wales government increased its funding by 2.5 per cent. That means that, if the New South Wales government had increased the funding to its government schools by the same amount as the Commonwealth increased its funding to the New South Wales government schools, there would have been another $173 million to support the funding of students in New South Wales government schools. I say to Mr Watkins, and particularly to Mr Carr, `Where is the other $103 million?'The member for Aston last night was asking me how the Victorian government shapes up in this regard. Recently the Victorian government had a budget, and it made a big fuss about putting more money into education. You might be interested to know that the Howard government this year has increased funding to Victorian government schools by 5.3 per cent. In contrast, the Victorian government has increased the funding to its own government schools by 2.9 per cent. That means that $95 million has disappeared from Victorian government schools in contrast to the increase from the Commonwealth government. The final point that should be made—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Where is this going?RW5Dr NELSON—I need to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with Senator Kim Carr, who has described government support for parents to send their children to non-government schools as `middle-class welfare'. We should not forget, given that the member for Macquarie has raised this important issue, Greg and Gina Fletcher of the Bird In Hand Inn in the electorate of Macquarie. Greg Fletcher, who is a factory worker, said he was not happy about the Labor Party's pledge to take money away from private schools. He said:People around here don't have much money, but they save and save so that they can send their kids to a private school and get a good education and then Labor says you shouldn't try to do this.They are still saying that.236614:55:002366McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall saying on 25 October last year and, in fact, on numerous occasions in this House that driving the budget back into deficit would mean higher interest rates? Now that you have driven the budget into a $3 billion deficit, why should Australian families not conclude that you have added to the upward pressure on interest rates on their mortgages and credit card debts?2366Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The shadow Treasurer embarrassed himself yesterday by referring to the accrual outcome in the 2001-02 year—83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek—Why was he embarrassed?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I will tell you why he embarrassed himself: because he claimed that the accrual deficit had worsened since the midyear review when in fact the accrual position had improved since the midyear review. So, if you want to actually work off the accrual figures, in fact it had picked up between the midyear review and the budget—a point that you embarrassed yourself on yesterday, but that is fair enough. Again, if your point is that an accrual deficit of $3 billion would be having a current effect on interest rates, my point is that it has actually improved. It improved, so the fundamental premise of your question cannot be right. It cannot be right!5I4McMullan, Bob, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—No, don't try to change the question now! Don't try to have a new one from the front bench—we will deal with the one that you actually asked. It is only the second question that you have asked since the budget came down. So, if the premise was that somehow a worsening accrual result was having an effect on interest rates, my answer is: actually the accrual balance improved. So, by your logic, it should actually have a positive effect in relation to monetary policy. I think I am entitled to point that out. But we will take the other point of your question, which lies behind it, which is this: apparently you believe it is important to have strong fiscal policy to keep interest rates low. That is the other assumption. If that were the case, you would be— would you not?—voting for the government's measures to save expenditure. We have now heard five questions of `Why doesn't the government spend more?', followed by a question of `Why don't you have a larger surplus?' Why didn't we think of this—spending more and producing a bigger surplus! We had five years of this, remember. You were against every expense saving, you were against exemption measures, you were in favour of budget surpluses—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari!CT4Mr COSTELLO—and you went down to the Fabian Society—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari is warned!CT4Mr COSTELLO—which Bob was remembering operates as a wolf in sheep's clothing. He went down to the Fabian Society and said, `The public did not trust us on economic policy.' Is it a wonder that the public does not trust them on economic policy! I think the public have figured the Labor Party out—they figured them out over five years, and we hope they will figure it out over another three.236714:59:002367Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Will the minister inform the House of measures announced in Tuesday's budget that will encourage the further development of Australian industry and jobs? Minister, what alternative policies exist in this area?2367Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—I thank the member for Boothby who, by not only his actions but also by his results—Opposition members interjecting—WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—has demonstrated what an excellent advocate he is—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I remind members on my left that this would be a very inopportune time for the Speaker to have to exercise the standing orders and remove anybody for 24 hours. The minister has the call.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—What an excellent member the member for Boothby is in support of industry and jobs in his electorate.84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned!WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—The budget contained funding for a number of job and nation building projects in Australia, and constituents of the member for Boothby certainly welcomed the acceptance by Mitsubishi of the $35 million investment incentive to secure Mitsubishi's new R&D centre in Adelaide. That investment represents only part of the $700 million investment by Mitsubishi and supports some 4,000 jobs, both new and old. Mitsubishi estimates, in fact, that there will be 1,300 additional employees to be taken on as a result of this latest investment. The investment by Mitsubishi and the government also provides added security to the component and other service suppliers.On top of the investment in Mitsubishi, the budget also confirmed an investment of some $125 million in support of Rio Tinto and its development of HIsmelt technology in Kwinana in Western Australia. Not only will that obviously provide jobs in the development of that facility—a $1.2 billion investment by Rio Tinto—but it also offers the opportunity for that technology to be proliferated around the world, bringing Australia both royalties and, of course, extra sales for iron ore and coal. As well, there is the $1 billion synthesis gas and methanol plant development on the Burrup Peninsula in Western Australia. I am sure that is welcomed by its hairless member! In terms of that development, the federal government contributed a further $85 million. One thousand people will be employed in the construction of that project and 150 permanent full-time jobs will come as a result of it. In the words of Access Economics senior economist, David Rumbens:Boom times appear to be on the way for business investment in Australia.I could not agree more. The government, in its budget measures—I see the member for Hunter has rejoined us; he will be interested in some of these points, which he missed on budget night—put $44 million into Invest Australia, $8.5 million into Geoscience to continue the research and development program for oil exploration, some $6.1 million into a national offshore safety authority and, as the member for Hunter quite rightly called for, a new depreciation regime for the Australian petroleum industry, which, as the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association said yesterday:... opened the door for a multimillion-dollar increase in domestic energy projects.The Howard government has provided a stable and secure environment through responsible and strong economic management, with low interest rates, low inflation and solid growth. Are there any alternative policies? I am not aware of them. I know that in November last year the member for Rankin said:I am looking forward to a genuine contest on ideas and policies.Well, I am still waiting.236815:04:002368Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it is in relation to Labor's opposition to the government's measures in relation to prescriptions and disabilities. I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the following comments:All that the opposition is doing on this occasion is doing what oppositions almost for time immemorial have done in the Senate, and that is to exercise their right to vote against particular measures. ... We have resisted the attempt by the government to unfairly categorise what we are doing as an attempt to wreck the government's budget. All we are doing is voting against measures that your Prime Minister should have told us about six months ago, but he did not tell us about.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 142, ministers are required to respond to questions about matters within their portfolio responsibility. No minister here is responsible for Labor's opposition to this budget, and no minister ought to be required to give a rationale for it.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition had a lengthier preamble than would normally be allowed; he had framed it in the form of a question to the Prime Minister. It is not unusual for questions to start with a quote, and for that reason I had not interrupted him. It is, however, for the information of members asking questions, a longer preamble—as he is aware—than would normally be allowed. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.DT4Mr CREAN—I will conclude the quote:We would not be voting against these measures if your Prime Minister had been honest with the Australian people.Prime Minister, do you agree with these comments and, if not, why not?2368Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—If my memory serves me correctly, I may have said something closely resembling that.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Opportunist!2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Opportunist!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that if I had not said something like that after the 1993 election, I should have. Let me take the Leader of the Opposition down memory lane on this subject. Let me take him back to the circumstances of the 1993 election. We remember the 1993 election. For the benefit of some of the newer members of this House—I know that they were actively following political affairs at that time—the 1993 election was fought on the issue of reform of the Australian taxation system. Despite the then Prime Minister and former Treasurer, Mr Keating, having been a champion—with my support, I might say, from opposition at the time, in the 1980s—and I might remind the House while we are talking about opportunism—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call. The member for Wills! There are a number of members on my left who clearly would like to leave the chamber, and I will accommodate them.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have to say that I did not realise that the Leader of the Opposition would be so generous at question time.2V5Swan, Wayne, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I might remind the House that, at the tax summit in the 1980s, the then Treasurer, Mr Keating, had no stronger supporter in relation to some of his proposals for tax reform than his then opposite number in the opposition. But in 1993, that election was fought overwhelmingly on the issue of taxation reform. Every campaign utterance, every scare tactic, every misrepresentation of the Labor Party in that election campaign was about how villainous, unconscionable, wicked and absolutely morally bankrupt it would be of any government to introduce a broad based indirect tax. They ran around the country saying that it should never be introduced, yet, without so much as the tiniest warning during the election campaign, when the Keating government was re-elected, within a few months they systematically dismantled—4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—`Never, ever'!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Banks is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—just about every single election commitment they had made. They dishonoured commitments they had made to pensioners and they increased, without any warning, the rates of indirect tax on petrol, on cigarettes and on alcohol. That is why we voted against those measures. There is absolutely no resemblance of any description between these circumstances and the circumstances that obtained there. I do not remember, during this last election campaign, the Treasurer or myself going around to the Australian people talking about l-a-w law tax cuts. The Leader of the Opposition knows that he is a cheapjack opportunist, and he belonged to a government that completely dishonoured the mandate it received in 1993.Opposition members interjecting—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari will excuse himself from the House.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Don't wait till he's 64; he's gone gaga!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Werriwa!IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Mr Speaker, could you just tell me why I have been asked to leave the House? I know you warned me earlier, but all I did was pull a face.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will presume that the member for Lingiari is not defying the chair and seeking to be named.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Not at all. I am seeking an explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will indicate to him then that, having been warned, he once again interjected and behaved in an unparliamentary manner and I require him to excuse himself from the House.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari! I call the member for Farrer.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Members on my right! The member for Farrer has the call and is being denied the call by the participation of some members of the frontbench.236915:11:002369Ley, Sussan, MPMs LEY00AMNFarrerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Would the minister advise the House how the Australian environment will benefit from the budget brought down on Tuesday night? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies for the environment?2369Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable member for Farrer for her question and I acknowledge her great support for the government's magnificent rescue plan for the Murray Darling Basin. This is the greenest budget ever delivered, by the greenest government in Australian history. No government has done more to invest in putting the Australian environment on a sustainable basis. This is reflected in the fact that, in the next year, the government will be investing a record $1.8 billion in the environment, an increase of almost $200 million over the previous year.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Sydney!BT4Dr KEMP—This is a budget which delivers in full on the government's election commitments to pour another $1 billion into the Natural Heritage Trust, and the Commonwealth share of the $1.4 billion National Action Plan on Salinity and Water Quality. I am asked if I am aware of any alternative policies. I am aware of comment on this extraordinary environmental budget by the shadow minister for the environment, who should probably be known as the shadow minister for mistakes, because he would have to be holding the record for the most incompetent series of press releases that we have ever seen. He is a former shadow assistant Treasurer and yet it appears he cannot even read the budget papers. In his press release yesterday, snuck out during question time so that it would not get examined yesterday, he said that funding for biodiversity had been cut by $67 million in the budget. In fact it has been increased by $25 million. He said that funding for national parks had been cut. In fact it has been increased by $7 million. He said that funding for the Greenhouse Office had been cut, when in fact its expenditure will increase from $95 million in the current year to $113 million next year—a 20 per cent increase.You have to ask the question: did he get these figures wrong on purpose or was it just sheer incompetence and stupidity? He complains that the national action plan has been delayed, but who delayed the expenditure on the national action plan? It was the Labor Party governments in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia which refused to sign up to the national action plan and put politics ahead of the environment before the federal election. It is only since the federal election that they have come good and actually started to cooperate in addressing these serious problems of salinity.This budget is one that puts in place the strongest environmental programs ever, to put Australia on a sustainable basis. We will be spending over $103 million next year on the vital work of ensuring the sustainable use of our waterways, coasts and oceans and the protection of areas of high conservation value, including the national coastal policy which we announced during the election campaign. We will be devoting $55 million to improving air quality in our cities and towns to encourage a better environmental performance from industry and further combat pollution from motor vehicles. We will be devoting $31 million to put the Great Barrier Reef on a sustainable basis.This budget delivers a record commitment by the Howard government. In fact, spending in the coming year will be 2½ times the level of spending on targeted environmental programs of the Labor Party in 1995-96. This budget once again confirms the government's historic commitment to placing Australia on a sustainable basis and to restoring an environment which is not just a national treasure but a global one.2370NaN:17:003Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00— My question is also to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, and it follows his Goebbels like answer to the last question.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Wills is inviting me to invite him to resume his seat. He will withdraw that statement and continue with his question.UK6Mr KELVIN THOMSON—Mr Speaker, I withdraw. Minister, why did the government spend less than half the money allocated to the National Action Plan on Salinity and Water Quality this year and why has it cut the national action plan's budget by $49 million next year and a further $52 million the year after? Isn't this money desperately needed to help solve our land clearing problems, to ensure environmental flows in the Murray-Darling Basin, to make projects such as the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline a reality and to improve water quality in towns and cities like Adelaide? Minister, why aren't you delivering these commitments `in full, on time and on budget' as promised?2370Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable member for his question. In addition to hiring a new statistician, an analyst of budget figures, he might care to get his hearing checked. The reason why the expenditure—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for Wills has asked his question.BT4Dr KEMP—on the national action plan was delayed was that your mates in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia chose to play shabby politics with the Australian environment. They refused to sign the bilateral agreements with the Commonwealth which they know are necessary to allow the funds to flow.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Wills!BT4Dr KEMP—They were prepared to continue to see salinity destroying our agricultural land. They were prepared to see the Murray-Darling Basin continue to be polluted without taking any action and taking advantage of the very generous offer of the Commonwealth to put some $700 million—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Wills!BT4Dr KEMP—into an action plan to restore the quality of water and to address salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin. It is quite clear that this shadow minister has no grasp of these issues. If the Victorian government is serious about the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline and not just making further rhetorical claims, it only has to do one very simple thing: it has to give it priority in its funding under the national action plan and the Natural Heritage Trust and it will be able to get money flowing into Victoria for that priority project.237115:20:002371Ticehurst, Kenneth, MPMr TICEHURST00ANFDobellLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, representing the Special Minister of State. Will the minister inform the House of attempts by the government to prevent electoral fraud and improve the integrity of the electoral roll? Minister, why are these reforms necessary and what obstacles exist that have stopped these reforms from being made?2371Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Dobell for his question. I am confident that the member for Dobell's margin would be greater if the electoral roll were truly fraud proof in this country. The integrity of the electoral roll is essential in any healthy democracy, but we know that the Australian electoral roll at present is far from fraud proof. We know because the Shepherdson inquiry last year gave numerous examples of senior Queensland Labor Party figures who had been frauding the electoral roll. We know because the Deputy Premier of Queensland resigned because he had frauded the electoral roll. We know that right now it is easier to go on the electoral roll than it is to sign up to the local video store.To try to bring about a better situation, this government last year tabled regulations in the Senate providing that new enrollees had to provide one piece of documentary ID— that is all—and have their applications signed by one other person. What could be more reasonable, what could be fairer, than that? The friends of democracy in Australia need to know that the Labor Party has ratted on them, because yesterday in the Senate the Labor Party successfully moved a disallowance motion to knock out the government's perfectly reasonable, fair and simple changes.This was a day of infamy for Australian democracy, and the Australian people need to understand that last year's party of rorters is this year's party of protectors of rorters. They need to understand that the Leader of the Opposition wants it to be easy to rort the electoral roll. They need to understand that the Labor Party is soft on rorts and soft on the causes of rorts.237115:23:002371Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it relates to the government's decision on the eve of the last election to provide $5 million to the royal college for what has now become known as `Wooldridge House' or `GP House'. Is the Prime Minister aware of the Auditor-General's report which has just been tabled in the Senate? Is the Prime Minister aware that at paragraphs 21, 22 and 24 of that report the Auditor-General makes the point that the decision taken by the government on the eve of the election to expend $5 million for the purpose of a building in Canberra was made expressly against the Department of Finance and Administration's advice? Does the Prime Minister recall that on 17 March he provided the Auditor-General with a copy of reports he had received from the department of finance? Why has the Prime Minister been sitting on that report and that information for two months? Why did the Prime Minister only tip out his views on GP House on budget eve and then table these reports in the aftermath of the budget? Why have you been hiding the reports and what else have you got to hide?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Perth has asked his question and will resume his seat.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Mr Speaker, could I draw your attention to the fact that question time is an occasion for the asking of questions and the eliciting of information, not for the making of speeches. I ask that the questioner be brought to order.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer may have been aware that I did, in fact, interrupt and require the member for Perth to resume his seat.2372Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I am aware of the Auditor-General's report. It is probably going to be tabled by your good self at the end of question time. My colleague will be tabling the two departmental reports which I have received and which, quite appropriately, I decided to have tabled at the time of the Auditor-General's report. I also draw the attention of the member for Perth to the fact that, when I became aware of this matter, I indicated some unhappiness with the fact that the decision had been taken.83QSchultz, Alby, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Hume is denying the Prime Minister the right to be heard!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I made it very clear then that the thing should be cancelled. It has been. The money has been fully reinstated.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—He's been caught out.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Nobody has been caught out. If that is the best the shadow minister can do—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I remind the Leader of the Opposition of his obligations in the House.ZD4Mr HOWARD—she is struggling rather hard.237215:26:002372Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Would the minister advise the House of the benefits Tuesday night's budget will bring to the veterans in our community?2372Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Ryan for his question. I know that he values and supports the veterans in his community, especially the veterans at the Kenmore-Moggill RSL and the Sherwood RSL sub-branches. I am grateful for the opportunity to explain and highlight the benefits and good news of the budget and how it provides for our veterans and our war widows. The seventh Howard government budget provides record funding of $9.2 billion for the veterans' affairs portfolio. Opposition members interjecting—VK6Mrs VALE—Yes, that is $9.2 billion—a record amount. It is up, in our veterans' affairs portfolio, from $8.9 billion last year. Since coming to government in 1996, the coalition has increased funding for the care, support and commemoration of our veterans and war widows by over 40 per cent. That is up from $6.2 billion to $9.2 billion. That is real care and commitment. Many members would appreciate that the vast proportion of veterans are approaching their elderly years and their health needs are becoming most pressing. In response, the Treasurer has announced in the budget the extension of comprehensive free health care through the gold card to all Australian Defence Force veterans over the age of 70 with qualifying service. This is full, comprehensive, free health care for life. As of 1 July, this is good news for 4,000 veterans who will immediately become eligible for the gold card. This will be the first time some of those veterans have received government benefits in recognition of their war service. These are veterans from the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency, the Far East Strategic Reserve, the Indonesian Confrontation and the Vietnam War.Importantly, this initiative takes a caring, long-term view, providing to these veterans, as they reach the age of 70, automatic access to the gold card for service in the Gulf War, in East Timor and in the international coalition war against terrorism. This measure will ensure that these veterans, when they reach their 70th birthday, will have the security of knowing that they have access for the rest of their lives to comprehensive health care when they most need it.This is also good news for our war widows. This shows great respect to our war widows because this government has addressed the injustice that was bestowed on our war widows by the former Labor government. In 1986, they froze the income support supplement. The income support supplement provides financial assistance for our war widows who need it most when they have limited means to support themselves. In 2002, the budget removed the Labor freeze—83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: this is definitely a ministerial statement.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will resume her seat. The minister was asked a question and is responding to the question.VK6Mrs VALE—This is an opportunity to explain a very important budget measure. In September 2002, our budget will remove the Labor Party freeze. This will enable the future indexation of our income support supplement by the same measures as our service pensions. This initiative will provide an additional benefit of $84.7 million over four years to Australia's war widows. Like the previous Howard government budget measure which restored war widows' pensions to those who had remarried before 1984, this initiative will end a longstanding iniquity against our war widows. Also, this government is committed to providing long-term fair compensation and health care to our veterans and war widows. Once again, the coalition has extended entitlements to these special Australians. We will continue to address the anomalies and the cold-hearted indifference of the Labor Party. This is a good news budget, this is a caring budget, and it pays respect to our veterans and war widows. It was promised by the Howard coalition government and it has delivered in spades.237315:31:002373Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00— My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall his comments in the House yesterday to the effect that the Roads to Recovery program will one day be delivered in full? Deputy Prime Minister, are you aware that the President of the Queensland Local Government Association, Councillor Playford, does not believe you and said the following:We simply don't accept that we are going to get the money back in two years time ... We just don't believe the government, given its track record of deceit and broken promises.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman will come to his question.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—Deputy Prime Minister, why did you let the Treasurer dud you on local roads and trash your credibility with local government and regional communities? Deputy Prime Minister, why isn't the government delivering these commitments `in full, on time and on budget' as promised?2373Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I was aware of those comments by Mr Playford. I rang him and said that I understood that he felt that the program was extraordinarily important—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I appreciate that the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Foreign Affairs is good natured, but it is doing nothing to assist the Deputy Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition should not try his luck. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call and is to be heard in silence.4K4Mr ANDERSON—As I indicated, I am aware of those very strong comments from the aforesaid gentleman and, accordingly, I rang him and I assured him that I understood that he was very concerned to see Roads to Recovery continue, as it will. It will be delivered—a $1.2 billion package over four years. I felt it necessary to remind some people in local government that this is a very worthwhile program and that, whilst they have had to adjust to a modest rephasing of our program, as some people in this place would have liked to have seen a change of government last November, they would have been adjusting to the total abolition of the program.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—That's a lie.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: I ask the member for Batman to withdraw that reflection on the Deputy Prime Minister.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—It is a statement of fact: he told a lie to the House.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman will withdraw that statement. He knows it is unparliamentary.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I withdraw the statement. It is an untruth to suggest to the House that we were going to abolish the Roads to Recovery program. He should learn to tell the truth.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I ask the member for Batman to withdraw without qualification the statement he made earlier about the Deputy Prime Minister.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I withdraw, but I also ask you to—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman will resume his seat or run the risk of not being here for the budget address-in-reply.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: I seek guidance from you, as it is your responsibility to protect members of this House. How can we endeavour to ensure that the government in question time starts to tell the truth? Day after day, they come in and tell deliberate lies—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman will resume his seat. The member for Batman knows very well when he is skating on thin ice. The member for Batman also knows, since he has been here long enough and has witnessed sufficient occasions, that anyone who feels they have been misrepresented in any way is given the opportunity at the conclusion of question time to indicate where they have been misrepresented—a facility that is about to be extended to the Leader of the Opposition.Personal Explanations237415:37:002374Mr CREAN,MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?DT4Mr CREAN,MPMr CREAN—I do.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.DT4Mr CREAN,MPMr CREAN—I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Employment Services. In an answer in question time today he indicated that whilst I was the Minister for Employment, Education and Training the numbers of the long-term unemployed increased under my stewardship. The facts are these: when I became employment minister, the number of long-term unemployed was 309,400. When I left that position the number of long-term unemployed had dropped to 198,000. When I became the minister they were 35.2 per cent of total unemployment. When I left office, they were 26.9 per cent. The figure for long-term unemployed is still at 26 per cent. In two years—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—He lied to the House.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lyons! The member for Batman.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPLS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Sit down; I've got the call. Learn some manners.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman and the Leader of the House will resume their seats.Documents2374237410000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 50 of 2001-2002, entitled A preliminary examination into the allocation of grant funding for the co-location of national general practice organisations.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I thought I had the call.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman will resume his seat or he runs the risk of being named.Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.39 p.m.)—I move:That the report be printed.15:39:002375Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I strongly believe that this report should be printed so that more people know about the scandal of the highest order—Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.39 p.m.)—I move:That the question be now put.Question put.15:43:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, 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.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.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. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.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.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.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.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.Worth, P.M.61Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.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.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Kelly, J.M.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion agreed to.Ordered that the report be printed.15:49:002375Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Perth from moving forthwith a motion that the House notes that the Auditor-General's report, just ordered to be printed, discloses the following serious findings:(1) The Government's decision, on the eve of the election, to fund $5 million for a building in Canberra by taking $1 million from asthma programs and $4 million from rural and regional health programs was taken against the express advice of the Department of Finance.(2) The Prime Minister provided such advice to that effect from the Department of Finance to the Auditor-General on 17 March, two months ago.The government has been caught out and it has covered up. This is a scandal of the highest order. They have been caught out—Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.50 p.m.)—I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put.15:54:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, 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.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.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. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.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.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.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.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.Worth, P.M.61Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.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.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Kelly, J.M.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion agreed to.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?15:59:002377Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALPManager of Opposition Business00—I second the motion. Another scandal, another cover up—Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.59 p.m.)—I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put.16:01:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, 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.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.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. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.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.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.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.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.Worth, P.M.61Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.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.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Kelly, J.M.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion agreed to.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Stephen Smith's) be agreed to.16:03:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 61Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.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.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Windsor, A.H.C.Zahra, C.J.75Abbott, 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.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.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. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.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.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.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.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.Worth, P.M.Burke, A.E.Kelly, J.M.* denotes tellerQuestion negatived.Documents2378Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (4.10 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. Adjournment2378Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (4.11 p.m.)—I move:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 27 May, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour for the meeting.Question agreed to.Questions to the Speaker2378237816:11:002378Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is in relation to—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I interrupt the member for Werriwa to say that this is unusual, but I grant him the indulgence necessary to ask me a question because of the events that preceded my calling on the tabling of papers.K26Mr LATHAM—I understand that, Mr Speaker. Unhappily, there has been another incident at the Holy Grail, where the member for Sturt muscled up against a cartoonist. I think he thought he was fighting Daffy Duck! The last time this occurred—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat!EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to you and to the member opposite, this is an abuse of the indulgence that you granted him.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have not denied the member for Werriwa the call. I expect him, of course, to exercise the sort of courtesy that ought to go with the indulgence being extended to him. And I must say that he is going perilously close to being sat down because I cannot see where this exercise is going.K26Mr LATHAM—The last time this matter was raised, you undertook to examine the security tapes from this particular establishment and to report back to the House. Could you do the same on this occasion? If no French movie is involved and if it passes the clearance of the member for Makin, could you report back to the House on this issue?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat!Miscellaneous237916:12:002379SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—While I have the attention of the member for Werriwa, I point out to him and to the House that comments he made in the House yesterday during the debate on matters of public importance—see page 2167 of the Hansard— have just been drawn to my attention. I have consulted the Second Deputy Speaker, who is affronted, as I am, by those remarks. I require the member for Werriwa to unconditionally withdraw the sentence that I have indicated in this Hansard article, or I will take action against him. I want to indicate this to him so that he can have a look at the point that I have underlined and then report back to me.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: in relation to the question that the member for Werriwa raised about the Holy Grail, you have not responded to him, and that question was asked prior to the matter that you have raised. I take it very seriously. It is not a frivolous matter.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat! He is perfectly right; I have not responded to the member for Werriwa. Because I know nothing of the background of this event, nor do I think the House ought to be dealing with it at this stage, it is my intent to speak to the member for Sturt and to the member for Werriwa and then take whatever action is appropriate. I invite the member for Werriwa to familiarise himself with this Hansard that I have and then take action as I have required, please. The member for Werriwa may take the Hansard from me.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I know the matter that you are referring to. Are you familiar with the way in which the Treasurer described himself? It is in similar terms.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will take a look at the points I have underlined in the Hansard, and he will understand what I am talking about.Personal Explanations237916:15:002379Mr MARTIN FERGUSON,AM, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON,AM, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Most grievously on two occasions.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON,AM, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—In question time today and yesterday the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister stated with respect to the Roads to Recovery program that the opposition had refused to this point in time to commit itself to the program. I remind you, firstly, that the opposition gave a commitment in the lead-up to the last election to support the program. I also remind you that Hansard clearly shows that I, as the shadow minister, gave the opposition's support to the program. Having clarified the record and put that issue beyond any doubt, I seek an indication from you as to what action I should take if the Minister for Transport and Regional Services makes the same unfounded accusation in the House again in question time in the future.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—As the member for Batman is aware, this is always a problem for the chair. The House provides the facility for any member who has been misrepresented to put on the public record where that misrepresentation has occurred. As I have indicated in previous comments from this chair, I do not believe that misrepresentations should be put forward repetitiously. But, as the member for Batman and every member must appreciate, the chair also has a difficulty in that it cannot simply deny members the right to make what they believe to be well-founded accusations. On those grounds I indicate that everyone has the right to correct any misrepresentation that may occur, as we have had illustrated, and everyone also has the right to be as honest as they can in their assessment of the accusations made by other members.LS4Mr MARTIN FERGUSON,AM, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Mr Speaker, in accordance with your endeavour to facilitate the operation of the House and to avoid this problem in the future, I request that you write to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, drawing his attention to my explanation and asking him to refrain from misrepresenting my position in the future with respect to the Roads to Recovery program.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will consider the matter raised by the member for Batman. I am not in the habit of telling him one thing and doing another, as he knows; so I am not pledging myself to write that letter. I will consider what he has raised and the implications of it for other issues, should they be raised, and report back to him.16:18:002380McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00— Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Twice, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I have been misrepresented yesterday by the Prime Minister and today by the Treasurer and both these misrepresentations relate to the question of the $3 billion accrual deficit in this year's budget. The Prime Minister yesterday in answer to a question alleged that I had suggested that the $3 billion was a deterioration from the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and in some way thought, on advice from the Treasurer, that he was answering my question. In fact I made no such allegation. What I had alleged was that revenue had increased since the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook on an accruals basis; the budget papers confirm that. Today, the Treasurer suggested that I was wrong in suggesting that the $3 billion budget deficit would have an upward pressure on interest rates because the deficit was even worse in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The point that I was making—which he has reinforced—was that in fact the upward pressure on interest rates has been going for even longer than I alleged.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser is now advancing an argument and will resume his seat.Questions to the Speaker2380238016:19:002380Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance because I seek to ask you a question and I am not sure whether that is available to me at the moment.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—This is an unusual sequence of events but, because an opportunity for questions did not exist earlier, I will extend that indulgence to you.XS4Dr LAWRENCE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that this morning we had a number of visitors to the parliament, several of whom had disabilities which necessitated them using the lifts from the car park at the front of the building. As visitors they expected to be able to use the lifts, and several of them were put in a situation of great embarrassment because of the lift being out of order. I ask you to attend to that; it is not the first time it has happened. In addition, I draw your attention to the difficulty many people have when they come here in not being able to find the lift in the first place, as it is not well marked. I seek your attention to those matters.2380SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Fremantle for drawing that to my attention. As she will be aware, I was unaware that the lift was out of order. Consistent with what has been the practice of the engineering division, I know every effort would have been made to get it back into order as quickly as possible. The matter of signage, as she rightly points out, ought to be at least investigated.238116:20:002381Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Mr Speaker, I too seek your indulgence as the question is directed to you. Prior to the divisions that have just occurred in the House, the member for Batman had raised at the end of question time—and you had asked him to withdraw— a concern regarding the Deputy Prime Minister. Following that, the Leader of the House rose in this House, did not get the call and continued to talk while his microphone was not switched on. No-one could hear what he said. You did take action after you heard his statement. I would like to know what is going to be reported in Hansard; Hansard could not hear what he said. There was no-one in this House other than yourself, Mr Speaker, who would have heard the words uttered by the Leader of the House during the debate that went on between him, the member for Batman and you over the action that was taken over the untruths that were purported to have been said by the Deputy Prime Minister. I raise it with you because I am concerned about that.2381SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—With great respect to the member for Prospect, if my memory serves me well, I too was concerned that both the member for Batman and the Leader of the House were attempting to get my attention at once, engaging in debate with each other and ignoring my call; and so I effectively ignored them both. I expect that nothing that either of them said will make its way into Hansard. If the Hansard proves to be in error, I will take it up with the member for Prospect but I have a clear conscience that what I did was equally disadvantageous to both.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—I appreciate what you have just said, but it was quite clear: the member for Batman had resumed his seat. I am not playing politics here. The Leader of the House was on his feet, speaking for a number of seconds, you then nodded to him and then stated to the member for Batman what he should or should not do. That was not heard throughout this House and it will be very difficult for us, when we go to read Hansard tomorrow, to see what should or should not have been said or what would have been added to or subtracted from. I do take on board what you have said, Mr Speaker, but I would repeat, for the benefit of Hansard and all members of this House, that no comments should go there that all of us have not shared in.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will just point out to the member for Prospect that a genuine effort was made to be perfectly even-handed in the action, and I doubt that—VU5Griffin, Alan, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Bruce may discover there is a very large problem if he thinks interjecting is in order.Miscellaneous238116:23:002381Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Speaker, I have examined the passage in question. I am working on the assumption that the Treasurer does not take exception to a description he applied to himself in the media.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Can I interrupt the member for Werriwa to point out this is not a matter that has been raised with me by the Treasurer; it is a matter that was brought to my attention and that I then raised with the Deputy Speaker. It is language that I personally find offensive. I would not tolerate it being used in the House. I do not intend to have it on any record of the House while I am in the chair. Any quote used by the member for Werriwa is, of course, in order but it is the latter part that was not part of that quote, as he is aware.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—In deference to you, sir, I apologise.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—And I would ask that it be expunged from the Hansard record.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I have withdrawn and apologised in deference to you—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Yes, and I have indicated to you—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—but in deference to me, Mr Speaker, could I respectfully submit that that will leave me saying a very funny thing but only halfway through. There are going to be a lot of upset people.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat. I have dealt with this matter.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—It is a bit—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat or I will deal with him! I have indicated what my intention is.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, the member has withdrawn. Can I just ask you to reflect over the break about your ruling on expunging it from the record. I am sure it has many more implications. I can understand why you are keen to do that but I am not sure that that is necessarily a procedure that should be adopted. I am not saying that it should not be adopted either, but I think it does have ramifications that perhaps on reflection we might all want to think about.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Out of respect for the member for Lilley, I will consider the wisdom of that action, but I note that he too endorses my indignation that such language was used in the parliament.Matters of Public Importance2382238210000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Perth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The adverse consequences of the Government's unfair proposal to increase the cost of essential medicines by almost 30% for the sickest and the poorest in the Australian community.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—16:26:002382Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—If the government is such a good economic manager, why does it hit the sickest and the poorest with a 30 per cent increase in the cost of their essential medicines—three times the rate of the GST? It is unfair: it hits pensioners and concession cardholders and it hits families under financial pressure. This measure hits the sickest, the poorest and the oldest. It hits the sickest and the poorest hardest. It is unfair, it is unjust and it will be opposed by us in this place and in the Senate. The measure needs to be outlined to the House in detail so that the full scale of the government's attack on pensioners and families under financial pressure can be appreciated.The government's proposal means that families will now pay $28.60 for each prescription—up $6.20 per script—up to a total of $190 extra each year for their essential medicines. Pensioners and other cardholders will now pay $4.60 for each prescription— up $1 per script—up to a total of $52 a year more for their essential medicines. What that means for at least one million pensioners and cardholders is that they will pay the maximum and be $52 a year worse off. What it means is that 300,000 Australians in families will pay the maximum $190 at the non-concessional rate. So it is a 30 per cent increase in the cost of essential medicines— three times the rate of the GST.When you add these together with the cost of the increases to the co-payment that the government introduced in the 1996 budget, that is a rise of 70 per cent in the cost of essential medicines for pensioners, cardholders and families under financial pressure since this government came to office. When you look at the failure of the government to increase the pensioners pharmaceutical allowance, from 1 August this year pensioners will be $88.40 worse off each year compared to where they were in 1996. It is an unjust measure; it is unfair; it hits the sickest and the poorest and elderly people hardest. It hits families under financial pressure very hard indeed. Everyone knows that if you have more than one child generally children get sick together. Now the costs of scripts for families under financial pressure, if two children in the family are sick at the same time, will be effectively $60 and if three are sick at the same time it will be $90—a huge burden on families under financial pressure.How do the Treasurer and the Prime Minister respond to such a burden on pensioners and families? On radio yesterday the Treasurer said that the `change for pensioners is one dollar—we are not hitting pensioners'. So, as far as the Treasurer is concerned, he is so out of touch that he deems that a one dollar a week increase—$52 per year—for one million pensioners is not hitting pensioners. He also asserts that you do not hit Australian families under financial pressure. There are 300,000 Australians in families who will be hit by the maximum increase of about $190 per year.The government's justification for such a massive increase in the cost of essential medicines is twofold: firstly, that steps are needed to maintain and sustain the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; and, secondly, that steps are needed on the basis of the Intergenerational Report tabled with the budget. The truth is that this measure is no more nor no less than a measure designed to rescue the government's deficit. This is a measure which hits the sickest and the poorest hardest and it is designed simply to shore up Peter Costello's and John Howard's budget bottom line.The reason they are embarking on this measure has nothing to do with health policy; it has everything to do with the fact that in the run-up to the election the government splurged a budget surplus. Three or four years ago, the Treasurer stood in this place and said that on Tuesday night the budget surplus would be $14.6 billion. However, in the run-up to the election, they were prepared to do anything, say anything, spend on anything to save their political skins and get themselves re-elected. It is one story on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme before the election and another story after. What is the truth? The truth is that this has nothing to do with the sustainability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, it has nothing to do with the Intergenerational Report and it has everything to do with rescuing the government's deficit. They will slug the sickest and the poorest to do that.Let me make some remarks about the sustainability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We heard nothing from the government in the run-up to the election that suggested that, to them, cost or sustainability of the scheme was an issue. In June 2000, the spokesperson for the former minister for health Michael Wooldridge said:It is simply not true to suggest that cost is the overriding factor.The former health minister himself, Dr Wooldridge, in this place on 7 February 2001, when asked about the increased cost of Celebrex, the arthritis drug, said:Had we taken the advice of the PBAC ... the drug would never have been listed. The fact that it is costing money means that many more consumers are benefiting from the drug.So there was no talk about the cost of the scheme before the election. I put to the Prime Minister today Dr Wooldridge's comments on the Meet the Press program in June last year, where Dr Wooldridge made the point that the growth in cost was, in the year he was referring to, about 13 per cent, and that that was sustainable—$4.42 billion in a financial year and the scheme was still sustainable. So there were no worries about cost before, no worries about a lack of sustainability in the run-up to the election. On the contrary, what did the government do so far as the scheme was concerned? It listed Celebrex without cost controls against the recommendation of the expert committee, it listed Zyban and it botched the Treasurer's quarter billion dollar GST transition budget bungle. So when you look at the last financial year—the financial year in the run-up to the election—what is the analysis? The analysis of the growth in the PBS—the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—over the last decade and the six or seven years on the government's watch is an average annual increase in the order of 10, 11 or 12 per cent. In the financial year in the year running up to the election, the cost was 20 per cent, and that was essentially coming from measures of the government's own making: the listing of Celebrex, the listing of Zyban, the loss to the budget because of the so-called quarter billion dollar Treasurer's budget bungle and the introduction by the government itself of more concession cardholders to the scheme. When you take out those factors, the most recent data we have available and from the industry suggests that this year we will be looking at an increase in the order of 12, 13 or 14 per cent.With regard to the government's justification that the scheme is not sustainable, we had none of that before the election. With regard to the government's other justification that, in the last financial year, there was exponential growth, it is all of their own work and, on the most recent data available to us, this year it has gone back to the average annual increase. It is an entirely separate question as to whether, in the next 50 years, an average annual increase in the order of 10 per cent renders the scheme sustainable or not, but there is a whole range of things that you can do to address that which do not require whacking or slugging pensioners or whacking or slugging families under financial pressure for the cost of their essential medicines.It is possible to ensure that over the next 50 years the hallmarks of the scheme for the last 50 years remain true. It is possible to have a scheme where Australian consumers get access to the best medicines at affordable prices and where we continue to have, because of the basis of the scheme, a vibrant pharmaceutical research and manufacturing industry in Australia.When you look at the Intergenerational Report, the government has said that it is very important we make these changes—a small step—now, that it is very important we whack pensioners and families under pressure now, because in 2040 we will have this terrible problem. The Prime Minister today, when I put to him the attitude of his health minister in the six months before the election, said, `Oh, poor old Michael. He didn't have access to the Intergenerational Report.' The problem for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer is that the Intergenerational Report is neither new nor surprising. It is no wonder, given the measures in this budget so far as pharmaceuticals and disability pensions are concerned, that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister would like to have you looking at the horizon while, in the case of pharmaceuticals, every time you turn up to a chemist to get a prescription for your kids, Peter Costello has got his hand in your pocket. The Intergenerational Report on page 1 says:... if policies are not adjusted, the current generation of taxpayers is likely to impose a higher tax burden on the next generation. The required adjustment in taxes and spending is about 5.0 per cent of GDP by 2041-42 ...What a similar studies do we find or are we aware of? We know that in 1996 the government received the National Commission of Audit Report to the Commonwealth Government, which had a separate chapter dealing with this issue. We know that in 1998 the government was aware of the OECD report, Maintaining prosperity in an ageing society. We know that in 1999 there was the production of the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia. We know that in 2001 the OECD economics department did a working paper on fiscal implications for ageing, and we know that Australia is well placed, and better placed than most nations, to deal with this issue. So the issues raised by the Intergenerational Report, far from being hidden from the government in the last six months, are neither new nor surprising. Indeed, one of the key findings, in chapter 6 of the National Commission of Audit report, says this:Projections based on recent health cost trends and demographic change suggest public and private health expenditure will absorb 8.6 per cent more of GDP by the year 2041. Assuming that the current financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States and the current level of private funding are maintained, this implies an increase in Commonwealth outlays of around 3.9 per cent of GDP, an increase of almost $19b against current GDP.They had a report of a comparable nature in their hands six years ago. Why is it such a problem now? It is such a problem now because the government needed a distraction to get people to focus on looking down the track rather than on this measure to rescue their budget bottom line.There is a range of things that we can do to help ensure that the scheme remains sustainable in the long term. The Treasurer publicly—in the House yesterday and overnight, for example—likes to create the impression that our opposition to the increasing cost of the copayment, which will raise about $1.1 billion, also includes the $800 million worth of savings measures that the government announced in the budget. That is not the case. We support those measures at face value. We would like to have a look at the detail to ensure that the detail stacks up, but in general terms we are supportive of those measures. Why is that? Because those things do go to the long-term sustainability of the scheme. Indeed, in the last election we had a range of policies in this area, some of which the government have taken up in the budget, in whole or in part, and some of which they have not. Some of the suggestions that are in the budget papers include the use of generic drugs where appropriate, stopping pharmaceutical fraud, improving the listing process for new medicines, providing better information and guidance to prescribing doctors and increasing the focus on evidence based medicine. All these things are sensible; all these things we support.We also suggested in the run-up to the last election and since then that, to avoid the difficulty the government got into so far as Zyban was concerned, where it cost the government an extra $70 million in the first five months, we have an increased focus on the cost and prescribing pattern of new drugs in the first year. We might want to think about including the full cost of the drug on the label of the medicines. We might want to think about tighter controls so far as direct consumer advertising is concerned and we can certainly look at greater scrutiny of industry marketing. These are sensible things that we can do to ensure the long-term sustainability of the scheme. It is possible to continue for the next 50 years what we have had for the last 50 years: a scheme configured by Chifley and implemented by Menzies where you have affordable drugs, the best and latest drugs available to Australians at affordable rates to the patient and the taxpayer; a scheme with which we will continue to have—unlike, for example, New Zealand—a vibrant pharmaceutical research and manufacturing industry which is involved in research and development here, which produces drugs and which also engages in export.But that is not what the government is on about. The government likes to use the Intergenerational Report as cover. It likes to use the sustainability of the scheme as cover. But what it is doing here has nothing to do with health; it has everything to do with crude cost-cutting measures. It has everything to do with the fact that, in the run-up to the election, the government would do anything, say anything, spend on anything to save its political skin. Now it will whack the sickest and the poorest, the weakest, the elderly and families under financial pressure. It will whack these people to rescue itself from a deficit of its own making, a deficit caused by a spending splurge when it would do anything, say anything to get itself re-elected. Now Australians who need affordable medicines for their children or for their sick parents are going to be whacked by three times the rate of the GST to cover its splurge. Even Peter Costello and John Howard accepted that a GST should not apply to medicines; now we find three times the rate of the GST applied to essential medicines, adding up to a 70 per cent increase in the cost of essential medicines for Australians since this government came to office. This is a brutal measure, and we will oppose it tooth and nail in this House and in the Senate.16:41:002385Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—May I say at the outset that I welcome the opportunity that is occasioned by this MPI to explain to the House and to the Australian public the government's commitment to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and also to indicate the measures that we believe are necessary to sustain the future of this scheme. But, before doing so, may I note that it pays to have a memory in politics. The honourable member for Perth in his contribution this afternoon spoke about the hallmarks of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme over the past 50 years; indeed, I noted that his words were `configured by Chifley and implemented by Menzies'. What, of course, the honourable member neglected to mention was the major change made to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by former Treasurer and Prime Minister Keating in 1990—a change which has many bearings on what we are addressing today. In Mr Keating's budget speech in 1990, the then Treasurer—subsequently the Prime Minister of this country for the Australian Labor Party—said this: The alternatives are stark: reconstruct the scheme so that it remains fair for everyone, or lose the scheme altogether, so that access to complete health care would only be available to the wealthy.What Mr Keating was speaking about then, and what the Labor government introduced, was a $2.50 payment, subsequently indexed, that concessional recipients under the scheme make. That $2.50 payment, due to measures over time and indexation, has subsequently been increased to $3.60. What is notable about it, in talking about the hallmarks of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS, is that this major change over a decade ago was introduced by the then Labor Party Treasurer, Mr Keating, in order to sustain the scheme. Either they made it continually affordable to Australian people or, in the words of Mr Keating, `access to complete health care would only be available to the wealthy'.It is worth noting that two of the leading senior advisers to Paul Keating and that government in 1990 were none other than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition now, Ms Macklin, and the speaker before me in this debate, the member for Perth, Mr Smith. So a memory is worth while having in politics, because the change in terms of asking for a concessional payment is something which the Australian Labor Party itself brought in over a decade ago in order to sustain the scheme. And that is what this government's measure is about. As I said, the government is committed to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is a good scheme, but we need to make it sustainable.We cannot simply ignore, as the member for Perth would have it this afternoon, what is happening to the population of Australia. Currently there are some 12 per cent—some 2½ million Australians—who are over the age of 65 years. We know from all the demographic trends that in another 20 years there will be 18 per cent of the population over the age of 65—more than four million Australians. We also know that at the present time the fastest growing cohort in the Australian population is that group of people aged 80 and over. So these trends in terms of the Australian demographics are trends which we must take account of now. We must put in place programs and policies which will run in parallel with those trends, otherwise we are doing a disservice to the future of this country and to future Australians and, frankly, we would be acting irresponsibly. That is the choice we have got. We have got a choice of taking some small but essential measures at this stage to ensure that something as beneficial to the Australian people as the PBS can continue to operate as it has operated over past years. That is why this government is about ensuring that Australians have access to medications.The honourable member says that we could be doing some other things. I remind him that we are: there is a crackdown on overprescribing and doctor shopping, and we are encouraging the use of generic medicines. But the reality is, as the Treasurer's Intergenerational Report indicated in the budget papers, that we are looking at a blow-out over 40 years to a cost of some $60 billion in the PBS by 2041 in today's dollar prices if we do not do something about it. That is the stark reality we face. And I ask: do the Australian people want a government who is prepared to actually address the issues as we face them or one which simply wants to be opportunistic and run away from it?What are the measures which we are introducing with this particular requirement? What we are suggesting is that we will increase the amount which concessional receivers of the PBS pay for a script from $3.60 to $4.60 and that we will cap this—we will maintain the safety net—so that the maximum increase that those people will be required to pay if they use a large number of prescriptions is an extra $1 per week and that for those who are not concessional receivers of pharmaceuticals under this scheme the copayment would rise from $22.40 to $28.60.Let us put that in the context of the actual cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, taking the list of the 10 highest costing drugs as at 31 December 2001 on the scheme. Lipex or Zocor for cholesterol actually cost $282 million. The government's contribution to that is $251 million. To put it another way, the average price of this drug any time it is prescribed is $60.86. We are asking a concession card holder to pay $4.60 for a $60.86 drug, on average. Take the next drug on the list, Lipitor, again commonly used for high cholesterol: the total cost to prescribe this drug to people in the Australian population in the year to 31 December 2001 was $292 million. The government's contribution to that $292 million was $250 million. The cost of a prescription for Lipitor is $59.71. And what the honourable member for Perth is complaining about is that we are asking concession card holders to pay $4.60 for a drug that costs $59.71 and into the bargain we are putting in a safety net so that there is a maximum additional cost to them of no more than $1 per week over and above what they pay now. Take Losec for peptic ulcers: the total cost was $185 million, and $162 million was paid by the taxpayers of Australia. The total cost per prescription was $64.14. Again we are asking for $4.60—$4.60 to ensure that we have a scheme which can continue to pay for these drugs which cost large amounts of money.Let us look at the next couple on the scheme. Celebrex, which is commonly used these days for arthritis, had a total cost of $167 million and the taxpayer paid $142 million of that total. Again, the cost per prescription was $46.92 and the cost to a concession card holder was $4.60. A drug for schizophrenia had a total cost of $121 million, of which the taxpayer paid $118 million. The cost per script was $219.18. Again we are asking for $4.60 from a concession card holder and $28.60 from someone who is not a concession card holder. I could go on through this list.I raise those specific instances to illustrate the nature of what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a huge amount of taxpayers' money which is going to subsidise and undergird the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In 1990 it was so important for Mr Keating as the then Treasurer to first introduce the copayment. Prior to that there was no payment whatsoever for those who are ranked concessional now. Mr Keating said in 1990, `It is important for the sustainability of the PBS that we introduce a copayment of $2.50.' The honourable member talks about a 30 per cent increase from $3.60 to $4.60. He did not give us what the percentage increase from nought to $2.50 was. We can play around with statistics and proportions like that all we like, but that is the reality of what they did.What was the cost in terms of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme when Mr Keating, then Treasurer, introduced those changes back in 1990? The total cost to the taxpayer of the scheme in 1990 was $1.1 billion. Today, over a decade later, we are talking about a cost of $4.8 billion. There has been a substantial increase—a quadrupling—of the cost essentially and largely to the Australian taxpayer in the space of one decade. And what do we know about the future? We know two things for certain about the future. One is the ageing of the Australian population which I described earlier. It is inevitable: the demographic trends are set. It would not matter if we doubled the rate of immigration to Australia or somehow tripled the birthrate, we are not going to change the ageing of the population in Australia substantially in the next 20 to 30 years. That is a reality that we are facing in this country and a reality which we are asking the opposition to actually address, as we are attempting to address it in government.The other reality we know about the future is that major developments are occurring in relation to pharmaceuticals at the present time. We have the human genome project, which is identifying for the first time the entire genes of the human body. We have from that the promise and, indeed, the research which indicate that we in future will have medications based on the outcome of this genetic research. This genetic research is costing billions of dollars. Therefore, we can expect the new range of drugs, the future genomic drugs which are just around the corner, will cost hundreds and thousands of dollars. We, as a civilised nation and as a government concerned for the health and wellbeing of the Australian people, therefore wish to be able to provide the best range of drugs and medications that we can.For example, at the present time the PBS allows access to nearly 600 drugs available in 1,500 different forms and strengths under 2½ thousand brand names. Three hundred new drugs have been listed on the PBS since 1996, costing an extra $1.7 billion. We can expect in the future, with the research and developments which are occurring so far as medications and pharmaceuticals are concerned, that there will be a continued development of drugs and an increase in the costs in coming years.So if we combine the two factors of the inevitable ageing of the Australian population and the discoveries in terms of new medications, then the reality which we are facing—and I do not think that the opposition actually deny this, although they will not address the consequences of it—is increasing cost pressures on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. So a responsible government has got a choice about what it does. It can take measures, as we are doing, in order to ensure that the prescription of drugs by medical practitioners is undertaken in an adequate and proper manner. It can take measures, as we are doing, to ensure that where possible and appropriate the lowest priced drugs can actually be provided to people in need of those particular medications. But we also have to look at the overall cost that is involved in this scheme. If we wish to maintain the scheme and sustain it in an affordable way into the future, then it is necessary to ensure that it has got a proper footing and is undergirded in a proper way in terms of the future.In addition to that, this is a scheme of which 85 per cent of the users are pensioners and concession cardholders. In addition to what is already provided, the government provides some further concessions in relation to pensioners. There is a pharmaceutical allowance, for example, by which pensioners receive an allowance of $2.90 per week, $150.80 per year, to assist with their out-of-pocket expenses associated with the PBS. I welcome the opportunity for this debate, because it enables the government to explain our commitment to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and our commitment to ensure that it will remain affordable and sustainable into the future for the health and wellbeing of all Australians.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Bills2388The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Student Assistance Amendment Bill 2002Bills2388R14562388Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that the bill be considered forthwith.Bill agreed to.2388Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Ageing) (4.56 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills2388R15132388Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that the bill be considered forthwith.Bill agreed to.2388Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Ageing) (4.57 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Governor-General's Speech2388238816:58:002388Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)10000PON/A10—I suspend the sitting until 7.30 p.m. in order that the Speaker may present the address-in-reply to His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House. The Speaker will be glad if the mover and seconder, together with other honourable members, will accompany him to present the address.Sitting suspended from 4.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I inform the House that, accompanied by honourable members, I waited today upon His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House, and presented to him the address-in-reply to His Excellency's speech on the opening of the first session of the 40th Parliament, agreed to by the House on 21 March. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply:Mr Speaker,Thank you for your address-in-reply.It will be my pleasure and my duty to convey to Her Majesty The Queen the message of loyalty from the House of Representatives, to which the address gives expression.Bills2389R15402389Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Costello:That this bill be now read a second time.19:31:002389Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—Before I commence tonight, I just heard the sad news coming in that Alec Campbell died tonight aged 103. He was the last of the original Anzacs and our last living link with that Anzac tradition. I just want to say that we thank him, we honour him and our condolences go to his family.Honourable members—Hear, hear!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Tonight I want to do something different. The Australian people want to hear an alternative vision for this nation. I am offering one. As well as securing our nation's borders, we have to secure our nation's future. I want Australians to do what we did during the Second World War: Ben Chifley and John Curtin were able to win the war and plan for the future—let us do it again.I want Australians to be confident. I want a budget based on hope, not a budget that is frightened of the future. I want a budget that looks at the future as an opportunity, not just as a cost. I want modern Labor to be known for what we propose, not just what we oppose. Modern Labor's goal is simple: a strong economy for a fair society.I want a modern Australia. That is why I am determined to modernise Labor. A modern Labor for a modern Australia: a party of ideas, a party that listens to the whole community, a party with a plan to strengthen the nation, a party that will relieve the pressures on working families and a party that is true to the Labor ideal of a fair go for everyone.The Australian spirit of looking after the battler is disappearing under this government. Modern Labor will restore it and build opportunity for all. Tonight I want to tell you about new ideas to strengthen the nation and make life better for hardworking Australian families. Budgets are not just a balance sheet; budgets are about choices and how they impact on people.One choice governments have to make is about taxes. During the next parliament $6 billion per year will be raised in bracket creep. Labor wants to give some of it back through tax credits—Labor's tax cut for working families. Tax credits will take into account things like total family income and children when determining the amount of tax families pay. It is a tax cut tailored to the needs of each family. It is a tax cut that rewards work. Labor's policy means working families with children will pay less tax, boosting their take-home pay.I also want to protect 100 per cent of employee entitlements, because Australian families work hard and deserve every cent that they earn. Collapses like OneTel, HIH and Ansett have brought home to everyone the need to protect employee entitlements. Australians get very angry when they see company executives awarded multimillion dollar bonuses just before their company goes broke, robbing their employees of their accumulated sick leave, long service leave and holiday pay—their money. That is why Labor will guarantee every last cent of your entitlements. We will do it through an insurance scheme that will cost large companies only 0.1 per cent of payroll. Under Labor's plan small businesses will not have to pay. The government's plan only protects eight weeks of redundancy and lets rogue employers get away scot-free. It punishes loyal employees the most. Only Labor will protect your entitlements.Labor also have a plan to lift the burden of the BAS red tape on small businesses. We will replace the current complex procedures with one simple calculation based on business turnover. More time running the business or the farm; more time with the family.I am also committed to introducing paid maternity leave. For families to get ahead these days they usually need two incomes— to help them buy a house, pay off a mortgage and give their kids a decent education. Women especially must cope with the joint demands of work and family. Paid maternity leave, together with greater flexibility at work for mums and dads, will make it easier for families to keep those two incomes for as long as possible. That is why Labor will introduce paid maternity leave. We cannot understand why the government will not. Labor will make sure that small business does not bear the cost.I also have a plan to protect our children, because Australians worry about whether their children are safe. Earlier this year, following national controversy concerning the mishandling of child abuse allegations by the Governor-General, Peter Hollingworth, I promised to do something to address in a lasting way the problems of the victims of child sexual abuse. That is why I have a plan to make sure that our children are safer when they are under the care of others. I will insist on a national voice to help protect children and young people and to advise government on their needs. And I will insist on checks on everyone who works with kids, to ensure their good character.As part of the budget, the Treasurer has released his so-called Intergenerational Report. It painted a bleak picture of what would happen in 40 years time if the Treasurer's policies continue: lower economic growth, lower employment growth and lower productivity. The Treasurer's only answer, as our population ages in the future, is to cut health and aged care today. That is not a plan for the future; it is an excuse to destroy Medicare, it is a trick to end access to affordable medicines and it is a gimmick to make the Treasurer look like a visionary. Some vision!Labor has a better vision for the future of our nation, and it starts with raising productivity. I want a more productive work force to create more wealth so we can look after our parents and grandparents. Lifting productivity is a Labor goal. It is good for growth and it secures jobs and industries into the future. We must invest in the good ideas of our people because that is the path to wealth and opportunity. We must boost the education of all our children. That means better schools, better universities, better TAFE colleges and more apprenticeships. The Treasurer's budget rejected this productivity and education road to the future. The Treasurer wants to pay for the future by slugging Australians today, but I want to meet the challenges of the future by investing today.A vision for the future must also include a comprehensive population policy that sets targets so that we will have a work force capable of supporting the aged; a population policy which provides a viable future for South Australia, for Tasmania and for regional Australia and which takes the population pressure off Sydney.I believe in building a sustainable future by tackling long-term environmental problems like salinity and climate change. All Australians deserve to live in a healthy environment with clean air, clean water, safe food, healthy wildlife and plenty of green space for our kids to play in. Labor will achieve this by: halting land clearing and combating salinity; tackling climate change, ratifying the Kyoto protocol and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; protecting Australia's unique wildlife and world heritage areas like Kakadu, the Great Barrier Reef and the Tasmanian wilderness; and leading the world in environmental goods and services. With vision and leadership, Australians do not have to choose between a clean environment and a strong economy—we can have both.Another challenge facing Australia is how to make sure that everyone has enough money to retire on. The answer is superannuation. Prior to Labor spreading superannuation throughout the community, only the well-off enjoyed the luxury of a comfortable retirement. People should remember that the Treasurer fought to stop everyone getting access to superannuation.The budget contained what the Treasurer claimed was a plan to boost incentives to investment in superannuation. In truth, it is a plan to benefit the very well-off whilst leaving middle Australia with nothing. His proposal is to reduce the high-income superannuation tax surcharge for the richest three per cent of Australians. Labor has a better plan. Instead of a superannuation tax cut for the richest three per cent, we want to give everyone a superannuation tax cut. At the moment, the government imposes a 15 per cent tax on contributions made to superannuation funds. This reduces retirement income. I think a superannuation tax cut should go to reducing this burden on everyone, not just the top three per cent. How can it be fair for the Treasurer to vote himself tens of thousands of dollars when he retires but an average wage earner will receive nothing from his proposal? Labor will vote against his proposal.Our alternative propositions for the use of the money are these: we can redirect the money earmarked for the few into cutting the superannuation tax for all Australians from the present 15 per cent to 13 per cent; or we can cut the tax to 11½ per cent for people over 40 years of age—the age when most people start getting serious about planning for their retirement. The last option would mean a cut of more than 25 per cent in superannuation contributions tax. It would add many thousands of dollars to everyone's retirement income whilst still being economically responsible. It would be a powerful incentive for Australians to invest in their own future, helping us to cope with our future needs. It is a fairer alternative.I have concentrated tonight on the positive approach that the new-look Labor Party will bring to politics. Until we are the government, though, part of our job is to stop the things that we think are not in Australia's interests. Tuesday's budget is a cruel and unfair budget. It is a budget that gives us a deficit when the Treasurer guaranteed it would not. It is a budget that will push up interest rates and hurt ordinary Australian families; a budget that will hurt the poor, the sick and the elderly; a budget that will not reduce unemployment; and a budget that fails to plan for future generations. And it did not have to be this way.Elections are about trust. The Australian people trusted the Treasurer when he guaranteed that he would deliver a surplus, they trusted him when he guaranteed no new taxes to pay for the war on terror and they trusted him when he guaranteed that no one would lose their benefits. In Tuesday night's budget he betrayed their trust. Now we know that the budget is $3 billion in deficit—one story before the election and another story afterwards.Labor supports the war on terrorism and protecting our borders. We honour the men and women of the Australian defence forces who are providing outstanding service but we do not believe that securing our borders should make us feel insecure at home. This budget is not in deficit because of border protection or the war on terror. This year's deficit is $3 billion. The total new defence spending on the war on terrorism, border protection and domestic security is just $400 million this year. Tuesday's budget is in deficit because of the Treasurer's poor economic management.In the lead-up to the last election the government spent $20 billion of your money, jettisoning the surpluses for the next five years, to win an election. The budget is also in deficit because the Treasurer gambled on currency swaps and lost. He lost $5 billion of your money and now he wants you to pay his gambling debt. During the election campaign the government claimed that a $200 million deficit would push up interest rates. If $200 million puts pressure on interest rates, how much pressure does $3 billion put on them? Interest rates rose last week—one week before the budget—and now we know why. Economists warn that more rises are on the way.This is the highest taxing government in Australia's history. Revenues have surged and last year every man, woman and child in Australia paid $800 more in tax than they did before the introduction of the GST. This week's budget increased that burden further. But the Treasurer is still in deficit and he still fiddles the books. His economic policy is all `smirk' and mirrors. Some in this place will remember the Treasurer once using his budget speech to say that the budget was `back in the black, back on track'. There I was on Tuesday night, listening and waiting for him to mention in the budget the biggest news story of the night, maybe with a similar flourish; but it did not happen. Let me say it tonight for him: you're in the red and you've lost your cred.It is a great Australian tradition that in times of military conflict we all pull together; everyone bears the burden. It is the principle of shared sacrifice. But that is not how things work under this Treasurer. The old, the sick and the poor are the ones who will shoulder the burden, while the well-off get the big superannuation tax cut. The government promised to keep a 10 per cent GST off medicine, and yet now it effectively puts a triple GST on it. If the Treasurer gets his way, families will pay $28.60 for each prescription, an increase of $6.20 per script—up by 30 per cent. And pensioners and cardholders will pay $4.60 per prescription—also up by 30 percent. We know that one million pensioners and concession card holders will pay the maximum of $52 extra per year and that 300,000 Australians are in families who will pay the maximum $190 extra. In some cases this will mean food off the table. These are real people. They are members of our families; they are neighbours; and they cannot afford it. We will vote against these unfair measures in the Senate.The Treasurer is also going to shift the goalposts for what it means to have a disability. Disabled people—even those with severe disabilities—who are assessed as being able to work more than 15 hours per week are going to be kicked off the disability pension and onto unemployment benefits. Take two hardworking Australians: David and Tannia Smith. David suffers from spina bifida and Tannia is a virtual quadriplegic.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Do they exist?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—They do exist, Treasurer, but you wouldn't know it because you have slugged them; and they deserve better treatment than they got from you the other night! Both are in wheelchairs. On Tuesday night they said—these people that you have questioned the existence of—`We love working. We're proud to be making a contribution as taxpayers in society.' But the Treasurer is going to take up to $52 per fortnight out of their pockets, and they have done nothing wrong except try to get ahead. He will tax them 80c for every dollar they earn. There is no incentive in that, nor is there any esteem in it. We should reward people for working, not punish them. The Treasurer should examine his values. They are the wrong values.The Treasurer says he needs to cut David and Tannia's pensions to pay for the war on terrorism and border protection. Treasurer, we should be defending these fine Australians, not attacking them. What the Treasurer is really doing is using the war on terrorism to cover up his budget deficit. They are not reforms, Treasurer; they are cuts. The government's own adviser on welfare reform has rejected the Treasurer's proposals. This government's welfare reform agenda was born in fanfare, promoted at the election but killed off last Tuesday night in the Treasurer's budget.Labor supports real reform of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the disability support pension and, because we are economically responsible, we know the money has to come from somewhere. We support tightening the administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme with measures that prevent misuse and fraud and control costs. The budget papers say that such measures announced by the government will save $800 million over four years. Subject to the fine print, Labor will support these measures—in fact, we proposed many of them in the last election.But at the same time as we were proposing those measures, the Prime Minister was adding further pressure to the scheme by widening access. He claimed then that the scheme was sustainable. Now, he says, it is not. One thing before the election, another after the election. But at the last election we promised more. We will support tighter administrative controls on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme with measures such as increased focus on the cost and prescribing patterns of new drugs in their first year on the PBS, tighter controls on consumer advertising, and greater scrutiny of industry marketing. There are a number of other proposals that we believe the government should look at. They are an important list of options, and at the conclusion of this address tonight I shall seek leave to table that list.I invite the Treasurer to take up these constructive suggestions. In the 48 hours since the budget has been handed down, it has not been possible for us to cost them. My challenge to the Treasurer is to get them costed before the parliament returns in two weeks time and release the details. I know that they will save money, but I want to know how much.Labor will also take a constructive approach to reform the disability support pension. The measures the government has proposed do not yield any savings until the year after next. This means that we have time to get this aspect of welfare reform done properly. Labor is developing proposals that will genuinely help people move from welfare to work, not simply dump them on the unemployment scrap heap. My suggestion to the government is to freeze the measures that they have proposed and to work with us to develop new policies to reform disability support based on our suggestions and the McClure report. The government's existing measures are unfair to Australians with disabilities—and we will also vote against them in the Senate—but we offer constructive proposals of our own.The government has challenged Labor to come up with alternative savings. In addition to the measures that I have mentioned previously, I will also be tabling tonight further measures that we had costed by Access Economics in the lead-up to the last election, which can provide further savings. We have had only two days to examine this budget and we do not have the full resources of government behind us. But I want to start tonight setting out examples of this government's waste and mismanagement and its wrong priorities from which the savings could come.We will save nearly half the cost of the increased cost of medicines simply by cutting wasteful government advertising, travel and consultancies. We will double the government's big business tax compliance measures to make sure they pay the tax they owe. We will cancel some unjustified big business tax concessions proposed in this very budget and we will abolish the outrageous tax deduction to the Liberal Party's wealthy donors. We will stop people using the first home owners grant to buy million dollar-plus houses. These measures could enable us collectively to meet the government's budget outcomes without slugging the vulnerable. My challenge to the Prime Minister is to take these measures seriously—the Treasurer has not. Have our measures costed by Treasury and come back when the parliament sits again in two weeks time with fairer proposals. There is a better way; it does not have to be done your way. Your way is the wrong way; it is an unfair way; it can be done much more fairly. We support the war on terrorism but Labor believe that everyone should pay their fair share, not just the poor, the sick, the elderly and Australian families.Last night on the 7.30 Report, the Prime Minister told the Australian people six times that he had nothing further to add. Well, Prime Minister, if you have nothing further to add, it is time to go. We know the Treasurer wants you to go, but people need to judge him in the context of his budget on Tuesday night. It is a budget that is unfair and a budget that offers no future. It does not have to be that way. It can be made fairer through the proposals that I have outlined tonight, and our future can be strengthened through the initiatives that I have outlined tonight. Australia needs a new direction, a modern direction. We need a strong economy for a fair society. We need modern Labor for a modern Australia. I seek leave to table the two documents that I foreshadowed in my address.Leave granted.Debate (on motion by Mr Slipper) adjourned.Miscellaneous239419:58:002394Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—May I have the indulgence of the House to associate myself with the remarks that were made by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the death of Alec Campbell?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The indulgence is extended.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—He is not only the last Australian Anzac; he is the last known person anywhere in the world who served in that extraordinary and tragic campaign. It is very much a moment in this country's history, the severing of that link. I know that all of us would want to mark that and we will do so more appropriately. I will offer a state funeral to his family, if that is their wish. I know that it will be an occasion, if that offer is taken up, for all shades of Australian society to honour not only the person who deserves that respect by dint of his own bravery but also what he represents and what his generation so preciously and heroically gave to us and gave for us.20:00:002394Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I seek the same indulgence on behalf of the National Party.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The indulgence is extended.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—We join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in extending our sympathies to the family of Alec Campbell. I wish to add one observation. Having had the very great privilege of being at Gallipoli this year forthe services, I met many young people who said that the thing that struck them was that these old veterans whom we have honoured in many ways over the last decade were, when they were there, the same age as those young people who make that pilgrimage every year. It really brings home to you just what a tragic loss of young life it was. The last of them has now gone. I know that all of us would join in remembering the sacrifices they made and in extending our respect to Alec's family and any of his remaining friends.House adjourned at 8.01 p.m.Notices2394The following notices were given:QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price to move:That standing order 145 be omitted and the following standing orders be adopted:145A The answer to a question without notice shall be relevant and: (a) shall be concise and confined to the subject matter of the question; (b) shall relate to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected, to proceedings in the House, or to any other matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible; and (c) shall not debate the subject to which the question refers.145B The standing orders that apply to the asking of a question without notice shall generally apply to the answer.145C An answer to a question on notice shall be relevant to the question and shall be provided to the Member who asked the question within 30 days.2002-05-16—————The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members2395239509:40:002395Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—My statement this morning concerns pensioners and retirees in the electorate of Blaxland—people who have been hit from two different directions, from the private sector and the public sector, in terms of their capacity to look after themselves, to pay for their needs and deal with their budgets, having regard to the meagre pensions on which they exist and the cost pressures being imposed on them.With respect to the private sector, I refer to the banks in the electorate of Blaxland—those that are still left, because branch after branch, in banking company after banking company, has closed down. As they have closed down, they have made it inordinately difficult for pensioners and retirees to access banking services readily. I will give one example. In Greenacre, there are no more banking services available from any of the major banks. Westpac went; the Commonwealth Bank went. In their place, Punchbowl Credit Union came in. Those people who have taken up its services have had some direct banking services available to them.When the Commonwealth and Westpac went, both of them said, in effect, `You can go down to Bankstown Square.' For a single pensioner or retiree, the cost to get down there and back in order to do their banking is in the order of $2. For pensioners, $2 means a lot, because they budget very severely and very closely. I call on the banks that have stepped out of the electorate of Blaxland, and electorates Australia-wide, to reconsider their position, to consider what their social responsibilities are. I congratulate the Punchbowl Credit Union and Bankstown Credit Union for the brilliant work they have done in offering low-cost services to pensioners. It is a great alternative for people. With respect to pharmaceuticals, the opposition will be voting against the government's measures which will raise the cost of pharmaceuticals for the electorate at large, and also to pensioners, by 28 per cent. Yesterday, the Treasurer said it was only a dollar's extra expense. Well, it is a dollar on $3.60. A few years ago, it was a $2.60 co-payment for pensioners for their needs. Everyone in the community fully understands that, as people get older, their medication needs become greater. They need the assistance of doctors and pharmacists to make sure that their medications are appropriate. But what they also need is a cost-effective means of buying the medication. If they have to buy multiple medicines, to have a 28 per cent increase, to have to pay $1 extra for each medication, is too much. The Treasurer's argument is, `Oh, if they get up to the safety net level, it's okay.' They would have to spend $52 a year extra, on the basis of $1 for every extra prescription, before they get to the safety net level. We reject it totally. I call on the government and the banks to be fair to elderly people in Blaxland. (Time expired)239509:43:002395Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—This morning I would like to congratulate two organisations in the Bega Valley Shire area of my electorate—the Bega Chamber of Commerce and the Rural Tourism Network, which is part of the Sapphire Coast Producers Association—for awards that they have both recently won.Last week, the Bega Chamber of Commerce was announced as the winner of the Small Chamber of the Year Award from the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce. This is for chambers of commerce with fewer than 100 members. The Bega Chamber of Commerce won this award, quite appropriately, because of the wonderful work they have done over the last year or so in raising awareness of the central business part of Bega, the services that are available and the shops that are there. They have done some innovative things. It has occurred under the presidency of Robert Heyson. Robert, along with his business partner in Fletcher's Fotographics, Christine Murphy, have really been the force behind the Chamber of Commerce over the last year or so. They have theme days.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 9.44 a.m. to 10.12 a.m.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.Bills2396R14562396Debate resumed from 14 February, on motion by Ms Worth:That this bill be now read a second time.10:12:002396McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—At the outset, I should indicate that the opposition strongly supports the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002. There are some concerns in respect of the length of time it will take to implement all aspects, but it is worthy legislation. It has been worked on over a number of years by several governments, including cooperation by the federal and state governments, which after all is the way to go in this country.We recognise and endorse the statements by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the member for Adelaide, when introducing the bill, when she said that transport disability standards `will greatly assist in breaking down social and economic barriers faced by people with a disability or mobility problem', and that they `will also further our standing within the international community as leaders in taking practical steps to reduce discrimination against people with disabilities'. In that context, we are concerned that those who are disabled in the community seem to be taking the brunt, or at least a significant part of the brunt, of paying for the government's deficit, and that is of concern.In terms of the bill itself, I want to go through some of the technical provisions. The bill amends the Disability Discrimination Act to allow the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, known as HREOC, to grant exemptions from the disability standards which govern access to public transport services and facilities. The Australian Transport Council first recognised that it had to address issues concerning access to public transport in November 1994, following a number of successful complaints of discrimination against transport operators.A national task force was established, including representatives of people with disabilities, to develop performance-based draft standards. The draft standards were first approved by the ATC in June 1996 and then subjected to a regulatory impact statement to examine the potential cost of implementation, as well as the potential benefits to the whole community. Some three years later, in 1999, the regulatory impact statement and the transport standards were again discussed by the Australian Transport Council. It was agreed that the standards should generally be adopted but that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission be given the power to grant exemptions from the standards.In October 2000, cabinet endorsed the standards subject to an extension of the compliance timetable for trams and trains and exclusions for dedicated school bus services, small aircraft and airports, limousines, hire cars and charter boats. The Attorney-General then began working on redrafting the standards. A technical workshop was held in December 2000 with representatives of the transport, manufacturing and construction industry, operators and disability sector representatives. A draft of the standards relating to public transport was published by the Attorney-General on 27 September 2001. He has indicated that he intends to table the final standards in parliament after this bill has been passed. That will put meat on the bone; they will be significant. After the standards have been tabled in parliament they will take effect as provided by section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act. Under section 32 of that act it is unlawful for a person to contravene a disability standard. While Labor has criticised the length of time it has taken to develop the standards and has questioned whether it is necessary to allow 20 years to implement the standards and, indeed, 30 years for trains and trams, it is clear that the creation and adoption of the standards is a positive development and is one which Labor supports. In respect of that implementation time, if it can be shown that steps can be taken to hasten that, either by incentives or otherwise, that is certainly something that I believe this parliament should look at. This bill implements part of the machinery for successful implementation of the standards. It was first introduced on 27 September 2001 and lapsed with the calling of the election. The bill essentially has two stated purposes. Firstly, the bill is said to provide up-front certainty by enabling a provider of public transport services or facilities to apply for an exemption from disability standards. The most obvious basis on which somebody would apply for an exemption is that compliance would cause unjustifiable hardship. This, it is said, would enable the provider to clarify their obligation up-front instead of waiting to be sued under the Disability Discrimination Act, and then raising a defence such as unjustifiable hardship. Secondly, the bill will give the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission the same power to grant temporary exemptions from the disability standards for accessible public transport when they come into force, as it has regarding the existing provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. This will also provide consistency for the powers of HREOC. Before granting an exemption HREOC will be obliged to consult a body prescribed in regulations. The Attorney-General has indicated that the prescribed body will be the National Transport Secretariat. That secretariat is funded on a cooperative basis by the Commonwealth and the states and reports to the Australian Transport Council. The role of the secretariat will be to provide HREOC with technical advice. HREOC will also be able to consult with any other body or person it considers appropriate. An exemption from the disability standards relating to public transport can be for a period of up to five years. That period of time may appear to be of concern. However, for reasons I will discuss later, we are prepared to support attempts to resolve these matters without litigation. I should also note that an application can be made to HREOC for that exemption period to be extended. Labor agrees that the ability of HREOC to grant temporary exemptions from the standards is, however, important to the implementation process. It is important that providers of public transport comply with disability standards. However, there is sense in enabling any uncertainty about compliance to be resolved by HREOC on a consultative basis rather than by litigation in the Federal Court. Clearly, that enables disability advocacy groups to be involved and it may also spare individuals the trauma and expense of litigation. Labor recognised this argument when we formulated the Disability Discrimination Act in 1992 and gave HREOC at that time the power to grant exemptions from the act. The initial suggestion to extend the exemption power to the transport disability standards in this way came from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission itself. Provision for the exemption power was also an essential part of agreement by the Australian Transport Council ministers to the standards going ahead. The standards provide a blueprint of what accessible public transport means and how it should be achieved across Australia over the next 20 years—again, the sooner the better, but that is an outside time frame. Industry and consumers alike are anxious for the standards to enter into force and to give them certainty of rights and responsibilities. The exemption mechanism allows for a necessary element of regulatory flexibility and the provision for certainty. An example would be where an operator needs to trade off extra time for some elements for which they have difficulty meeting the timetable provided in the standards. That trade-off is against other elements where they can do better than the timetable. Again, that is commonsense.Under the bill, the commission should only approve exemptions where it is convinced that this is consistent with the objects of the legislation. Temporary exemptions have had an important role in facilitating the progress that has been made in accessible transport in several states. The commission has an established policy of conducting public consultation before making a decision on exemption applications under the Disability Discrimination Act and, of course, will continue to apply that policy. This is in addition to the specific requirements in the amending legislation to consult with the National Transport Secretariat. Transport operators or consumers who disagree with or feel aggrieved by any such decision will be able to seek a review of the exemption decisions in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That process, we believe, brings an appropriate balance of consultation with the right to review. In summary, Labor supports the bill.10:22:002398Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—The Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002 is a vote for commonsense. There is not a person in Australia who would not want to see ready access for people with disabilities to all forms of transport and access to every aspect of daily life. The proposal before the House in this bill seeks to move one step closer to granting universal access with a requirement for disabled people to gain access to public transport of all types. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—HREOC—currently has the ability to grant exemptions for the general provisions of disability discrimination but not for disability standards. This bill amends the Disability Discrimination Act to allow HREOC to grant exemptions for disability standards dealing with public transport, including, for example, on the grounds of unjustifiable hardship.I have been aware of the discussions that have been taking place between elements of the transport industry and the Australian government on the way in which the wish to provide access for those who are disabled has been dealt with. I have spoken to bus proprietors and to people with facilities where transport around the state is a problem. I think we have here a proposal which moves one step towards establishing standards by regulation but which provides a commonsense approach. It has been pointed out to me that there is a massive cost in providing wheelchair access for buses, for instance. It is very difficult to do. You have to consider the footpath and access being available at ground level to meet a same-height standard for a passing bus or other means of transport. If one considers all the possible sites within a city area, one would realise that it is almost impossible to guarantee that, on every site, access to public transport can be granted to somebody in a wheelchair or somebody who is disabled.If I am any judge of this matter, the people who will be dragging the chain in this process will be the state governments. They will be the ones who will want to do it last. They will have all sorts of excuses and exemptions for not providing access for people with disabilities. Somebody pointed out to me that it is impossible for a person who is disabled to get onto the site of one of our railway stations—and I know the honourable member opposite would be familiar with this station. But state governments of all types have just scrubbed it. They have said, `Bad luck. Go to the next station. Somehow or other get yourself somewhere else and you will get on to public transport.'It is not just a matter of wheelchair access between the platform and the carriage or between the footpath and the bus—there is a lot more to it than that. This bill gives the opportunity for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to grant exemptions based on a number of reasons. I think that is a practical approach. Private bus proprietors in Western Sydney have put to me the huge cost they would have in making all their coaches compliant and in putting in all the conditions at every bus stop throughout Western Sydney. In this area, you have partially developed subdivisions, older subdivisions and all sorts of circumstances. It is surely not up to bus proprietors to make sure that the footpath conditions at bus stops comply with a suitable physical condition to allow for wheelchair or other access. In these circumstances, I believe this is a commonsense piece of legislation. Comments have been made by representatives of those with disabilities. I note that they are very disappointed about the extension of the compliance timetable to 30 years for trains and trams—in reality, especially for trains. This does not mean people with disabilities will not be able to use them during this time span. That is a reasonable statement. When one considers the possible capital cost, one has some sympathy for state governments. But it is a common practice, at both state and federal level, to dump the compliance costs onto the non-government sector and then the government sector drags the chain in meeting its own standards. I think that is completely unreasonable.I hope that everybody moves forward together in this area. I call on state governments to recognise the needs of those who are disabled and to move ahead at the same pace as they impose regulations on the non-government sector. It is okay to dump regulations on the bus companies of Western Sydney, or any other part of Australia for that matter, but it is completely unreasonable to then fail to fulfil the conditions for railway stations, say at Seven Hills. This cannot be the way in which the standards are implemented. If exemptions are granted in certain circumstances for state instrumentalities, the same exemptions should be granted for non-government instrumentalities. These provisions provide for consultations with the bodies involved that may be affected by regulations. HREOC must do that before making a decision to grant an exemption.A part of the current problems we have in the insurance industry is the real penchant people have to litigate. I will mention a disability case in my area. There is a school on a most difficult, steep site, and a case was brought that a disabled girl should have access to the school. The girl never even wanted to attend the school, but the case was brought against the school. It lost that case and went to the highest court possible. Multimillion dollars are required to make that site accessible for people with certain disabilities. The school, if forced to comply, would close its doors because one test case was brought against it. I hope some commonsense starts to come back in the way in which we relate to each other in our community. The fact that you can force somebody to comply with the law or receive compensation does not mean to say that everybody has a right to access everything. We are all imposed with limitations of one sort or another. In relation to disability, I hope the lawyers do not go hunting for test cases to prove that their fees are bigger or that their award for damages is better than that of the last guy who went to court. I am just calling for a commonsense approach in the application of these laws. I know the government is pleased that at last, after many years, we have been able to move ahead in this area.10:30:002399Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I am delighted to make a contribution to the debate about the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002. In doing so, can I say in response to the previous speaker that it is a commonsense outcome in a very difficult long-term situation. I believe the bill is an important milestone in the process that commenced under the last federal Labor government to fix access to public transport for all Australians. It required the disability groups to come together through the ministerial council at a federal and state level, and it forced all to face up to their responsibilities. It is not just a question of throwing dollars at a difficult problem. Can I also say that the process stands in stark contrast to the actions of the current government, which this week targeted unfortunate disability pensioners. In my mind, that is a classic schoolyard bully act that we have seen all too frequently from the Howard government over the last six years. Access to public transport is a critical issue for regional and urban communities. That is why I speak on this bill today as the shadow minister for transport. The bill itself is a necessary step before the introduction and formalisation of disability standards for accessible public transport. It is interesting to note that the Australian Transport Council first discussed the need for action on disability access standards at their meeting in November 1994. But before this, I look back at the work of disability activists and representatives—the people who, I believe, should really be commended for achieving the change that is before the Main Committee this morning. In this regard, I cite the publication prepared by the Disability Advisory Council of Australia in late 1992, when that council formed the Disability Advisory Council of Australia Access to Public Transport Task Force. The product of that task force is the report, coordinated by Angus Downie, titled Target 2015: a vision for the future—access to transport in Australia for all Australians. AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr Quick—A good Tasmanian.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Yes, a good Tasmanian and a very determined individual with respect to the need to make a breakthrough on this difficult front. That diligent and comprehensive piece of research presented a blueprint for change. That kick-started and helped to drive the end result that is before the Main Committee this morning. The report was an audit of Australia's provision of public transport, identifying access problems for Australians and visitors with disability and mobility issues. The report was released in August 1994; it played a key role in ensuring the Australian Transport Council addressed the need for coordinated action. The first performance based draft standards for accessible transport across all modes were agreed to by the Australian Transport Council in June 1996. The draft standards then went into a process of consultation and the completion of a regulatory impact statement. Unfortunately, it has taken six years to reach the next significant step in the process: to finalise agreed, clear standards that require access improvements. It is an important step being taken today, as this legislative change provides the up-front certainty needed for the standards to come into effect. That is the key thing—getting the standards into effect, the formal adoption into law of standards for accessible transport. There is no doubt that these standards have been the subject of extended debate—and so they should have been—and modification to reach the end point that we are at today. What goes with that is compromise and dissent from decisions that must be made along the way to deliver practical outcomes.Speaking from my experience as a trade union official, I commend the activists involved in developing those standards because that also required them to make some hard decisions to actually compromise in order to achieve the outcome that is finally before the House this morning. They are to be commended because they stood up and fought for what they believed was right, but, in doing so, they brought a commonsense understanding and a willingness to compromise to try and achieve the breakthrough that is before the House for discussion. I appreciate that in some circles in the disability movement there were disappointments with respect to whether or not they achieved the most desirable outcome, as against what was a practical outcome in terms of the reality of the political processes. That is, I suppose, part and parcel of your normal activities when you have to front up to involvement, representation and making decisions: you will never achieve a 100 per cent outcome.As the standards stand today, there remain exemptions based on financial grounds to school bus services, small aircraft and non-RPT airports. I appreciate that the disability sector will continue to campaign on these items with the hope that, one day, access for all will be an implicit consideration in all transport manufacturing and infrastructure decisions. In the meantime, compromises have been made to ensure standards come into effect.I share the criticism of the disability sector with the time it took to deliver these standards. The characteristic lack of leadership from the minister for transport again, unfortunately, came into play. I can recall that, when I came into this portfolio at the end of 1999, the delay and the impasse with these standards were some of the first issues raised with me, not just by the disability sector but also by the private bus operators because they had reached the point at which they had had enough. All they wanted was for this issue to be progressed and finalised. For that reason, in my first speech to the bus and coach industry conference in March 2000 I called on the minister to show some leadership and help get these matters resolved, to get them sorted, to actually be willing to make a few decisions rather than continuing to run away from his responsibilities, which is unfortunately the hallmark of his performance as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services.At that stage, in early 2000, a genuine willingness to resolve these issues had developed between the public transport industries and the representatives of disability groups. As with many issues in this portfolio, there was no federal leadership interested in the problem and in helping to get their hands dirty and broker solutions. That is what the political processes are about: not just making speeches about what would be an ideal outcome but actually being willing to sit down, get on top of a brief, meet and consult with interested groups and then try to broker a solution where an impasse exists. Unfortunately, we do not normally see that in the performance of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Leader of the National Party, Mr Anderson. All we saw, I remind the House, was a press release and a sign of action on this matter from the government when they wanted a headline for the Paralympics at the end of 2000—again, all the tinsel around town but no practical application of activities to resolving a longstanding problem.In the Transport portfolio, change and reform happen in spite of the current transport minister, not because of him or by his initiative. The development of these accessible transport standards is another case in point. I am aware that the state and territory ministers for transport are keen to see this bill pass. The states have taken on many of these issues before the standards are finalised. I hope the previous speaker, the member for Mitchell, is actually listening to what is occurring in his own state of New South Wales at the moment in the light of his comments here before I rose to speak.Firstly, dealing with Victoria, my home state at the moment despite the fact that I grew up in the western suburbs of Sydney—an area to which the member for Mitchell referred in passing this morning—I know that the state government has moved to change infrastructure for trams to improve accessibility for all Australians. You have only to move around Melbourne today to see the achievement on that front with the introduction of new trams and the tram stations that are being built in the CBD. Turning to New South Wales, the New South Wales government has also been proactive. When the Carr government came to power, only five railway stations had been modernised to facilitate disability access. There are now 56 stations that have been modernised under the Easy Access Program, with about $4 million to be spent on each station. On a recent visit to my home suburb of Guildford in Western Sydney, I was advised by my elderly parents that it had just been announced that a lift was to be introduced to Guildford railway station to also facilitate disability access. So perhaps Mr Cadman, the member for Mitchell, ought to be a bit more honest in his presentations to this House about what is actually occurring on the ground in New South Wales after years of neglect, prior to the Carr government being elected, by his own coalition partners in New South Wales. Progress is being made, and so it ought to be made. These processes and achievements ought not to be politicised by representatives such as the member for Mitchell.With respect to the bus and coach industry, especially the large bus operators and manufacturers, they desire to continue to move quickly to ensure that all buses are accessible. Access to exemptions from these standards will be subject to the guidelines currently applied by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission when it considers exemptions to the principal Disability Discrimination Act. The exemption process gets applicants for those exemptions into a process whereby they must engage in the access issues facing commuters or potential commuters that face access challenges. This engagement in the problems as part of applying for an exemption is an important step. The applicants must develop a plan and justify their case. These standards will be the norm. Any exemption must be scrutinised and disability and other affected groups consulted, and a right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal applies. Through the codification of this process I believe we put in place a mechanism to fix all these access problems. The bill before us prescribes the National Transport Secretariat as the organisation that the human rights commission can consult when considering exemptions to the access transport standards. I believe this is a curious role for this organisation. I would remind the Main Committee that the National Transport Secretariat was established by the Australian Transport Council to tackle broad strategic issues and reform that must be achieved across jurisdictions. A narrow technical advisory role on accessible transport does not, I believe, fit comfortably with the scope of that organisation. It is my understanding that the transport ministers at the state level shared this concern. As I understand it, there was quite a barney at the Transport Council when the matter was discussed. As I understand it, the end result is that this was another matter where the transport minister could not carry a sensible transport policy position in the federal cabinet. He was rolled, and told the state ministers that they had to cop it. From the federal perspective, I put a series of questions to the minister for transport to cover off this issue. I had concerns that the National Transport Council would be diverted from its important task in terms of resources and focus. In response to my query, the minister has advised that the NTS commissioned a consultant in December last year to undertake a strategic level scoping study to help the NTS define its role in the exemption process. The minister also advised in his correspondence to my office that:The Commission and other stakeholders from the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments, industry, and the disability sector were consulted during the preparation of the report. The report identifies a proposed process to undertake the role, the key stakeholders and their expectations regarding the NTS role and potential workload for the NTS. The NTS has also commenced discussion with the Commission on establishing administrative arrangements for the role.I call on the minister for transport to table that report and the associated arrangements so that the House has a clear idea of how the Transport Secretariat will perform that role and address the stakeholders' expectations. Further, in relation to the NTS, the minister for transport has clarified for me the funding arrangements for this new role. I will also place this advice from the minister for transport on the record today. In doing so, I quote from written advice from him to me:The Commonwealth has agreed to fund the NTS role. The NTS has entered into a Deed of Agreement with the Department of Transport and Regional Services for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002. The current agreement provides for upper limit funding of $150,000. This agreement will be negotiated annually with the NTS to fund the anticipated workload for future years.I say here today that the opposition is not totally comfortable with this new role for the National Transport Secretariat. Our reasons are twofold. Firstly, there are some serious questions about the skill and expertise of the NTS to provide advice on exemptions. While I am sure that the expertise can be recruited, the opposition will monitor the outcomes to ensure they are rigorous. What is important with the exemptions is that they are given only after rigorous analysis, consultation and scrutiny. Secondly, the opposition retains some concerns that this role will detract from the broader role—the true functions of the National Transport Secretariat.I place these concerns on the record as a clear indication to the government that we do not regard this matter as settled. This is a new initiative; it requires accountability and a willingness to make sure that the initiatives put in place as part of this process actually achieve the desired outcomes. I am also aware that my state and territory colleagues have had these arguments with the federal government, but the government has dug in and has not moved on the issue. The concerns are correctly placed on the record, and we will monitor the implementation of these issues from here—the exemption process, how the NTS performs the role and the levels of support and Commonwealth funding for the NTS in this role. I am sure that I can also rely on my colleagues in the disability movement and in the state and territory governments to ensure that the cross-jurisdictional, strategic work of the NTS is not undermined as part of that process.The availability of public transport services is emerging as a key issue to be tackled, especially in regional and outer suburban communities. The challenge is one that the federal government has to front up to sooner rather than later. The problem is that the current minister for transport continues to say that there is no role for the federal government in public transport, but believes he has a role in setting standards with respect to disability access. To say this is to shirk responsibility for the consequences of Australia's economic growth. Congestion and pollution are consequences of the growth of our cities, and public transport has a key role in addressing that congestion.The Howard government must play a role in addressing these problems. It must look at the federal barriers and opportunities and work in a cooperative way with local communities, local councils and state governments. The opposition looks forward to seeing if the Howard government takes any action to try to do something about this matter, including what it is going to do regarding the outcome of the fuel tax inquiry, which was tabled in the budget papers this week. In looking at the broader transport taxation issues, it will also be interesting to see whether the Howard government takes any action to address the imbalance in the fringe benefits tax incentives for car use, with no akin incentives for the use of public transport. Similarly, it will be interesting to see whether this inquiry into transport taxation tackles the GST and its application to public transport fares.In closing, I commend the transport industry, disability and other affected community groups and departmental officials who have persisted with the process and put a huge effort into getting to where we are today. The process could have come quicker if we had leadership at the government level in Canberra. That aside, today represents a major step forward along a long path. I commend all those involved in getting to the point we have achieved.The bill and the standards help tackle the access issues where public transport exists. A similarly large challenge for our community is to ensure that public transport is there to access not just in our cities and outer suburban communities but also in regional communities. That means the Howard government, side by side with developing these standards, has to also accept its responsibility to front up and actually do something on public transport generally in Australia, especially in regional communities and our outer suburbs. It requires a mental shift. It requires leadership and actually requires new ground at a federal government level. These are the big issues to be debated in this parliament because it is about equality of opportunity, it is about the greenhouse debate, it is about doing something in a practical sense to relieve the congestion in our cities. (Time expired)10:51:002404Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I also have great pleasure in addressing the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002 that is before the chamber today. The bill allows a provider of public transport services or facilities to apply for exemptions from the disability standards. There is a number of obvious examples but one would be that compliance could cause an unjustified hardship. There is a range of other considerations as well to be taken into account. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, or HREOC, under the Disability Discrimination Act, is already able to grant an exemption from the operation of the provisions of that act but that power is not currently extended to grant exemptions to the disability standards that we are speaking about today.The act formulates the transport disability standards under section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act. The standards in draft form were published by the Attorney-General in September last year. I understand that the final standards will be tabled in the parliament following the passage of this particular bill. They will then take effect under section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act. Under section 32, it is unlawful for a person to contravene a disability standard within that act. This bill is to provide consistency in the powers of HREOC, in other words. To allow the granting of such an exemption, HREOC will be required to consult a body prescribed in the regulations. The act states that body to be the National Transport Secretariat, funded by the Commonwealth and the states, which is to report to the Australian Transport Council.The previous speaker, the member for Batman, outlined at great length our concerns in relation to that particular part of the act. It is not for me to add anything further at this point other than to fully endorse the comments that he made in relation to the NTS. As well as receiving that technical advice from the secretariat, HREOC will of course be able to consult with any person or body that it believes necessary when considering an application for exemption. I understand that a very large range of disability organisations have been involved in the consultation process to date. It has been made clear by those organisations that: ... HREOC to be the most appropriate body to undertake this assessment so long as HREOC has the appropriate resources to do the work. In addition a process involving consultation with interested groups similar to the current HREOC procedure for exemptions, must be applied.I would endorse that totally. I want to refer to comments that have been made by representatives of the disabled community who have been involved in the process to date who, despite the compromises made, will be pleased to see the standards come into operation. I would like to quote a couple of their comments. They have said in part:.. it is important to understand that Standards become regulatory laws which must be complied with. As such, State and Territory Transport Ministers have far less resistance from their respective `Cabinets' and Treasury in getting approval for upgrading to accessible transport. We are informed that if they are just guidelines, there will be far less compliance in a systemic way to making transport accessible. Their priority status would immediately drop.They go on to say:The Transport representatives and the Project agrees entirely with much of the concern expressed that we cannot afford for the Standards to be watered down any further as it becomes legal discrimination. We were very disappointed about the extension of the compliance timetable to 30 years for trains and trams but in reality, especially for trains, this does not mean people with disabilities won't be able to use them during this time-span.It is very obvious that many people have had lots of input into these processes, and they should be fully recognised for their work and for their representation on behalf of many others within their organisations and within the disability sector generally. I personally would like to see the 30-year period reduced in a cooperative fashion, and I am confident that we could all work towards that, particularly given the work already under way in many areas, as outlined by the member for Batman in his earlier comments. I would also like to put on record my thanks for the terrific lesson in history that the member for Batman has given us in relation to the whole process that has been undertaken over far too long a period. As members of parliament we often find ourselves saying to people, `Yes, we agree that there is a problem, but do you realise how slow sometimes legislative processes can be?' Whilst I and I know my colleagues always regret having to use those words, that is sometimes the harsh reality. This is, unfortunately, a very good example of that, given the interruptions due to elections and so on. The member for Batman very clearly outlined some of the work already under way within other states, in New South Wales and Victoria, and I know here in the ACT. There is no doubt that there are great moves afoot by governments at those levels to do what they can in a proactive way to bring forward the availability of accessible transport for people with disabilities. It is fair to say, and quite obvious, that people with physical disabilities particularly have enough to face up to without having their day-to-day lives, their chances of employment and their chances of participating in our community at an even level frustrated by access to transport. But the work that has been done in relation to this whole issue, whilst taking far too long, finally has come to this point.It is also obvious that there is still much more to be done. I think that the passage of this bill is the end of one process but the beginning of the next—that is, to see what else can be done to ensure that the processes outlined here work; that the examination of the NTS as outlined by previous speakers is undertaken in a constructive fashion; that whatever work and change that are demonstrated to be required to allow better procedures should happen; and that the technical expert advice that is needed by HREOC when granting an exemption must be of the best possible standard. There is no doubt that if the NTS needs to be changed or resourced, or if another organisation needs to be put in its place—whatever is required—we should do it, and we should do it in such a way as will not extend any further the time frame that has taken us to the point we are at today.In closing, I again make particular note—as did the member for Batman—of the activists in the sector who have brought the issue to the point we are at today. I also join with him in encouraging that sector to continue their agitation when they believe it is necessary to do so so that the whole question of public and other transport availability for the people they represent continues to be at the forefront of our minds. It is fair to say on reflection that the Paralympics held in Sydney really gave us—federal and all other governments—a focus, an opportunity, to put in a way a bit of tinsel around the issue. I would like to think that we could now move on from that. But sadly, and in reality, it takes the activists of the disability sector to keep all of us on our mettle, to make sure that we all understand and grasp entirely the needs that they have. None of those needs are impossible to meet—none of them. With their help and their continued dedication, I believe we will get the sort of access to transport that they require. We are not silly here; we understand the difficulties that can present to some parts of that process, but so be it. I repeat: it is not an impossible task to meet their needs; it is a perfectly possible task. After this legislation is passed, we can get on and examine how to make it better, how to advance it quicker, with only one aim in mind—that is, to ensure that those people out there who need that access get it. We must no longer allow anybody, particularly within the political process, to tap dance around this issue and make grandiose statements at times when they think these might be good to be heard, and then not fully follow up with proper, determined work.I join the previous speakers from this side in endorsing this legislation. At the same time, I thoroughtly endorse the historical perspective of the member for Batman. I recognise the people involved and the absolute requirement on all of us in this place to do what we can to ensure the continuing advancement of the issue and not just to think that the job has been done here.11:01:002406Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—My initial reaction to the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002 was to oppose it. I felt that this was a retrograde step. After examining the issues, I can see that it is very positive and a step forward for people with disabilities. By allowing exemptions, it will put in place framework legislation that will establish standards for people with disabilities. It is quite sad that we have to establish standards first, but it is very important that we do have disability standards which govern access to public transport and facilities.As a person who worked in both a spinal injury and a head injury team prior to entering parliament, I know of the difficulties that people with disabilities experience in trying to access public transport, or any form of transport. I know about the mobility issues they experience. One of the issues that governments have to grapple with and have to come to terms with is the fact that people with disabilities do have rights and should be able to access transport like other people in the community. I see this as a positive step because it is taking us in that direction. The transport disability standards were formulated by the Attorney-General under section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act. A draft of the standards relating to public transport were published by the Attorney-General on 27 September last year. These standards can now move from being draft standards to being standards that will have a real impact on public transport systems throughout the state.The exemption that has been agreed to has been done in consultation with the working group on transport. This group included a national federation of disability consumer organisations: the Australian Deaf Association; Blind Citizens of Australia; Deaf Forum of Australia; Head Injury Council of Australia, a very important group with regard to accessing public transport; the National Council of Intellectual Disability; the National Ethnic Disability Alliance; Physical Disability Council of Australia; and Women with Disabilities.I wonder if there was also any consultation with Paraquad because I know that people who suffer from paraplegia in particular are able to use public transport. I also wonder if any thought has been given to providing retractable ramps that can be placed on those buses or any form of transport that is given exemption as a temporary measure. I know that has worked in the past for people with disabilities. I thought that was worthwhile throwing in.With the exemptions, the bill does provide up-front certainty by enabling a provider of public transport services or facilities to apply for an exemption from the disability standards. As I have already said, that is important because it allows these standards to come into effect. An exemption is only given where hardship will apply. My one little concern is that this is for a five-year period. I note that it can be extended, but it worries me that it will be extended and extended and extended. I think that some timeframes need to be put in place so that, if an exemption is given, there is a plan for meeting those requirements in the long term.I am very pleased to say that, before the exemptions are granted, there is the need to talk to the bodies. It is terribly important to discuss these issues with people who have disabilities. For too long people with disabilities have been treated as second-class citizens. I have to take issue a little with the member for Mitchell. I remember the school case he was talking about. I think it is vitally important that people with disabilities be able to access schools. In my past life, we helped convert schools so people with disabilities could attend them. Maybe people with disabilities just have to accept that they cannot access all forms of public transport or that they may not have the same opportunities as other people. That is once again treating them as second-class citizens. I really strongly feel that they have the same rights as other people.That brings me to the issue of disability pensioners and how they have been treated as second-class citizens in the budget. That links very closely into this issue because the one issue that the government says that it wants to progress is for people with disabilities to get into the work force. For people with disabilities to be able to enter the work force, one of the vital issues is the ability to use transport. Therefore, it is important that these standards come into play and that, further down the track, these exemptions are not continually given. I do not want to see the same sort of commitment to the implementation of standards as we have had for people on disability support pensions. This legislation puts into place issues that I think have the ability to achieve the desired outcome. They will, if fully implemented, allow people with disabilities to use public transport. That is what it is all about.I would like to add to the words of the member for Canberra. She said it is vitally important that we continue to consult with disability groups and that their concerns be really taken into account when we are working in this area. No-one knows better than they do the problems that they experience when accessing public transport. Nobody understands the issues of disability better than a person with a disability who has to confront the restrictions that that places upon them every day. I do not know if any members here have been in a position where they have had to use crutches. I think it is a very good exercise to try to access public transport or to do everyday activities when you have a restriction in mobility. I believe that we need these standards. I believe that it is vitally important that they are fully implemented. I see this as a step in the right direction.11:11:002407McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I am pleased to talk today on the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002. I have a longstanding interest in the issue of disability discrimination and in mechanisms to improve access. This interest comes from my time before parliament as a community worker. In past jobs I worked for the Liverpool-Fairfield Disability Resource Centre and for People with Disabilities (WA) Inc., organisations that represent and advocate for the rights and equity of people with a disability. Improvements to access for people with a disability also have spin-offs for other groups, including parents and grandparents who take children out in prams and strollers and carers and families of seniors. As a parent and user of public transport I experienced great difficulties when my children were young in accessing public transport, my main mode of transportation in those days. Again, I experienced difficulties in taking my frail, ageing, veteran dad and, later on, my frail, ageing mother and mother-in-law out shopping. I very much relate to my constituents when they tell me of their difficulties with physical access to public transport, as well as to railway and bus station precincts.Disability access to public transport is an important issue. A lack of accessible transport services and facilities is a significant barrier to quality of life, particularly for people with disabilities. As the member for Shortland said, we would hate that soft and easy ways would be found around the exemptions and regulations. Labor is committed to promoting the worth and dignity and improving the quality of life of people with disabilities and to support their full participation in community life. An important aspect of this commitment is improving access standards for people with disabilities to public transport and providing certainty in the system that administers these standards. Federal Labor supports the passage of the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002, as do the Labor state ministers for transport.Briefly stated, the bill amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to allow the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, in consultation with a prescribed body, to grant exemptions from disability standards dealing with public transport services and facilities. The act enables the Attorney-General to formulate disability standards in a range of areas. Last September the Attorney-General finally released a draft of disability standards for accessible public transport for public consultation, together with accompanying draft guidelines. Section 55 of the act currently enables the commission to grant temporary exemptions from the operations of provisions of the act. This power does not currently extend to exemptions from disability standards. The bill will therefore amend the act to allow the commissioner to grant exemptions from disability standards dealing with public transportation services and facilities. Before granting an exemption, the commission will be obliged to consult with a body prescribed in regulations. The Attorney-General has indicated that the prescribed body will be the National Transport Secretariat. The role of the secretariat will be to provide the commission with technical advice. Importantly, the commission will be able to consult with any other body or person it considers appropriate. If the commission decides to grant an exemption to an operator, the exemption will provide protection from a complaint about a breach of that requirement.Along with my constituents and groups in Stirling, I look to the Attorney-General to appoint people to the commission from a broad range of backgrounds and experiences. Our goal is to ensure that no transport service is allowed to find an easy way out of its obligations. The bill, by enabling public transport services to apply for an exemption from disability standards, will enable public transport providers to clarify their obligations up front instead of waiting to be sued under the Disability Discrimination Act, the DDA, and then raising a defence such as unjustifiable hardship. The bill will also allow the commission to involve community stakeholders—groups such as People with Disabilities (WA) Inc., ACROD, Valued Independent People Inc., and the Development Disability Council of WA, along with a range of state and national peak bodies advocating for people with disabilities and their carers and families. It would be a wonderful thing to see these groups, who put so much energy into these issues, have input before the public transport provider acts in relation to disability access on its service—what is these days the so-called `honesty factor'. While it is important that providers of public transport comply with disability standards, there is sense in enabling any uncertainty about a provider's compliance with the standards to be resolved by the commission on a consultative basis rather than by litigation in the Federal Court. It enables disability advocacy groups to be involved and may spare individuals the trauma and expense of litigation. I have recently dealt with a constituent of mine who faces trauma and considerable expense involved in litigation over a disability access issue in my electorate. Although not directly related to public transport, my constituent's issue serves to highlight some of the problems that can arise under the system of disability access regulation which this bill seeks to replace. In 1995 the Court Liberal government commissioned Main Roads to design a pedestrian overpass near Everingham Street across the planned Reid Highway extension in the suburb of Carine in my electorate of Stirling. Ignoring the 1992 Austroads Bridge Design Code and the 1993 Australian Standard 1428.1, Main Roads designed an overpass that did not meet the disability access requirements. Australian standard 1428.1 clearly states that the overpass should have been designed with a maximum gradient of one in 14 and that there should be rest landings at least every nine metres. Showing complete disregard for disability access, the Court Liberal government minister for transport signed off on the design of the overpass which Main Roads then constructed—an incredible scenario in the mid-1990s, especially as it was a good 10 years after the International Year for the Disabled and we had thought that these issues in society were no longer going to arise. When construction of the overpass was completed, the overpass was as steep as one in 10 at the southern end, with no rest platforms at any point, making it grossly unsuitable for my constituents with disabilities who need to cross the overpass. I might add that this overpass was put at a point, after much controversy in the local community, at Everingham Street because there are four schools and children's services in Everingham Street that service a total of 3,000 children and the local high school there has five young people with disabilities, some of whom have to access this overpass. One of my constituents has had to take Main Roads to court in order to get them to modify the overpass so far as is necessary to make it comply with the disability access requirements of the Australian standards. My constituents and Main Roads this year—not five years ago— are now involved in a protracted battle to determine whether it is acceptable before the act for Main Roads to have built the overpass the way they did after it has been completed. This costly and traumatic experience could have been avoided if Main Roads was required to make an application for exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 before it built the overpass, instead of simply deciding to go ahead and build it, hoping that no-one challenged them in the courts for their actions. This is clearly an unsatisfactory way to regulate disability access issues and it is for this reason that I support the model proposed in this bill. Another important aspect of this bill that I mentioned briefly earlier is that it allows the commission to consult, in addition to the prescribed body, with any body or person it considers appropriate. I consider this to be crucial to the future success of this bill. It is only through frank and open consultation with all the stakeholders that the commission can hope to obtain a just outcome for people with disabilities with the new powers this bill proposes to give. Organisations such as People with Disabilities (WA) Inc. have been very successful in communicating the access needs of people with disabilities and will now make very good use of the model proposed in this bill. Recently, People with Disabilities (WA) Inc. was instrumental in negotiating disability access for the circle bus route which passes through my electorate. The collective knowledge and experience of groups such as People with Disabilities (WA) Inc. across the country will provide the commission with additional expertise in ensuring that our community plans for and provides public transport that is responsive to the needs of all Australians and ensures consultation and certainty instead of litigation. I commend the bill to the House.11:20:002409Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—The Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002 is long overdue. It has been kicking around for some considerable time and was further delayed by the proroguing of parliament prior to the last election. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long to come before the parliament, but at least it is here. Whilst I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be most vigilant in preventing me from talking about the budget in the context of this debate, nonetheless it is worth noting in passing that, at a time when the government is showing a quite mean-spirited approach to disabled people in Australia, at least there is some limited good news for that community in relation to some advances contained in this bill.The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 contains the following objectives: to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities as far as is possible; to promote community acceptance of the principle that people with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as all members of the community; and to ensure as far as practicable that people with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law as other people in the community.In furtherance of those objectives, the act makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their disability in many areas of public life, including employment; education; provision of goods, services and facilities; access to premises, accommodation, clubs and incorporated associations; dealing with land; sport; and in the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground that they are an associate of a person with a disability, and it is unlawful to harass a person because of their disability.In the last year in which the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission reported to the parliament, the commission had received 443 complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act. The majority of those complaints in the commission's report related to employment and the provision of goods, services and facilities. It is worth noting that transport, and access to transport, is a fundamental issue for disabled people. It is an issue on which the commission has been required to spend a considerable amount of time, covering a whole range of areas. For example, in recent years the commission has dealt with complaints in relation to the accessibility of existing long-distance rail carriages, the question of scooters being permitted on buses, access to suburban railway stations, wheelchair access to local buses, wheelchair seating on coaches, air travel with oxygen, people requiring assistance animals on trains, railway station toilet facilities, taxi access for guide dog users, sleeping carriage access, accessibility of Perth buses, access to interurban trains and main terminal station, access to public transport buses, and access in country trains. So a very wide variety of areas of complaint about discrimination under this act have come before the commission.This legislation is important in that context, because it enables a more systematic approach to be taken to complaints or issues of discrimination. It is a recognition in part that the complaint system in itself is not enough to address some of the systemic areas where disabled people face discrimination in relation to transport.Very importantly, the legislation enables the processing and recognition of standards, which provide the benchmark against which disabled people can expect public transport providers to meet their needs. This is important not just for disabled people. It is important for the providers of public transport services because it enables them to have a considerably higher degree of certainty about what standards they are required to meet in terms of meeting the needs of disabled customers of their service.In an excellent speech given by the Deputy Disability Discrimination Commissioner last year to the bus industry conference in Perth, a number of important points were made. The deputy commissioner referred to the importance of partnerships between industry and people in the disability field to minimise and eliminate discrimination. He referred to the introduction of open caption movies throughout Australia to benefit people who are deaf or hearing impaired and the announcement of a scheme by telecommunications companies to assist people with mobile phones that were causing interference with their hearing aids. These were two examples given of the benefits that can accrue both to providers of services and disabled people by a framework of cooperation, which this legislation provides.In relation to public transport, the commissioner referred to public transport systems needing to establish uniform processes and to be clear about, way in advance, the type of infrastructure and rolling stock acceptable to meet the objectives of the act. For individuals to lodge complaints all over the country about different aspects of buses, for example—a situation that is now possible under the provisions of the act—is not necessarily the best way to make our transport system accessible; it is rather by creating partnerships and ensuring that standards are set and understood and, indeed, met. The commissioner also gave a picture of what the standards will be. He said:They provide various `rules' for making public transport accessible. They do not just deal with physical access, although this is an important aspect of them. They deal with other issues such as access to signage, announcements, and timetables. Because the drafters of the Standards appreciated that infrastructure change cannot occur overnight, they include a timetable by which percentages of public transport must be wheelchair accessible—25% after 5 years, 55% after 10 etc going through to 20 years for buses and coaches. But the clock does not start to run until the Standards are tabled in parliament, which has not yet occurred.Once the Standards are in place, complaints under the DDA about areas which are covered by the Standards will not need to demonstrate that discrimination has occurred—they will only have to show that the Standard has been breached. This legislation we are debating today takes a giant step down that particular road which, as I indicated, is very much in the interests of providers of services as well as in the interests of disabled people. But vigilance is always required in ensuring justice for people in our community who are vulnerable, in this case disabled people. In my home state of Victoria, towards the end of last year there were some particularly traumatic circumstances where several wheelchair-bound people were killed on level crossings. To his great credit, the Victorian minister for transport established a task force that included representation from the disabled community. That task force has produced some 23 recommendations, including recommendations to create a fund of $100,000 as a research grant to investigate engineering issues and to develop maintenance standards for level crossings. That is a very welcome initiative and I trust that the Victorian government—a very good government but not a perfect government—will now proceed very expeditiously to address the tragedies that occur periodically on level crossings in Victoria.There are always further things to do. Just recently in one of my local newspapers a number of complaints have been emerging—not actually affecting a railway station in my electorate but a nearby railway station called Watergardens, which is a very new station; indeed, it has just been opened in recent months. The complaints are about the compliance of that station with reasonable standards for disabled people. For example, there have been complaints about the width of emergency exits, the height of ticket machines and so on, and so there is always a lot more work to do.Even a very good government, a government—such as the Victorian Labor government— that is committed to high standards of social justice, needs to be continually vigilant in ensuring that adequate standards are continually met and services are continually upgraded. This should be done not only, as I have said, in the interests of disabled people but also in the interests of providers of services so that they have some higher degree of certainty about what the community expects of them.I notice that the member for Kennedy made a guest appearance a moment ago. Presumably he was so inspired by my speech that he decided to absent himself. But, since the member for Kennedy has left the control of Chief National Party Whip in the hands of the member for Mallee, the standards may well have fallen. So we will rely upon the good offices of the member for Mallee to go and chase the member for Kennedy and see where he is. 10000Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran)—I think we can take it that he is not coming.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—We can take it that he is not coming? I have obviously converted him, and so I will sit down and allow the proceedings to go ahead.11:32:002412Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I think it is a matter of substantial concern that the honourable member for Kennedy, in a serial way, puts his name on the speaking list. My understanding is that on three occasions in the last two days he has inconvenienced both the Committee and the main chamber by putting his name down to speak and not advising the whips of his intention not to. So, since the Chief Opposition Whip is responsible for the honourable member for Kennedy—if anyone is—it might facilitate the proceedings of this place and the main chamber if the Chief Opposition Whip were to give the honourable member for Kennedy a very stern talking to with a view that he might in future reform his behaviour and turn up or, alternatively, maybe not put his name down on the speaking list.On behalf of the government I want to thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002 and for their support. As has been indicated, this is a very important item of legislation, it is very progressive legislation and I know the Attorney-General is very proud of this legislation which will achieve very positive outcomes for our community.Changes announced in the budget this week will see significantly more support and greater opportunities for people with disabilities to help them participate in work and in the community. The government wants to provide every opportunity to people with disabilities to find and keep a job. To do this, the government will be providing help through the provision of extra rehabilitation, training, education and employment services. These reforms will be supported by the introduction of the disability standards for accessible public transport. This bill is an important precursor to the formulation of disability standards for accessible public transportation services and facilities. At present while the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has the power to grant temporary exemptions from the operation of provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act, it does not have the power to grant temporary exemptions from disability standards.Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be interested to know that these amendments will allow the commission to grant temporary exemptions from disability standards dealing with public transport services and facilities. The ability to grant appropriate up-front exemptions from these disability standards is an essential element in providing greater certainty to persons who will be affected by them. Importantly, the commission will be required to consult the National Transport Secretariat before granting such exemptions and may consult any other body or person it considers appropriate.Together with the amendments in this bill, the standards will provide certainty about compliance requirements for public transport service operators in a way that does not impose undue burdens upon them. The standards will greatly assist in breaking down social and economic barriers currently faced by people with a disability or mobility problem. The standards will also benefit other members of the community, particularly older Australians and parents with infants in pushers or prams, who need to or want to use public transport. The standards will help to promote increased recognition and acceptance that people with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community. They are a concrete demonstration of this government's strong commitment to eliminating discrimination against people with disabilities and to improving their lives in both a fundamental and a practical way. I know government members are very proud of this government's commitment and, what is more, the way that we are implementing this commitment through legislation.My good friend the honourable member for Barton spoke in this debate. He criticised the time taken to prepare and introduce the disability standards for accessible public transport and the time frames for implementation of various parts of the standards. I want to place the facts on the public record and to reassure the honourable member for Barton. My colleague the Attorney-General acknowledges and understands the concerns expressed about the period of development of the disability standards for accessible public transport. At the same time it is important to recognise—and I think most reasonable people would appreciate this—that, in view of their groundbreaking nature, when the standards are formulated and tabled they will be the first disability standards to be implemented under the Disability Discrimination Act. Draft standards were developed over a number of years by a task force reporting to the Australian Transport Council. Clearly, a lot of thought has gone into these standards. Following agreement on policy content, it has been necessary to consider the text of the draft standards to ensure legal certainty and effectiveness. If this did not occur, that would clearly not be a desirable outcome. Some drafting changes have been required for this purpose. The revised final draft standards were made available for public information in September last year and can be accessed on the web site of the Attorney-General's Department.An amendment bill was introduced in September last year but lapsed when the parliament was prorogued prior to the election. The amendments were reintroduced in the first sitting week of the new parliament, demonstrating the commitment of the government to finalising the standards. I understand that, at times, there have been queries as to how the compliance timetable will work. The compliance timetable for the disability standards for accessible public transport balances the legitimate needs of people with disabilities with the cost to operators and providers of refurbishing or replacing conveyances, premises or infrastructure. The compliance timetable ensures that accessibility is provided in a way that does not create an undue burden for operators and providers. It was developed by the accessible transport task force established by the Australian Transport Council and varied, as recommended, by the regulation impact statement. Public transport is primarily expected to become accessible by the replacement or upgrading of conveyances, premises and infrastructure at the end of their service lives. All new items must comply with the standards so that non-conforming items are gradually retired or upgraded.The compliance target dates and percentages take into account the service lives of conveyances in order to maximise compliance while minimising cost. For example, 90 per cent compliance for trains and trams is required by the end of 15 years after the standards take effect but, due to the life expectancy of trams and trains, 100 per cent is required by the end of 30 years after the standards take effect. I think that is quite reasonable.The timetable allows for incremental compliance with the relevant standards over 30 years with milestones at the fifth, 10th, 15th, 20th and 30th years. For example, 10 years after the standards come into force operators and providers must ensure full compliance with the relevant standards in relation to surfaces, hand rails, grab rails, gateways and vending machines as well as conveyances, premises and infrastructure. By the 12th year all public transport services as they apply to conveyances, premises and infrastructure except for trains and trams must fully comply with the relevant standards. The operator or provider may be granted an exemption by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in relation to compliance with part or all of the relevant standards as appropriate.In contrast to the comments made by the honourable member for Barton, the compliance timetable does allow for an appropriate balance to ensure accessibility. I hope that the member does indeed read the parliamentary Hansard to get the explanation for the matters that he has raised. I would also like to endorse the comments made by the honourable member for Batman. It is not a course of action I am often motivated to follow. But I do want to endorse comments made by him and other members opposite in congratulating the relevant stakeholders from both the disability community and the transport sector for their cooperative approach and willingness to work together to achieve a workable, effective outcome for all in developing these standards. As I said at the outset, I thank honourable members for their support and I am very pleased to commend this bill to the chamber.Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. Bills2414R15132414Debate resumed from 14 March, on motion by Mr Truss:That this bill be now read a second time.11:43:002414Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Congratulations on your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker Corcoran. I have not had a chance to congratulate you on that. It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services (Amendment) Bill 2002. In my capacity as the parliamentary secretary to the shadow minister for primary industries and resources, Senator Kerry O'Brien, it gives me pleasure to represent him here. There is also the fact that I share with him residency in Tasmania. As the member for Braddon, I come from an area which has a long tradition in horticultural services and products. Indeed, I live in the Forth Valley, a beautiful, fertile valley at the heart of the horticultural business in Tasmania. We are renowned for our vegetable production, and the primary processing of those vegetables as well. The soil is so fertile, it is said, that sometimes if you throw a toenail in the ground it will grow a foot. That is how fertile our area is. But enough of that; I will return to that later.The Australian horticultural industry is a key rural industry and a major regional employer. Horticulture is Australia's second largest industry after wheat. The industry had a gross value of production of around $5.5 billion on 1998-99 figures. The farm gate value of production was, on those figures, around $4.74 billion, comprising vegetables, $1.53 billion; fruit and nuts, $2.5 billion; and nursery production, $0.65 billion. Total horticultural exports for the 1999-2000 period was $720 million, comprising fruits, $394 million; vegetables, $193 million; nuts, $100 million; and nursery, $33 million.The top three fruit export products were citrus, $153 million; grapes, $74 million; and apples, $37 million. The top three vegetable export products were asparagus, $45 million; carrots, $36 million—very much part and parcel of where I come from, which is a great carrot growing area—and cauliflower, $23 million. Nuts and macadamias totalled $76 million, which represents 76 per cent of total nut exports, and cut flowers, $31 million, which represents 91 per cent of nursery exports. Total horticultural imports for 1999-2000 was $93 million comprising fruit, $73 million; and vegetables, $20 million, which saw an increase of 20 per cent on the previous year. Australian horticulture has been one of the success stories of the past decade—growing by 142 per cent and representing 18 per cent of agricultural production. On any figures, that is astonishing growth and represents fantastic potential for the future.In my own state, Tasmania's highly diversified food and agriculture sector has a reputation for products that are internationally competitive and among the finest and cleanest in the world. Sustainable agricultural practices are the hallmark of our horticultural industry, further enhancing Tasmania's clean and green image. Tasmania's vegetable and associated industries generate hundreds of millions of dollars to the Tasmanian economy. By far the majority of Tasmania's vegetable crops are produced from highly fertile soils throughout my electorate on the north-west coast, which also includes the beautiful King Island.Probably the best known of these is the humble spud. Indeed, there was a story going around that the word `spud' actually comes from my region and that `s' is for Smithton, `p' is for Penguin, `u' is for Ulverstone and `d' is for Devonport. Now I cannot absolutely vouch for the validity of that, but we are certainly a great spud growing area. The potato represents close to half the gross value of Tasmania's vegetable production. The latest projections estimate that by 2005 the farm gate value of potato production in Tasmania will be close to $120 million per year. The potato, like most vegetables grown in Tassie, is produced for processing, and I have a number of processing plants in my electorate. Of course, the Simplot processing plant at Ulverstone is renowned for its spuds, which make their way into a large food outlet chain which has outlets throughout the world. Other major crops include poppies—a very important crop in my area—onions, in the Forth Valley in particular—we almost pioneered the perfection of onions—green peas and beans, together with wine grapes and apples. Pyrethrum is also an emerging industry with huge potential, along with nuts and a small but growing olive industry. Another small but increasingly important part of the industry in Tasmania is the fresh vegetable market and opportunities to export to niche markets are continually sought. As I mentioned earlier, the horticultural industry is a major regional force employing 80,000 people with a further 11,200 employed in processing. There are approximately 21,000 farms engaged in the industry. It is an industry that has undergone significant change in recent times; hence this legislation. The most significant change was the merger between the Australian Horticultural Corporation and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation in 2000. The purpose of the merger was to create a company that has closer links to industry to more effectively and efficiently promote the interests of Australian horticulture. The merger followed nearly two years of consultation between the company, the wider horticultural industry and government. The merger was also the subject of close scrutiny by the parliament. For the historical record, that scrutiny was at the initiation of the opposition.It is our view that such changes must be properly scrutinised to ensure that they are for the better from the point of view of government and also industry. The new structure contained in this amendment and in the earlier legislation quite rightly has a strong commercial focus. This bill will remedy what is, in effect, a simple technical problem. But the correction of this problem is fundamental to the operations of Horticulture Australia in its role as an export control body. The bill will amend the Horticultural Marketing and Research and Development Services Act 2000 to deem Horticulture Australia Ltd, HAL, as the export control body under the HMRDS Act to be a Commonwealth agency for the purposes of section 16 of the Customs Administration Act 1985.Currently, Horticulture Australia Ltd is given the function of administering export controls on behalf of horticultural industries as the company has been declared the export control body under section 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 the delivery of marketing and research and development services to the horticultural 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 the use of export control powers. As HAL does not meet the criteria of a Commonwealth agency under section 16 of the Customs Administration Act, the Australian Customs Service has advised HAL that it is no longer able to provide data from its EXIT database to the company, hence carrying out one of the most important functions that it was intended to carry out under this legislation.This bill, quite rightly, will correct that problem. It will, therefore, ensure that HAL can exercise appropriate management over current export control powers and any future export control powers by being able to access the EXIT database to show evidence of any breaches that may have occurred in contravention of export controls. Hence, Labor supports this bill.11:53:002416Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—It was a great delight to listen to the member for Braddon and have his support for this Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services (Amendment) Bill 2002, which is a very important one for my constituency. We have been waiting for it for quite some time. Listening to members speak about their electorates often fascinates me. A lot of what the member for Braddon has boasted about I could claim for my own constituency, like the potatoes, carrots and so forth. But we do not want to compete because we share the same hopeful aspirations for horticulture. That is particularly the case for rural regions of Australia as they get into more extensive crops that the world is asking for instead of continuing to grow things which the market is not necessarily interested in. I refer also to what is happening with water availability and the changes to the way that water is regarded in Australia, thus stimulating an important industry.This particular bill continues the government's program of modernising Australia's agricultural entities so that they can be modern, flexible entities, not hamstrung by government bureaucracies, so that they can progress and be innovative and not waste time because the market is changing so quickly. There is the need to relay sensitive market information to give growers of horticultural produce maximum opportunity because of the long lead times in getting some of these crops grown and on to the market. It is an exciting thing to see.There has been a lot of uncertainty about horticulture. This particular amalgamation that the member for Braddon referred to shows the need to pass this legislation so that the government is the authorising controller in the ultimate sense and is where the buck stops for a privately owned and operated entity.This bill creates two interesting abstract concepts. One is that there has to be an industry services body which provides not only the market and the product research but also an industry export control body. I am particularly concerned about that aspect. Under the bill, the minister will have the power to declare a body either an industry export control body or an industry services body. This has my support. In what were the Australian Horticultural Corporation and the HRDC, whilst their functions will be joined and performed by a private corporation, the Commonwealth, in other words the parliament, will retain the ultimate control of the functions. Particularly in regard to export control, this is vital.Of all those industries that the member for Braddon has mentioned, I note he mentioned citrus as an area of interest for Tasmania. It is a vital industry in terms of my constituency. I represent the Murray Valley, along with the member for Farrer on the New South Wales side, and I note that this particular industry has really suffered substantially because of the need to advance in the world trade arena. The industry has suffered major reductions in tariff protection, which has exposed the industry to its inefficiencies. It forced the industry to move away from its reliance on frozen concentrate orange juice, which comes from a valencia product. At great pain, the industry has responded and a number of types of valencias have been removed and replaced by a planted navel product, which has cost the industry dearly. Their great expectation now is that this navel product will have access to international export markets.I am very concerned because the first task that HAL will have is to deal with the implications of an industry commission report which is now with the minister. I do not have the advantage of knowing what is in the final report, but I am very anxious on behalf of my citrus growers to read, in the draft report, recommendations that will severely undermine the security that the citrus industry has with respect to the US export market.This has been achieved by assigning a single desk entry into the United States. There is a very constrained, narrow window measured in weeks for our industry to get into the United States market in off season. It is vital that that is managed and controlled tightly. We do not want inferior product getting into that market and destroying the very good reputation that Australian citrus growers have established in the United States market. In the draft report of the Productivity Commission, draft recommendation 7.8 stated:Horticulture Australia Limited should give serious consideration to discontinuing the requirement that citrus exporters use a single importing agent in the United States.It alarms me that an important government body like the industry commission would show such lack of understanding of the vital importance of disciplined, ordered market entry to put a recommendation like that in its draft report. I understand that they have not modified those drafts and I am very anxious for the minister to have that report tabled so that my citrus growers and I can contest a suggestion that the single entry to the US be abolished.It alarms me that an important government body like the Industry Commission would show such lack of understanding of the vital importance of disciplined, ordered market entry to put a recommendation like that in its draft recommendation report. I understand that they have not modified those drafts and I am very anxious for the minister to have that report tabled so that my citrus growers and I can contest a suggestion that the single entry to the US be abolished.It just makes nonsense of the struggle the industry has had in the last 10 years. Pressure has been put on the citrus industry in Australia in that period. Where growers once enjoyed a tariff protection of 35 per cent, it was reduced to five per cent overnight and, cold turkey, they were asked to compete without that protection in the domestic market. Today you can buy in supermarkets in Australia oranges from southern Africa and oranges from California in the United States. The citrus industry's big opportunity now is the international market. I am pleased that the minister is present and, although I understand that right now he is busy satisfying the beef industry—again the culprit is the United States—and he does not want two world wars being conducted at the same time, my citrus growers are anxious to see the final recommendations of the Industry Commission's report. They will object and fight strongly against the draft recommendation 7.8. Minister, I warn you that I will be giving them my maximum support.To compete in a world trade market, which is this industry's greatest hope and expectation, and to enjoy a premium market—to get the best product on to the marketplace and establish a premium—can only be achieved when we have got tight and very orderly marketing into those markets. The industry has been very active in its promotion of its products in our nearer markets in Asia—Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan. Let me explain that the applied tariff rates against which they have to compete into Indonesia are 25 per cent. Although the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have been pushing very hard for a fairer access into Korea, the tariff rate is still 50 per cent. In fact, if it is more than 20,000 tonnes of product into the market the tariff rate goes to 64.7 per cent. Those countries still need to get the message that Australia expects fair trade and to compete on a level playing field. The Philippines is much better. We have seen some reductions: it used to be 30 per cent and it is now down to 10 per cent. In Taiwan we have been pushing very hard. They are anxious about their entry into the World Trade Organisation and once that is achieved we expect that they will honour Australia's request to lower their tariffs. They are still at 30 per cent and lower if the quota is less than the small amount of only 600 tonnes.The playing field is nowhere near level. I am sorry to focus entirely on the citrus industry—but it is very relevant to this bill—and it has been waiting for this legislation to enforce its export control of the HAL. I am very anxious for the bill to be passed, and I am very pleased to see the opposition supporting the bill. I would like to allow the minister time to sum up. In response to the remarks by the member for Braddon, I want to reinforce how important this industry is to our GDP. It is the second largest agricultural industry after wheat in aggregate. Whilst it is a `fruit salad' of individual commodities and products which on their own are small, as an aggregate industry horticulture is big. After wheat it is our largest single agricultural export. The member for Braddon is right. It has grown at the incredible rate of 142 per cent in 10 years. It represents 18 per cent of agricultural production. It is vital to regional areas because it is a labour intensive industry that employs 80,000 people across the nation and a further 11,200 in the processing sector. Being food related it is intensive because it has to satisfy some very strict quarantine requirements. There are a lot of families involved, generally mums and dads. Twenty-one thousand farms are engaged in horticultural industries around Australia. It is a very important industry and I am glad that parliament recognises that. I am pleased that a bill like this has unanimous support.In the year 2000 the industry represented $5.5 billion of GDP—and with the industry's growth rate that figure must be higher by now. The relevance for me and the member for Braddon is that the farmgate value of that is $4.7 billion. That is revenue to our rural locations; it is a sizeable amount. With that level of employment, it is an industry we must try to encourage. With those remarks I will finish and allow the minister to sum up. I will be interested in his comments about the tabling of the Productivity Commission's report and his assurance that he will consult widely with citrus growers, who are very important people to the members for Farrer and Riverina, to me as the member for Mallee and to the member for Wakefield. 12:06:002418Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—in reply—I thank the honourable members who have contributed to this debate for their support for the Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services (Amendment) Bill 2002. The honourable member for Mallee, who has just completed his remarks, rightly referred to the fact that the horticultural industry is of great significance to our nation. In addition, it obviously has a particularly powerful influence on many regional communities. It is a major employer, it is still a labour intensive industry and it has certainly been the lifeblood of many of our most important rural and regional towns. The horticultural industry has had a history of ups and downs—sometimes there is oversupply, sometimes there are difficulties with seasons and the like—but over recent times the expansion of the industry and, in particular, its capacity to perform so well on export markets have been an enormous enhancement to regional economies and to our nation as a whole. I never cease to be impressed by the innovation and skills of our horticulturalists and by their capacity to enter new markets, to grow new products and to do it wisely and well. Some horticultural industries have been a part of Australia since the very first days. Some have been slow to change; they have been caught up with changing varieties and changing consumer tastes and have found adjustment difficult. On the other hand, there have been a lot of major new plantings and major new investment. The scale of some of our horticultural operations now is world-class. That is one of the reasons why the food industry strategy that was announced in the budget is of such importance. There is no doubt at all that the horticultural sector will be major beneficiaries of that initiative. Increasingly, the Australian processing industry has recognised that it needs to supply the global supermarkets. We need to be a part of the major new international processing companies that are currently dominating the food trade. We want Australia to be a destination of choice for many of these corporations when they are setting up new processing facilities. So Australia needs to be a centre of excellence. We need to develop our professional expertise and our support industries, improve our industrial relations and develop the kind of climate that is attractive for companies which have to make a choice between the countries of the world as to where they want to establish their processing facilities. The success of this strategy will have a great bearing on the future of the Australian horticultural industry. I think all Australians want our products to have more value added in this country. The food industry strategy is all about creating those jobs in Australia, rather than us exporting our raw materials to factories in other parts of the world where they are prepared for the supermarket shelves of the world. So there are tremendous opportunities. I recognise that the citrus industry is a classic example of an industry that has faced acute difficulties in some areas and yet has been spectacularly successful in others. There has been enormous growth in our citrus exports to Asia and huge plantings of citrus in some parts of the country, whereas in other areas there has been a need to pull trees because the product that is being produced cannot be economically sold on the domestic market. Those sorts of issues do create enormous personal problems and structural adjustment issues at the local level and they matter very deeply to the affected farmers. I am conscious of the issues raised in the Productivity Commission position paper in relation to the citrus industry and whether or not that industry needs protection from the impact of imported juice concentrate. The Productivity Commission has completed its final report and the government expects to be in a position to table that in the parliament fairly soon. I can certainly assure the honourable member for Mallee that we will continue to consult with him and other representatives of the citrus industry, and the industry organisations themselves, in an endeavour to find satisfactory solutions to the issues that have been raised. In addition, where structural adjustment is necessary, we will look at ways in which the government can provide support through those difficult times.You referred especially to recommendation 7.8 of the Productivity Commission report that refers to the operation of a single desk. The passage of this legislation today demonstrates the government's preparedness to support single desk operations and to make sure that they work effectively. We will obviously respond to the Productivity Commission report at the appropriate time but, in the interim, this legislation will help ensure that Horticulture Australia Ltd is able to exercise that single desk if it chooses to do so in the period ahead.This bill has the essential function to amend the Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services Act 2000 to deem Horticulture Australia Ltd 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. 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. Currently, HAL administers export controls on behalf of horticulture industries as the company has been declared the export control body under subsection 9(ii) of the act. The Horticulture Australia Corporation previously undertook those functions.As HAL does not meet the criteria of a Commonwealth agency under section 16 of the Customs Act, the Australian Customs Service has advised HAL that it is no longer able to provide export information from its exit database to the company. However, the intention of the 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. 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 export information 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 there are no financial implications for the Commonwealth. I commend the bill to the Main Committee and thank those members who have contributed and who have agreed to support the legislation.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Bill reported to the House without amendment.Adjournment242010000Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran)—Order! It being 12.14 p.m., I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.242012:14:002420Vamvakinou, Maria, MPMs VAMVAKINOU00AMTCalwellALP00—I bring to the attention of the Committee a new program being run across a number of Victorian primary and secondary schools. It is called the Schools Breakfast Program and it was implemented in April this year with schools providing breakfast for those children who otherwise would go without.Erinbank Secondary College located in Westmeadows and Keilor Secondary College, both in my electorate, are two of the five Victorian secondary schools participating in this program. I visited Erinbank Secondary College in March this year and met with the principal, Mr Robin Lockington, the staff and the students. The staff of Erinbank recognise that their community has a high rate of unemployment and a high level of recipients of income support from the state and federal governments. As of 1998, 47 per cent of all students came from homes receiving income support.Like a number of other schools in the region, it was gravely concerned about students coming to school without having breakfast. This worrying trend was partly attributed to the disadvantaged family background of many of the kids. Results yielded by similar programs in other regions showed a noticeable improvement in student performance after the introduction of breakfast programs. Erinbank Secondary College decided to join with four other schools and, in partnership with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Australian Education Union, agreed to run a breakfast program. At this point, I would also like to note the work of a local resident and activist, Ms Terri McNaughton, and her participation in the early development of this program.As part of the program, 11 secondary and primary schools have been paired with 11 construction sites. The CFMEU was more than happy to participate in this program, because it is a large union with a large membership base and a strong commitment to social justice issues. It also has a tradition of lending a hand to mates in trouble, and helping to alleviate some of the burdens carried by the disadvantaged. The union organised for its members working at Melbourne airport—which is also in my electorate—to be paired with Erinbank Secondary College, and they assumed the responsibility of raising around $500 a week to pay for the program. The AEU has also played a key role in organising schools and program coordinators. The program will be ongoing, with the major financial sponsor of the program remaining the CFMEU membership.In a recent AEU report, CFMEU shop steward Damien Eley described the reasons behind the union's support for the program:Those of us lucky enough to be in jobs can help dozens of students who miss out on breakfast. It's a purely voluntary scheme but in times when governments are less than willing to invest in welfare basics, other bodies such as the CFMEU must step in.We all know the significance of breakfast. It is the most important meal of the day. Studies have shown that children who have a healthy breakfast are better at concentrating and have better memory skills during the school day. Naturally, as a former teacher, I can attest that those kids who skip breakfast tend to be inattentive and irritable by about mid-morning. Schools, together with the broader community, understand the need to cultivate good eating habits and the effects they have on learning, and are grateful for the help that the union in this case and its members provide. Darrelyn Boucher, who is the principal of Cockatoo Primary School—which has also benefited from the program—was quoted in an AEU report as describing the construction workers as `these big, burly men with hearts as big as Texas.'The welfare role performed by the union movement is not novel or one-off. The CFMEU and other unions have a tradition of humanitarian and charitable assistance, which belies the often one-dimensional and negative view promoted by those who are not comfortable with the existence of unions in this country—certainly a view unfairly promoted in the current politically charged atmosphere of the royal commission into the building industry. If schools and educators are aware of the correlation between good nutrition and overall physical and cognitive development, then governments and bureaucrats should also be aware, and action to address these matters should not be left to the generosity and social conscience of trade unions alone. It is also the responsibility of government. Many people in our community feel as strongly about this as I do.242112:18:002421Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I would like to draw the House's attention to Kairos, a very worthy program that is currently running in a number of New South Wales jails. Since the last time the parliament sat, I have had the opportunity of being the first parliamentarian to take part in a Kairos program for serious offenders in Long Bay gaol. Put simply, Kairos is a 3½ day short course. It includes a series of talks, focus groups, chapel services, meditation et cetera. Kairos started in the United States and has been particularly successful in their prisons, where the recidivism rate amongst those who have undertaken the program dropped from 80 per cent down to less than 20 per cent. The program has been running for over 10 years, and that is the success rate in the US. The program has had only a limited history in Australia, but already the signs are promising. This is one of the reasons the New South Wales prison system has welcomed Kairos into more and more jails, despite the cautious beginning. It is now in over 11 jails in New South Wales.I must admit that I joined the team for Kairos 10 in Long Bay jail with considerable caution and some cynicism. I also questioned whether there was a certain degree of overservicing, with an almost one-on-one ratio of team members to inmates. As I listened to their various stories, both the challenge and the effort that must be put in by team members quickly became evident. Their stories were full of parental rejection, general lack of support from families and friends, institutionalisation and, quite often, sexual abuse at an early age. This was certainly a group of hurting human beings. The first man I had contact with, whom I was to sponsor during the three days, had his life shattered. He was in prison, his wife had divorced him, his children would not visit him, he had lost his home and his job and was feeling a shattered individual. Three-and-a-half days are intensive with 12-hour stretches spent in prison. The turnaround of the participants is spectacular. Most inmates began the program very reserved, hesitant and apprehensive. As they worked at tables and in small groups, people gradually opened up. The discussions, which had been awkward and hesitant, evolved over three days in what was effectively a group of people caring for and supporting each other. It is remarkable in jail where hatred and distrust reign supreme. Amazingly, a real sense of expectancy pervaded the place. As people became more and more enthusiastic, opportunity was given for them to reflect and to consider those that they had sinned against and those whom they felt that they needed to forgive. It was a time of healing, of looking forward, of trusting other people and of taking the opportunity to view themselves in a new way. In addition there were several chapel services. It certainly was an eye opener in terms of the results of these programs. Three-and-a-half days were punctuated with the opportunity for the participants in the program to show a willingness to change. Inmates were warned that Kairos could be regarded as a special experience. They would be returning to the normal jail experience and it may seem more routine. But people were highly enthusiastic about the whole opportunity.Of course, it would be naive to assume that dramatic changes will occur just as a result of a 3½-day program. An ongoing journey program follows where these and all other inmates that have previously completed a Kairos program join in with the outside team members once a fortnight. A similar course called Kairos Outside is also run for the women relatives—mothers, wives, sisters, partners et cetera—of these men who participate in the program. I expected to sit back dispassionately and simply observe how the program operated. I did not expect to be caught up in the whole enthusiasm of the Kairos program. There is often a feeling before entering the prison that these people are different from us and that they are a different order of human being. Of course, you soon recognise the brotherhood of all men. To my surprise I did recognise the common humanity in us all. It was simply awesome to witness the transformation of some lives as they sought new directions and to see evidence of their obvious enthusiasm for the program and stated intention to alter lifetime-acquired habits. I shall not forget the great experience of being part of lives which had been shattered but had found that there was hope beyond themselves. My personal view of Kairos is epitomised by one of the inmates, an Aboriginal man who had been in institutions since he was three years old. He wrote of his experience in A Koori comes to Kairos:I came to Kairos hesitantOf what it was all aboutDue to my betrayal as a childMy mind was full of doubt.Too many painful memoriesOf innocence that was lostLeft me feeling vulnerable, afraid, confused and lost.I have never known a familyLike the one that I found hereA family kind and caringAnd none of you I fear.This summarises the experience of the Kairos program.242312:23:002423Grierson, Sharon, MPMs GRIERSON00AMPNewcastleALP00—The release of the budget for 2002-03 served as a further reminder to the people of Newcastle that regional development and strategic industry policy are just not part of the Howard-Costello agenda. Under cover of the defence budget allocation, the Minister for Defence, Senator Hill, heralded another potential threat to our region by escalating the discussions of the government's stated preference for the rationalisation of the naval shipbuilding industry. This rationalisation plan would occur through what Senator Hill claims would be a strategic government partnership with Tenix. Tenix of course is the firm that swiftly offered to former defence minister Peter Reith a lucrative consultancy on his departure from parliament last year and has donated over $220,000 to the coalition since 1998. My electorate would be very concerned, as would our Newcastle based shipbuilders ADI and Forgacs, that this supposedly strategic partnership would actually be a sweetheart deal that awarded naval contracts exclusively to Tenix, allowed the government to asset sale the Australian Submarine Corporation to Tenix at a mutually expedient price and provide the excuse for this government to hand out additional infrastructure spending for the capital improvements to Tenix facilities. If this scenario eventuates, Tenix would certainly be the winner rather than fiscal responsibility or a competitive and viable shipbuilding industry. In Newcastle both Forgacs and ADI have tendered for the patrol boat replacement contract. The delay in the announcement of the short list for this tender, coupled with Senator Hill's comments this week favouring rationalisation of naval shipbuilding, raises concerns in my electorate. Both ADI and Forgacs have excellent track records in shipbuilding and, in particular, in naval shipbuilding. Forgacs has the capacity to build larger ships like the destroyer and undertakes extensive ship maintenance work. ADI specialises in smaller craft and has particular expertise in advanced composite technology. The minehunter project is one they have just completed.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.26 p.m. to 12.40 p.m.00AMPGrierson, Sharon, MPMs GRIERSON—Forgacs has the capacity to build larger ships. Both ADI and Forgacs, our local ship builders, have excellent track records in both naval and commercial ship building. Forgacs has the capacity to build larger ships and undertakes extensive ship maintenance work. ADI specialises in smaller craft and has particular expertise in advanced composite technology. I remind the House that ADI has just completed construction of the Huon class minehunter project on time and on budget. Both these firms would look forward to an opportunity to tender for further naval contracts and both will continue to diversify their ship building ventures.ADI is in the process of restructuring its ownership. Some commentators suggest that the government could have difficulty if final ownership was linked to the French government. This is an unusual position to adopt as any ownership agreements can have special provisions addressing this concern. It would be hoped that Senator Hill is not looking for a further excuse to justify the strategic partnership or the Tenix deal.Newcastle and the Hunter region continue to make a major contribution to defence. In the election run-up period we saw political pragmatism replace strategic and fiscally responsible decision making when the coalition announced that the Headquarters Australia Theatre would be located in the Queanbeyan area. And now the defence and finance departments struggle to make that politically pragmatic decision work. Newcastle does not expect handouts but it does expect open and fair competition instead of sweetheart deals stitched up with the aid of a former defence minister or election pork barrelling. Although local coalition representatives Bob Baldwin and Senator Tierney repeatedly give assurances to Newcastle that the government has no formal plans for rationalisation, there seem to be advanced plans in place. And this from a government that espouses its allegiance to competition and choice.In summing up, it is apparent from the post-budget announcements made by Senator Hill that securing our nation's future means funding the war against terrorism and asylum seekers but has nothing to do with building a strong, competitive and diverse ship building industry in Australia.242412:42:002424Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I alert honourable members to a crisis which is developing in the Queensland sugar industry in general and in the Bundaberg and Isis districts in particular. Let me paint a thumbnail picture. There are 8,000 people directly employed in the growing of sugarcane in Queensland and there are 12,200 employed in the manufacturing of sugar. In the Bundaberg and Isis districts there are four mills and a refinery, and these are fed by nearly 1,000 farmers and 460 field workers. The mills employ collectively 770 in a good season and, in a bad season, of which this one is quite atypical, about 650. What does this industry mean to Queensland and Australia as a whole? In a reasonable year the industry manufactures $1.8 billion worth of sugar of which 85 per cent is exported. So its impact on the nation and on our export earnings is quite significant. This brings me to the nub of my contribution today. The international price of sugar over recent years has dropped from US8c per pound to US5½c per pound. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, as you know, coming from a sugar area, that is the international measure. I will express that in another way. In a good year, with a reasonable crop and a reasonable price, the industry earns about $1.8 billion. This year, even on optimistic predictions, the return will be only $1.1 billion and on a lower price projection about $1 billion. In Bundaberg and Isis the problem is compounded not only by the low sugar price but by a drought. The four-mill crop estimate, which in a good year or a reasonable year could return 5.1 million tonnes of sugar, will this year be down as low as 3.2 million tonnes. Combine that with a certain low price and the comparison is even more stark. A reasonable crop with a reasonable price in a reasonable year returns to the Bundaberg and Childers districts $220 million. But this year, based on the crop estimate and this lower price, the figure falls to $115 million optimistically, or $105 million if it is on the low side.Contemplate what that must do to a town. Integrated within Bundaberg are growers, cane harvesters, cane harvester manufacturers, fieldworkers, millers, a refinery, a distillery and a port for the export of sugar; it is all-pervasive. The district is also short of water. The Monduran Dam, which is the main supplier of water to this scheme, is down to five per cent of its capacity. I have just received a briefing from DNR, the Department of Natural Resources in Queensland, and they tell me the underground water is at its lowest level since the early 1970s. This is a one-in-25-year circumstance or worse.In this short contribution today, I want to signal to the parliament that in a very short time we will need assistance with this industry. We are grateful for the sugar industry assistance package. Across the state there were 10,500 claims—4,200 for income support. Out of approximately 8,000 farmers, that is quite an extraordinary figure. In the coming months, exceptional circumstances will have to be considered by the state government, and we look forward eagerly to the Hildebrand report, which will go to Minister Truss in the middle of June. This is a critical situation and I will be speaking more about it in the parliament in the coming months.242512:47:002425George, Jennie, MPMs GEORGEJH5ThrosbyALP00—On behalf of the workers in the community sector in my area and, very importantly, the broad range of people who depend on community services for their wellbeing, I take this opportunity to raise a matter of concern. As most members of this parliament would be aware, that community sector, together with the union that covers the workers, has been running a campaign for some months now to try and get the federal government to provide its fair share of the commitment to funding the long-awaited wage increases that were finally granted by the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission in November last year. We know that the people who work in this sector are very dedicated and very concerned, and their wage levels have not properly and historically reflected the value of their work. My concern now is that a number of these organisations are stretched to the limit, and we are facing the prospect that not only are staff feeling very vulnerable but also a range of community services will have to close, unless the federal government provides its fair share of the salary increase that was properly awarded by the Industrial Relations Commission. Let me give some examples of services in my area that will be affected. Southern Youth and Family Services runs six emergency accommodation services for the homeless, especially looking after young people in their youth refuges. In the last 12 months this service has looked after 672 young people. I am told by their chief executive officer that, unless the federal government makes its commitment under the SAAP program to its share of the funding that is required, one of those 24-hour services will have to close. Shellharbour Youth Activity Services, also in my electorate, has been living since November on surplus funds. These will be expended very shortly, putting that service in a position of potentially losing one position and one outreach service for young people—and they do a wonderful job with indigenous youth. The housing trust in my region and a number of disability residential service providers point to the same problems that they will experience or are contending with at the moment.There is one service that is totally federally funded. The ones I have mentioned to date are jointly funded by state and federal governments. The state government has done the right thing; the federal government has not. But some of the services are totally dependent on federal funding—one of them being the Illawarra Legal Centre. It is the only legal centre in our region of the Illawarra. It is totally reliant on federal funds and, again, is facing the anxiety of paying the wage increases without the commensurate commitment from the federal government. That will mean a cut in services and positions not being filled at the Illawarra Legal Centre.The demand for community services among disadvantaged people is rising. ACOSS last year reported a seven per cent increase in the number of people requiring services. Certainly in the Illawarra, the community sector and church and welfare agencies tell me that people are being turned away. The government's failure to provide a matching increase of funds to implement the award that was brought down in the New South Wales commission means that it is the homeless, the unemployed, the aged, young people and people with disabilities who will continue to suffer.So, coming on top of the pretty mean-spirited attack which was made yesterday evening on some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our community, I am yet to receive any glimmer of hope that these small local organisations performing such a wonderful job in my community will be looked after. These organisations are stretched to the limit. I appeal once again to the federal government to do the right thing and make sure it puts in money to fund the much needed wage increases for which people in this sector have waited such a long time. If the government does not do that, then it must understand that a lot of valuable services will be cut and we will have a lot of disaffected community members.242612:52:002426Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—I rise to speak on a matter of importance to communities within my electorate: Somerville, Baxter, Tyabb and Pearcedale. The matter is one of safety and security for those communities and, in particular, there are two issues I wish to raise. The first is a proposal, and the request and petition from the community, for a police station in the town of Somerville. The second, which I will address shortly, is the future of the Hastings-Dandenong-Frankston-Flinders Road corner—a major intersection with significant potential for death and injury.Looking at the question of a Somerville police station, a petition has been signed by well over 1,000 community residents asking that a 24-hour police station be established for the town of Somerville. The background is interesting: there has been massive growth within this town; that growth has been primarily of young families; and there has been allied growth in the towns of Baxter, Pearcedale and Tyabb. The result is that there is no police station within the immediate vicinity.There is the Frankston police station and the Hastings police station. I recently went out and spent one Saturday evening between 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. on the beat with the Hastings police. During those hours we spent most of our time in Somerville, and we did so because in that town there is a significant problem with youth aimlessness and their searching for things to do. In part, this is related to the lack of a secondary college and the unifying force that that has, and that is a different issue which I have taken up elsewhere. But also, there is an important point here about the need for a stronger police presence on the ground in the town of Somerville, which should also spill over into the towns of Baxter, Pearcedale and Tyabb. So the important point here is that we have an extremely hardworking police division at Hastings and in Frankston but that they need additional resources. My proposal in conjunction with the community is that this occur in three stages. First, there should be increased numbers of police allocated to those existing stations at Hastings and Frankston. This is a matter that we have taken up with the state government and that I want to press in this forum to emphasise the importance of the state government. Secondly, the next phase should be the establishment of a joint emergency services centre, bringing together police, fire, ambulance and providing a single point of unity. Thirdly, once this has been established, in years to come there would be a base for establishing a police station in Somerville. So I strongly support the request of the people of the towns of Somerville, Baxter, Tyabb and Pearcedale for the creation of a full police presence in Somerville.This relates to a second issue, to what has been described in the Herald Sun on 22 April this year with the headline `Corner ranks as our worst'. This is potentially the most dangerous corner in Victoria—the Hastings-Dandenong-Frankston-Flinders Road intersection. This is important because it is a major intersection and it is also one which is en route to the petrochemical and steel facilities at Hastings. There are over 500 truck movements a day through this intersection, of which 300 are LPG or petrol tankers. These come in the opposite direction to the heavy steel production coming from the BHP Westernport steelworks. Over the last two years alone there have been 15 major accidents at that intersection, fortunately no deaths, and two of those have involved LPG tankers. For a long period now a committed community group led by Mr John Antoine of Hastings, Mr Brad Lemon of the Tyabb CFA, the local member, Ron Bowden MLC, and Mr Robin Cooper MLA have waged a strong campaign to have this area finally declared as a black spot area to be given Commonwealth funding allocated under black spot funding for Victoria. I am pleased to say that finally—but, significantly, only following the inclusion of the corner in the Herald Sun as potentially Victoria's worst corner—funding has become available. I am delighted to congratulate the community which has worked so hard—Brad Lemon, John Antoine, Robin Cooper and Ron Bowden—and say that I think this is a tremendous move which will ultimately improve safety for the people of Tyabb and Somerville.242712:57:002427Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, you will doubtless recall that in the life of the last parliament on many occasions I spoke on behalf of my constituents about their outrage at the numerous bank branch closures that have occurred in my electorate. On 14 August I made one of many statements in the House protesting the arrogance of the major banks in closing branches in my electorate of Lowe. Since 1998, the major banks have enjoyed record profits but have nevertheless closed 14 branches in my electorate, slamming the doors in the faces of the elderly and the small business community, who are most affected by bank closures. In that members' statements contribution I also reported that the angry and frustrated residents of Lowe would fight back and establish a local community bank. I said then that I knew first-hand that the will of my constituency was so strong that we would achieve this goal. Today I am very happy to report to the House and to the parliament that the first community bank in the inner west was officially opened on Sunday, 5 May. 10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Unfortunately the time allowed for the debate has expired. Main Committee adjourned at 12.58 p.m.