2002-05-284012REPS245102002-05-28—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements245114:01:002451Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Trade will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. The minister is visiting Mexico to attend meetings of the APEC trade ministers. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has been unavoidably detained whilst attending the New South Wales RSL congress in Sydney and will be absent from question time today. During her absence any questions in that portfolio area will be answered by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.Questions Without Notice2451245114:01:002451Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the government's assessment of the likelihood of war between India and Pakistan? Minister, what is the government's assessment on such a war becoming nuclear and what would be the implications for Australia and Australian nationals if that occurred? Minister, what is your department's estimate of the number of Australians living and travelling in east Pakistan and north-west India? Can the minister assure the House that these Australians have been advised to leave the region now? Minister, given that this crisis has direct implications for the security of our own region and for Australia's own national interests, will Australia's foreign minister now travel to Islamabad and New Delhi to argue directly for a peaceful settlement?2451Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—There are a lot of questions rolled into one, so let me focus in particular on the question that the honourable member asks about the prospect of nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan. Obviously, our assessment is that it is possible, because both India and Pakistan are nuclear capable states. That is one of the reasons why the level of tension now between Pakistan and India is a matter of such very great concern not just to Australia but to the whole of the international community. In terms of the number of Australians involved, I understand that there are about 1,000 Australians living permanently in India. I cannot give the honourable member a precise answer as to the number who might be visiting the region at any particular time, but our expectation is that the number would be quite high. Obviously, the high commissions in both Islamabad and New Delhi do what they can to get in touch with Australian citizens and to ensure that those Australian citizens are aware of our consular advice.Importantly, the consular advice is on the web site, so it is available for people who have access to Internet facilities, and we do everything we can to ensure that people do know what our consular advice is. For example, within Australia over the last 24 hours I have taken the opportunity to do a number of media interviews to highlight what our consular advice is, to warn those people who are on the threshold of making a visit to either India or Pakistan that it is the government's considered view on the basis of advice we have received from our high commissions in New Delhi and Islamabad that Australians should defer both holiday and business travel to India and Pakistan, that Australians in Pakistan should consider leaving, and that Australians in India who feel that there is danger should also consider leaving.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—Are you going to go?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I call the member for Flinders.83TRudd, Kevin, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Griffith!83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—Alex, you—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Griffith is defying the chair!245114:05:002451Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and it follows on from his answer to the previous question. I refer the minister to the current tensions between India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir and ask in particular: what are the implications of this dispute for international security generally? Could he outline the actions Australia has taken to assist the parties to achieve a resolution? 2452Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Flinders for his question. Many members of this House respect his knowledge and understanding of foreign affairs, particularly based on his experience working for the foreign minister—and a mighty fine job he did then. I have already explained in answer to the earlier question that the government is gravely concerned about the situation in South Asia. I have made the point, in particular, about our concerns based on the nuclear capabilities that both India and Pakistan have. It is important to remember also that the oral conflict that is taking place and the tensions as well as the possibility of real military conflict detract very seriously from the war against terrorism. I have taken the opportunity already to explain that we have upgraded our travel advice. We are also in the process of making a series of representations to both India and Pakistan about our concerns in relation to the level of tension.Whilst we can understand the anger that India feels as a result of the recent terrorist attacks in Jammu and Kashmir, Australia utterly condemns those acts. We urge India to continue to exercise the restraint that it has shown up until now. Can I take the opportunity, in answer to the honourable member's statement, to welcome President Musharraf's statement last night in which he reconfirmed his commitment that Pakistan territory would not be used to launch terrorist attacks against India or Indian interests. However, we urge Pakistan to continue to be vigilant in dealing with terrorist activities within Pakistan that may be focused on attacks against Indian assets or Indian individuals. Pakistan should not only do more, but should be seen to be doing more.Australia has been active over the last month or so on this issue, as indeed we were before then. I was in India just a month ago and I had the opportunity to discuss our concerns about this issue with the Prime Minister, the Minister for External Affairs, the Defence Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs. During last week, I instructed the acting secretary of my department to call in the Indian and Pakistani high commissioners and explain to them our concerns about the situation.Last night I spoke on the telephone to the Pakistani Foreign Minister, Abdul Sattar, and during that conversation he assured me that Pakistan would be doing what it could to try to crack down on terrorists and that Pakistan would be doing more in the next few days. Of course, the President's speech was made subsequent to that. In the course of this evening I will be speaking with my Indian counterpart and next week Australian officials will be visiting New Delhi for talks on security issues, including the question of the relationship between India and Pakistan. I think the government are proving to be extremely active on this issue. We are working very closely with the Americans, the Commonwealth, the United Kingdom and others in ensuring that a maximum international effort is made on the basis that that effort should be effective.Distinguished Visitors245210000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the President of the German Bundersrat and Governing Mayor of Berlin, Mr Klaus Wowereit. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome and I extend a welcome to those German business men and women who are also in the gallery as part of Mr Wowereit's delegation to Australia.While I have the attention of the House, I also inform the House that we have present in the gallery the Rt Hon. John Spellar, British Minister of State for Transport. I extend a warm welcome to him.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice2452245214:10:002452Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism and I refer to the ongoing public liability insurance crisis. Minister, do you recall telling the Channel 7 Sunrise program yesterday that:The only solution on public liability is that the states have to reopen state insurance offices. They need to get back in the business of providing the old GIO, SIO solutions ... they privatised them in the early 1990s. Minister, are you the same Joe Hockey who signed this New South Wales government minute in December 1991 as the convenor, GIO Privatisation Communications Committee, and then followed up with a taxpayer funded trip to England and Ireland to discuss British and Irish privatisation experiences?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will come to his question. He is now advancing an argument.K26Mr LATHAM—Minister, how can you attack the states for getting out of public liability insurance when you were responsible for selling one of the largest public insurers in the country—the New South Wales GIO?2453Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—I would like to thank the member for his question. It was not a little unexpected. The GIO in New South Wales was formed in 1927 when the private sector in New South Wales failed to take up the opportunity to establish workers compensation insurance. When there was a market failure in that case, the state government set up an insurance office and went in to address the market failure. That is the role of state governments. When the GIO was privatised, as it was privatised by state Labor governments—the SIO, the TIO in Tasmania, the SGIO in various other jurisdictions; when they were all privatised—that was because, in 1991-92, the insurance market in Australia was a sophisticated market that provided a large number of products and covered many areas. It is fair to say, and I think it is generally accepted by all, that over the last 12 months, and particularly after the events of September 11, there has been market failure in relation to public liability. There is no doubt about that. On this side of the House, the government has a very strong view that there needs to be a reaction and the states have moved in some cases. Given that the member for Werriwa has said that the states should not be in the business of providing insurance coverage, I am pleased to advise the House that today the state minister for finance in Victoria has announced that the Victorian government will be establishing a government insurance office. He said:We are announcing today with the Municipal Association of Victoria a public liability insurance scheme that will cover up to 12,000 not-for-profit community groups that are currently having difficulty getting insurance.The fundamental point is that the state governments are responsible for insurance. It does not take a genius to work it out: the state governments are responsible for insurance because, when you look at the number of acts that state governments have specifically pertaining to insurance, there are 113 pieces of legislation by the state governments relating to insurance. They cover New South Wales, 34 acts; South Australia, seven; Victoria, 23; and so on. I am happy to table that.The second point is this: the state governments are milking insurance through the taxation they collect. Some states, like Victoria, have the highest level of taxation of insurance of anywhere in the world. Every small business, every tourism operator and every community group is paying up to 40c in the dollar in tax to the state governments. Now the state governments have to react. The state governments have to alleviate the immediate concerns of the small business community, the tourism operators and the community groups who are overwhelmingly concerned not just about the price levels of insurance but about the fact that they cannot obtain it. It is about time for the states to act. They have been working on the short-, medium- and long-term solutions for too long. At the moment there are community groups out there in need of immediate coverage. I am glad Victoria has moved today. I am also glad about the fact that a number of other state schemes are being developed by the states so that they can get back into the business of insurance when it is necessary.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I seek leave to table the Hockey privatisation minute and the details of the privatisation study tour through England and Ireland.Leave granted.245414:16:002454Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. To what extent is the Tough on Drugs program successful? Would the Prime Minister outline recent successes of the program?2454Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Mitchell for his question. He exhibits, as do members on both sides of the House, an ongoing interest in the war against drugs in this country. I am pleased to say to the House that the results of a survey released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on 23 May regarding drug usage and drug behaviour during the year 2001 show a number of extremely promising signs emerging in relation to drug behaviour and patterns of drug use in the three-year period from 1998 to 2001.The report found that overall there had been a 23 per cent drop in the proportion of people using illicit drugs at some time during the previous year. There was an even greater fall in drug use among teenagers aged 14 to 19. Here illicit drug use fell by 24 per cent amongst young men and 28 per cent amongst young women. Between 1998 and 2001, the proportion of people using marijuana fell from 17.9 per cent to 12.9 per cent and the proportion using heroin fell from 0.8 per cent to 0.2 per cent. To anticipate the suggestion that the fall in drug use is merely the result of the so-called heroin drought, the report also found that drug use fell in almost every category of illicit drug, just as the acceptability of drug use fell in almost every category of illicit drugs also.This report has come at a time when in other areas there are some encouraging statistics and results. When we compare the three financial years since the inception of the government's Tough on Drugs campaign with a similar period beforehand, heroin seizures have risen from 470 kilograms to 1,280 kilograms, cocaine seizures have risen from 230 kilograms to 1,560 kilograms and ecstasy seizures have risen from 135 kilograms to 660 kilograms. Opiate overdose deaths amongst 15- to 44-year-olds fell from 958 in 1999 to 725 in 2000, a fall of 24 per cent. The early results for last year are even more encouraging: in Victoria, for example, heroin deaths fell from 331 in the year 2000 to 49 in the year 2001.In the year 2000-01 there were 30,000 treatments provided to drug users by our 133 Tough on Drugs funded treatment services. That is up from about 19,000 in the previous year. Very importantly, in response to our parents education campaign last year, a survey carried out I think by the ABS found that 78 per cent of parents spoke to their children about drugs during the campaign and at the end of the campaign some 71 per cent of 15- to 17-year-olds indicated that advice from parents had had a beneficial impact in relation to their attitude towards drugs.None of these figures are used and none of these remarks are made in any way complacently. I do not pretend for a moment that all of the improvement has been due to the Tough on Drugs strategy. I do not pretend for a moment that the Tough on Drugs strategy is the only way in which this problem can be tackled. But I do think in this House, where there is a bipartisan concern about drug abuse—nobody on this side of the House has a monopoly on concern about drug abuse; everybody in different ways knows of or has been touched by the tragedy inflicted upon people by drug abuse—all of us have an interest in doing what we can according to our own beliefs to try and stamp it out. But I think there are some encouraging signs that progress is being made.I would hope that these particular statistics—that have not been compiled by the Liberal Party; they have not been compiled by a partisan source; they have been compiled by an independent Institute of Health and Welfare, whose statistics on health issues are used by both sides of the House in support of arguments—will be given much greater currency and much greater publicity than they have so far received. I think they are encouraging. They do give heart to parents who are worried sick about the threat of drugs in relation to their children, and they give some heart and some encouragement to the thousands of people who are working at the sharp end of this unending war against drug abuse.We have a war against terrorism, and that is a war that is justly fought and justly prosecuted. I also believe we have a war against the scourge of illicit drugs in our community, and I want to see that prosecuted with the same zeal, the same bipartisan resolve and the same endeavour that we give to other things, because the goals are as important. The threat of illicit drugs to the young in this community is lethal, and we have to do all we can as a nation and as a parliament to fight it. 83ZIrwin, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fowler might remember the courtesy normally extended at least to the chair.Distinguished Visitors245510000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Clerk has drawn my attention to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Tony Kelly, Deputy President of the New South Wales Legislative Council, and his wife. On behalf of the House, I extend to you both a warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice2455245514:23:002455Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the member for Dawson has said today that the full privatisation of Telstra will leave regional Australia `on the telecommunications goat track'? Further, is he aware of comments by the member for Riverina, who said that there will be no discussion with the National Party on the sale of Telstra `in the life of this parliament'? Deputy Prime Minister, when will you stand up to the Liberals and stop the full privatisation of Telstra?2455Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I will have a look at the claims in relation to the two members but, as has been observed here many times, you do not want to take for granted the opposition's interpretation of what might have been said by others. I would like to make a few comments. One is a very important one. It is the observation that telecommunications in rural and regional Australia are improving, which is something that we have always said is very important, not just socially but economically as well. The Leader of the Opposition has been saying that he knows all about telecommunications in regional areas and that they are not up to scratch. I am not quite certain that I can recall him actually doing a trip out there and having a look at telecommunications, but if he did he might be interested in the list of what we have done. I will just take a few moments to work through some of the things that, as a result of our efforts, are being rolled out.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—You can tell all about their interest in regional telecommunications!ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Red Hill is a region to them!4K4Mr ANDERSON—That is right. The universal service obligation now includes access to a 64-kilobit Internet connection for all Australians. The customer service guarantee has been put in place. It did not exist under Labor. They had a universal service obligation that was so basic and inadequate that you can only assume that, in their desire for a fully publicly owned Telstra, they would go back to the old universal service obligation which, quite apart from anything else, imposed no time limits whatsoever on the delivery of a telephone. There was no customer service guarantee and no effective USO. But now it is in place, it is being progressively tightened, and it is working. Another example is the CDMA mobile network.84GWilkie, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Swan!4K4Mr ANDERSON—What was the CDMA network rolled out to replace? Labor's analog system. They entered into a contract to abolish a very good service, and we had to find a replacement. They would have left country Australia with no service. People in the remotest parts of Australia now have untimed local calls. They have wanted that for decades. Who delivered it? We delivered it. By July this year, 250 rural and regional exchanges will have a high-speed broadband capacity. Next month, Telstra will begin a new iridium satellite service across Australia, backed by a Commonwealth subsidy on the cost of handsets, providing satellite communications at about half the previous cost. Also about to be released—this is a first in technological terms in Australia; we have done it ahead of the world rest of the world, as I understand it—is a long-range cordless phone. It gives coverage up to 10 kilometres from an existing phone connection. That will be a real boon for the farming community. I think it is very important that we outline these things—I really do. We have a commitment to improving rural and regional services.84GWilkie, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Swan!4K4Mr ANDERSON—To that, it needs to be added that we instituted an inquiry into the standards of services in rural and regional Australia, headed up by Tim Besley, an eminent Australian, who did a quality job and proved the lie to the ALP claim that he would just do a whitewash. He did not. We responded with $167 million worth of initiatives. We have consistently said that, unless those objectives have been met, no further progression will be made on the issue of the Telstra sale. That has been our position. I have clearly indicated—because it is important—that we are committed to improving services. They are improving. All of those commentators who focus only on the economic aspects of selling Telstra need to recognise something else: having world-class technological capacity in telecommunications in rural and regional Australia is vitally important in economic terms as well because of the wealth, the jobs that are generated and the need for it to have first-class technologies at reliable capacities and at economical rates.Our position on this is very clear. I believe that it is the right position. Again, I would just make the point that the ALP have put up a list of options on how they would break up Telstra and put it back together again. But there is a glaring omission in that policy position. There is nothing in it; there is no commitment at all to ensuring that rural and regional Australia has the telecommunications it needs. It is just not there.245614:29:002456Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of measures announced in the 2002-03 budget which will ensure that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is on a sustainable basis and also ensure that future generations continue to have access to affordable medicines?2456Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question and for his interest in sustainable health care services. When we released the Intergenerational Report, it showed that there was no area of government expenditure growing at a faster rate than the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It showed that the pressure of medical science, the ability to bring new medicines with treatment at a high cost onto the scheme, is going to be a significant driver of cost into the future. Any person that is interested in sustaining affordable pharmaceutical benefits will be interested in getting the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme onto a sustainable basis. That is why we announced in the budget measures to promote generic pharmaceuticals, measures to cut down on fraud, measures to enforce prescribing restrictions and so on.We also announced increases in the copayments for pensioners—an increase of $1, from $3.60 to $4.60. Bear in mind that, after 52 scripts in a particular year, they are free thereafter for pensioners and concession holders. We announced for non-concession holders that the maximum rate for any pharmaceutical would be increased by $6.20, up to $28.60. That is the ceiling rate; that is the maximum that people can pay. So, if the pharmaceutical is $100, $200, $1,000 or $2,000, the maximum payable is $28.60. But this does not mean that each and every prescription is going up by $6.20, and there has been persistent misreporting of this fact arising out of the budget. For example, in the Age on 18 May 2002, the reaction of a family was as follows:We've got a son who's an asthmatic. We were paying $17 to $18 a script before, now it's going to be in the $25 to $27 mark. That is not right. If it was $17 to $18 a script before, it will be $17 to $18 afterwards. Another example is Ventolin: a Ventolin CFC-free inhaler with 200 doses costs $17.20. After the changes, it will cost $17.20. It is only the maximum that is going up. If you were below the maximum, the price does not change. This is something that has been persistently misrepresented by the Labor Party, which has been claiming that all prescriptions are going up. There was a piece in the Australian on 23 May 2002 where the member for Lalor said: ... the Howard Government's policies on the fertility rate seem confined to making the pill more expensive as a result of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme changes.That is not the truth.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—You don't know what you're on about.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Why would you be retailing that through the Australian if it is not the truth? Let us take some of the oral contraceptives: Trifeme, an oral contraceptive, is $15.02 before the changes; it is $15.02 after the changes. Nordette is $15.91 before the changes and it is $15.91 after the changes. Levlen, another oral contraceptive, is $15.91 before the changes and it is $15.91 after the changes. The Labor Party announced that it was going to vote against putting every script up by $6.20, without finding out that every script is actually not going up by $6.20. Talk about cheapjack opportunism. Mostly you find out the facts before you announce a position.Let us take the antibiotic Augmentin: it is $18.19 before the changes and it is $18.19 after the changes. Let us take Normison, sleeping tablets.DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—There is no need for them while you are the Leader of the Opposition. That is why we put you on at 11 o'clock at night, with your newly acquired deep voice. With Normison, for 25 tablets it costs $7.58 before the changes and it costs $7.58 after the changes. Sleeping pills, antibiotics, the contraceptive pill and Ventolin— the Labor Party has consistently tried to mislead the Australian public in relation to this, going into the newspapers claiming that everything is going up by $6.20. The Australian people ought to see through the Labor Party for the misrepresentation and deceit which it has practised in relation to this matter.If you want a defensible, sustainable Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, you need to put it on a substantial and sustainable financial basis. The people that tell you that no changes are required are the people that are essentially trying to sell the Australian public a lie. If we do not make small changes now to keep this financially sustainable, the only changes which you will have to make in the years to come are much more drastic ones. You will not be able to bring increasingly sophisticated pharmaceuticals onto the scheme, at very high costs, unless you have the scheme on a sustainable basis. The reason why this side of the House wants to put pharmaceuticals on a sustainable basis is that we care enough about people's access to pharmaceuticals to make them affordable in the long term. If you want to make them affordable in the long term, you will be putting in place now the reform which will keep this system going. This is the side of the House that believes in a sustainable system. Cheapjack opportunism will not deliver sustainable pharmaceutical benefits and nor will misleading the Australian public.245714:37:002457Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the statements made on Sunday by the Leader of the National Party in the Senate, Ron Boswell, indicating that the National Party will support the full sale of Telstra because services in regional Australia are now almost `up to scratch'? How do you explain this to grain farmers Rob and Helen Blanch in Chinchilla, Queensland, who contacted Labor this week concerned that their phone has been out of order at least five times in the past four months after having been out—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for McMillan will resume his seat. HK6Lindsay, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Herbert wants to check the standing orders. He will have an opportunity in just a moment. The member for McMillan is asking a question. The use of the names of people in the question was not necessary in order for the question to be understood, but the member for McMillan nonetheless is entitled to be heard in silence. The member for McMillan will continue with his question.84HMr ZAHRA—Thank you, Mr Speaker. How do you explain this to grain farmers Rob and Helen Blanch—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for McMillan!84HMr ZAHRA—I am just repeating the question.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I had already indicated to the member for McMillan that that was not necessary. He has chosen deliberately to defy the chair. The member for McMillan will continue from the point at which he was interrupted.84HMr ZAHRA—How do you explain this to grain farmers in Chinchilla, Queensland, who contacted Labor this week, concerned that their phone has been out of order at least five times in the past four months after having been out of order for roughly three weeks last year? Deputy Prime Minister, will the government conduct an independent inquiry into service levels in regional Australia, as advocated by Senator Boswell, to get the experience of Australians like Rob and Helen Blanch, who do not want any more of Telstra to be sold?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for McMillan!2458Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—Senator Boswell observed on the weekend, as indeed I have repeated here today, that the government has put a lot of effort into improving services, and there is very material evidence that the various initiatives we have put in place are being rolled out and are making a difference. I must say I can personally attest to that: the mobile phone coverage in my own electorate has improved dramatically—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Red Hill?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition!DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. He is entitled to be heard in silence, just as the member for McMillan was entitled to ask his question in silence.84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned! A good deal of leniency was extended to him. He chooses simply to defy the chair.OT4Charles, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for La Trobe is warned!4K4Mr ANDERSON—My own electorate— and I do know a bit about bush electorates; I live in one—is the size of England and Scotland combined. It has 60 or 70 centres in it, and a very large number of them have mobile phone services as a result of programs such as Networking the Nation, which we put into place. I would be more than interested in obtaining the details from the honourable member in relation to somebody who appears to be having a little trouble with Telstra services. We get them from time to time in our office. It is not so many years ago that under the ALP we still all had party lines out there. Perhaps they would all like us to go back to party lines. They were terrific: you had about 10 people on each one. As Tim Fischer observed the other day, you could—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker, no doubt about them: they are really interested in answers. I dare say that the honourable member for Maranoa's constituents are waiting for an answer; they might like to hear it. I would like to invite them to contact either their member or me—or, if they must, through the honourable member who raised the issue— with the details of their problem and we will most assuredly take it up with Telstra. We have not pretended for a moment that all of the service issues have been sorted out; we have made that very plain but, unlike you, we have a commitment to getting them right. I finish with a rhetorical question: where was the ALP's customer service guarantee? 245914:42:002459Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Would the minister inform the House how the federal government is improving telecommunication services in regional Australia? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches, and what would be the impact if they were implemented?2459McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—I thank the member for Macquarie for his question. I know how he has worked hard with his constituents in both an urban and semirural setting to improve their telecommunications. As a result, many of his constituents in the valleys of the Blue Mountains are much better off because of the government's reforms and the injection of some $1 billion—that is the allocation overwhelmingly for regional and rural Australia. As a result, there are faster repair and service connection times, and temporary service is available where it takes more than five working days to repair. Every town in Australia that has a population of more than 500 will have mobile phone coverage for the first time; $52 million has been made available under the health and education networks—under the National Communications Fund—for the first time in history. Every person living in the outer extended zones, covering 80 per cent of Australia, can call their neighbour for the cost of a local call, and the government, of course, has used the highly successful Networking the Nation program, with more than 600 projects to date for mobile phone coverage, Internet access and training. There is a $120 million television fund, and the list goes on and on. All of these reforms—all of this allocation and new funding—were opposed by Labor, and all of these improvements would be lost under Labor.I am asked about alternative policies. What would Labor do? The member for Melbourne has released formally a paper which shows us exactly what Labor would do, which is very reminiscent of the old proposal of former Prime Minister Paul Keating, who through the 1996 election was revealed as wishing to break up Telstra and sell off parts of it to IBM—for those who have a sense of political memory. Now the member for Melbourne is revisiting the same plan— the Keating plan mark 2, if you like.Essentially his plan is, in a corporate sense, to break up Telstra. It would strip Telstra of its profitability and would rip the heart out of it. Instead of dealing with one company that has a range of services, you would go to several companies. You would go to one for an Internet connection; you would go to one for maintenance or connection; you would go to another for mobile phone apparatus; you would go to another for access to a fixed network. So instead of going to one company, whose strength is that it would cover all services, you would have to go to several. That would decrease Telstra's profitability and increase inconvenience and costs to customers. You would therefore massively reduce the shareholder value in Telstra and two million shareholders in Telstra would lose out. Their shares would decrease in value. You would prevent Telstra from growing and investing in new infrastructure. You would turn the regulatory regime on its head because you would create massive uncertainty for the entire industry and it would result in fundamental duplication of Telstra's resources, therefore increasing the price paid by consumers.I am very interested for the honourable member to clear up a matter for the House and for the general public because last August he took a personal explanation in the parliament explaining that he had not canvassed any of these issues or potential policy decisions with Macquarie Bank.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—That is not true. I did not say that. I am going to have to make another personal explanation.XH4Mr McGAURAN—He says he did not say that. In that case, I will quote from his personal explanation to the parliament on 27 August: In question time last Thursday the Minister for Finance and Administration stated that the member for Perth and I had secretly visited investment banks to get advice on how to sell off the profitable bits of Telstra. That is a lie. That is a totally untrue statement.Isn't it is curious that his current proposals are exactly that—exactly the things he denied to the parliament he had canvassed with Macquarie or any other investment bank? All I can say is that if you did not then you should have canvassed those wacky ideas with someone with commercial or business sense because they would have pointed out to you what a disaster they are.246014:47:002460Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer to Telstra's claims in Senate estimates last night that splitting Telstra into an infrastructure company and a services company would cause the value of Telstra shares to fall by $1, leading to a $13 billion fall in Telstra's overall value. Can the minister confirm that these claims are in fact based on a 26 April report by CS First Boston and that the report actually refers to the government's plans to impose accounting separation on Telstra, announced two days earlier by Senator Alston? I quote:Until we know exactly what the Government has in mind, it is difficult to quantify the potential impact of the required accounting separation. There could be little impact, but on more negative scenarios, there could be a value impact of as much as $1.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will come to his question.YU5Mr TANNER—Will you now admit that the CS First Boston estimate of a fall in the value of Telstra shares by as much as $1, as claimed by Telstra, actually referred to the strategy announced by Senator Alston on 24 April?2460McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—I thank the honourable member for his question. How could anyone lead with their chin to such an extent as that? That CS First Boston report correlates with the honourable member's proposal to structurally break up Telstra. There is no doubt at all. Last Friday's Australian got it right when it reported:Investment bank CSFB said yesterday a structural separation of Telstra between its wholesale and retail divisions could hit Telstra shares hard, with a worst case scenario of Telstra shares sinking to as low as $4.The government has dealt with an accounting separation with regard to Telstra. This report deals with significantly more devastating impacts on Telstra, such as corporate break up. I will quote from the report:But more substantial separation scenarios—remember `more substantial separation scenarios'—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne!XH4Mr McGAURAN—such as corporately breaking up Telstra—... would have the potential to reduce these returns over time. This could have quite a significant impact on value: for example reducing the long run excess return by Telstra to 6% would reduce valuation to $4.50; reducing it to 4% would reduce valuation to $4.The share price at the time of the report was $5.08. Under the worst-case scenario, CS First Boston estimated that it would reduce the share price by over $1 a share. This is related to more extreme structural separation, such as the ringbarking the member for Melbourne proposes in his discussion paper. That is the point. The devastating effect on Telstra's share price comes about after structural separation.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—I seek leave to table the CS First Boston report so that people can see the truth.Leave granted.246014:50:002460Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of transport policy initiatives and how this policy position benefits all Australians, particularly those in my electorate of Riverina and generally rural and regional Australians? What response has there been to these initiatives? 2461Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for her question and note her very real interest in transport, particularly given the importance of Wagga as a transport hub. Last week I released the government's new approach to land transport planning, which we have dubbed AusLink. This aims to make land transport more efficient, make it safer and produce better environmental outcomes. We are seeking to look beyond the immediate headlines of today and tomorrow and the electoral cycle to making the hard decisions that are going to be needed in the national interest in relation to our transport infrastructure.We face some particularly big challenges. The freight task in Australia, with a very strongly growing economy, will well and truly outstrip both population growth and economic growth. Indeed, with the likely doubling, for example, of the number of trucks on our roads over the next 18 years, without a serious attempt to address these issues we will face real problems of congestion, of interruption to amenity and of pollution and what have you in our major cities— as well as very real difficulties in simply delivering the money and resources needed to keep our national highway system up to scratch to do it.We are proposing that the federal government will sponsor the development of a five- to 10-year indicative rolling transport plan in consultation with, and providing for input from, the states, the territories, communities and, importantly, for the first time, the private sector. The private sector have shown a very real interest in delivering a better logistics sector in Australia. They see it as critical to the development of the Australian economy and to our export performance. Of course, there has been a reaction to the idea of greater private sector involvement. I have heard a couple of state Labor ministers say, `It means tolls.' They say that it will mean tolls in North Queensland on the national highway grid. I want to highlight that that is nonsense, that anyone who knows anything about paying for roads will know that lightly trafficked national highways would not support tolls even if there were a government of a mind that wanted to do it.When it comes to private sector investment, it is desirable that we capture more of it. A very good example of that has arisen in the sale of National Rail and FreightCorp to the consortium formed by Corrigan and Toll. Not only have they taken over that rolling stock—far better for the private sector to operate that rolling stock than governments, in my view—on the interstate mainline tracks but, furthermore, they have committed themselves to investing further moneys in the interstate track, subject to a contribution from us, which we are in a position to make. That is leveraging with taxpayers' money private sector contributions—and both sides win. It extends the taxpayers' dollar further and it also makes sure that we use it more efficiently—music, I would have thought, to a Treasurer's ears. I should also add that, very importantly, there will be no reduction, no clipping, of any of the commitments we have made. Whether it is to Scoresby or to such important programs as Roads to Recovery or the Black Spots program—$180 million for a very important program—we will continue those.The reaction from many people has been very good indeed. The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria said that it is good that the Commonwealth is talking about a national vision for transport and showing leadership. The National Farmers Federation welcomed it. The Australian Railway Association said:The ARA congratulates the government for taking a long-term view of transport planning and funding and agrees with the minister's summary. AusLink is a major step towards making our land transport system safer and more efficient with less impact on the environment.The Local Government Association also welcomed it and said that it is incumbent on all spheres of government to work cooperatively on this plan. Of course, there is a bit of a problem there, because what did the Labor ministers do, particularly in Victoria and New South Wales? Before they could possibly have had a chance to study the plan, they came out and panned it and said that it would not work, that it was an unworkable plan, that it could not be made to succeed. One even dubbed it `AusDud'. I was very interested then to note—as they say, success has many fathers—the media release by my opposite number, the member for Batman. I will just read the relevant excerpts. It said: Labor welcomes the Minister for Transport's support for Labor's long-standing policy on a national transport plan—and—the Minister will use a Labor policy to meet Australia's future transport infrastructure needs.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—What about Badgery's Creek?4K4Mr ANDERSON—He changes the subject: `What about Badgery's Creek?' There's a bit of a change of subject for you. I challenge the member for Batman to go to his state colleagues and say, `What the Commonwealth is proposing is in the Australian national interest and you ought to get on board.'246214:56:002462Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services and follows on his previous answers with respect to Telstra. Now that you have effectively admitted that services in regional Australia are still inadequate, do you support the statements made on Sunday by the Leader of the National Party in the Senate, Ron Boswell, indicating that the National Party will support the full sale of Telstra? If you are going to cave in to the Liberals yet again, will you at least insist that an independent inquiry into Telstra's service levels in regional Australia, as advocated by both Senator Boswell and the member for Dawson, will be held? Or are you afraid that an inquiry will find, as suggested by the member for Dawson, that there is `little evidence' that Telstra's customer service obligation is having `any positive effect'?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I remind the member for Melbourne of the obligation he and all members have to address remarks through the chair. He has by no means been alone in this, but his question was so framed that it suggested that the chair had a role in the answer, not the minister. I have also had a number of ministers who have given answers which have suggested that they were addressing people in the first person as `you' instead of addressing their remarks through the chair.2462Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—If the honourable member were to read the transcript of what Senator Boswell said on Sunday, he would recognise that Senator Boswell, like me, has alluded to improving services. I have outlined why they are improving: we are putting some real effort and resources into it. That is important to acknowledge. This is not a question of an ideological position here. I am, broadly speaking—as I think is well known—in favour of free enterprise. I do not particularly favour the idea of things like state controlled agriculture, or a state run trucking industry or a state owned automotive industry. Britain had one of those once. When I was a schoolboy, Britain had a state owned motorcar industry. Two out of five cars made in the world were made in Great Britain. They were so appalling—with all due respects to the British transport minister—that there was a saying in this country that, if you bought a British car, you had to buy a second one so that you had one to use all the time.So just to make the point—because I think it is an important one—generally speaking, this is not an ideological commitment. What is important is that we get the services country Australians need. That has been my commitment, my party's commitment, the coalition's commitment, the commitment of thinking people everywhere on this issue. The difference is that we have put in place the policies and the strategies to make it happen. There is nothing inconsistent at all with us saying, with good justification, and with plenty of evidence, that the services are improving but that, at the same time, they are not yet fully up to scratch. What Senator Boswell said, and I reiterate it again here today, is that at some stage, to keep faith with rural and regional Australians, we will have to objectively benchmark that. That is fair and reasonable. All I need to say is that we will keep faith with country people—we have always done that—and in due course, when the government is ready, we will say what we will do about that benchmarking process. But I reiterate two further points. We are about getting country Australia the services, the reliability and the cost effectiveness in telecommunications it needs so that it can fully participate in the activities of national economic life, so that it can reach its potential and so that it can do everything possible for the nation's economic growth. That is point number one. That is about getting the standards right, about getting country people the services they need. Point two, I reiterate, is that we are not in the business of dudding country people on this. Our commitment to their services is real and it stands—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Corio!4K4Mr ANDERSON—in stark contrast to the ALP's refusal on their form when they were in government to do anything at all about country services. They continue today in the document that they released last week with their plans for the future of telecommunications. I repeat: there is nothing in it in relation to services for country people apart from the utterly absurd and superficial claim that somehow service levels are related to public ownership. If they were, we would have had decent services back in the days of party lines and the PMG.246315:01:002463Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLP10— My question without notice is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware of registered organisations under the Workplace Relations Act exercising control over political parties? What is the government's response to union block votes inside political parties, and are there any alternative policies in relation to this issue?2463Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I have a very clear answer to the excellent question from the member for Mackellar. This government believes in democracy. We believe in government of the people, by the people, for the people. We do not believe in government of the people by the unions for the unions. We believe in one man, one vote. We do not believe in one man, one thousand votes if you happen to be the union secretary. Let me make it very clear to this House that business organisations have no block vote inside the Liberal Party, farm organisations have no block vote inside the National Party and Green organisations have no block vote inside the Australian Democrats. Unions have no block vote inside the British Labour Party, and unions should have no block vote inside the Australian Labor Party.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The House will come to order. The member for Lilley! The member for Corio is warned!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—When the Leader of the Opposition took over the ALP, he said that things were going to be different. He said that he was going to be a party reformer. He said that he did not want the ALP to be nothing but the political wing of the ACTU. Having made the big promises, the Leader of the Opposition's great reform turns out to be changing the unions' shareholding from 60 per cent to 50 per cent. He is changing a majority shareholding to a controlling shareholding—a distinction without a difference. It is a cosmetic change on a par with the Leader of the Opposition's pathetic attempts to deepen his voice. Having come up with a dud policy, he squibbed the chance to fight for it. He swaggered up to Sydney saying that he had never walked away from a fight in his life. The only fight he is interested in is one that has the result rigged in advance. He was mugged by the mates, not once but twice. The union heavies took him backstage at the Sydney Town Hall and they intimidated him into changing his speech, which turned out to be the biggest anti-climax since Halley's comet. Then, after the Leader of the Opposition had slunk out like a beaten impostor, Neville Wran, the most successful Labor leader of his generation, stood up and accused him of taking what he called `the Howard-Abbott bait'. He said of the Leader of the Opposition, `The party is a creation of the trade unions. Why we even have to mention the 60-40 rule is beyond my comprehension.' That is the verdict of Neville Wran on the pathetic, gutless political failure of the Leader of the Opposition, who talks about everything except what he really believes in. Members on this side of the House are governing the country and members opposite cannot even govern their own party. 246415:06:002464Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question again is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I refer to your previous answer regarding the National Party's support for the full sale of Telstra. Does your commitment to `objective benchmarking' of regional services before Telstra is sold mean a genuine independent inquiry?2464Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. This comes from the wholly owned subsidiary of the ACTU over there, facing some ballistic shareholders in New South Wales—the same group of people who, when we launched the Besley inquiry, immediately set out to denigrate the people on the panel and to say that it would not be a fair dinkum inquiry, that they would not do a real job and that it was just a whitewash and a puppeteer's job. In my view, this was grossly insulting those on the panel—decent, reputable Australians all of them, who did a decent and reputable job and gave us a no-holds barred assessment of the shortfalls in telecommunications in rural and regional areas. It was a fair dinkum process and we gave a fair dinkum response.We did not dud country people then, and we are not going to dud country people next time around—in due course, when we have established the best way forward. We have made it quite plain that any further sale of Telstra is conditional upon a fair and proper process of establishing that the needs of rural people have been addressed. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. The point that I make is this: we did not dud them last time and we are not going to this time. If there is one thing I can say with absolute surety in this place, it is that country Australia would rather have us dealing with their telecommunications future than you.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I remind the Deputy Prime Minister of the reference I made earlier to remarks being through the chair.246415:09:002464Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Can the minister inform the House of any new information that indicates the level of business confidence amongst Australia's 1.2 million small businesses? Furthermore, are there any threats to this growing confidence?2464Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—I would like to thank the member for Wannon for his question. I had the opportunity to meet a number of small business owners in his electorate recently and they are all pretty happy with the direction of the economy. They are very happy with the fact that growth is up. They are very happy with the fact that employment is up. They are very happy with the fact that business confidence is high. That has been reinforced today by the release of the Yellow Pages small to medium enterprise index, which reported that in the last quarter there has been a surge in business confidence, with the current levels the highest since the May 1996 index. Moreover, small businesses are confident that the Australian economy will continue to grow and their employment expectations are for future growth, with 10 per cent of small businesses expected to increase the size of their work force in the next quarter. Of course, there have been a number of factors that have contributed to this: the strong Australian economy, the responsible attitude of the government towards budgeting for the future, the commitment of the government to continue with workplace relations changes and a range of other initiatives. Perhaps there is one other factor that is giving small business confidence: it is the fact that the Labor Party has dumped rollback. Perhaps that has some impact. After five years the Labor Party decided to dump rollback, and it was in a speech to the Fabian Society conference on Saturday, 4 May 2002 by the shadow Treasurer. He said:After five years as the centrepiece of our tax policy and after two election defeats, it is time to reassess our priorities.I went looking for this speech and it was very hard to obtain. I went to the Labor Party web site and there are over 770 listings of speeches and statements from 14 February this year but there is one that is missing: the rollback of rollback speech—the full speech, no comment, no question. You have to ask why. Are they a little embarrassed about it? Could it be that Frankenstein's monster took a lot to kill, or could it be the fact that they made Dr Frankenstein the Leader of the Opposition? 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister does nothing to elevate the debate with that sort of reference.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The architect of the rollback policy is now the Leader of the Opposition, and it took the shadow Treasurer on a Saturday in an unpublished speech to go out and to kill rollback. That says a lot about the policy development of the Labor Party. It says a lot about the fact that for five years they ran hard on rollback and then on one Saturday in an unpublished speech it was not even the architect of rollback that killed it; it was the shadow Treasurer. Small business has confidence in the way the Howard government is taking it and they have absolutely no confidence in the Leader of the Opposition.246515:13:002465Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Deputy Prime Minister, do you recall the comments made by the Prime Minister's close confidant, Senator Minchin, that the Liberal and National parties should `consummate our marriage'? Was Senator Boswell on Sunday offering the dowry by accepting the full privatisation of Telstra and is the front page story in today's Australian the announcement of the wedding date?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lyons will resume his seat.BV5Mr ADAMS—Deputy Prime Minister—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lyons will resume his seat.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, is that a ruling?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—`The member for Lyons will resume his seat' is normally a statement made and obeyed. The member for Lilley is now standing at the dispatch box and I might therefore assume awaiting the call. The member for Lilley.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, have you ruled that question out of order or not?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have asked the member for Lyons to resume his seat. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Yes. And what do you intend to do then?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—If the member for Lilley is in fact asking an additional question, I will tick it off as an additional question. But at this point in time, I am in charge of the House. The member for Lilley has the call and I do not intend to respond to anything but a point of order from the member for Lilley. I am having difficulty finding any area in the member for Lyon's question for which the Deputy Prime Minister has portfolio responsibility. It was for that reason that I asked the member for Lyons to resume his seat.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, the question related to the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibilities as the Leader of the National Party. It concerned regional affairs. On numerous occasions in this House, questions of that nature from both sides have been declared in order. So you would be breaking with tradition if you were to rule that out of order, particularly when you have not heard all of the question.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the member for Dunkley wish to raise a point of order?1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson—No, just a question, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Dunkley will resume his seat. As the Manager of Opposition Business is well aware, it is not my habit to break with tradition. It has been a well-established tradition in this House that questions are asked over which the minister has portfolio responsibility. I had not heard anything in the member for Lyons's question over which I could have determined that the—ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Burke is warned! Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane occupies the chair that was the chair of the member for Burke. The member for Brisbane, nonetheless, is warned!2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, standing order 142 states:Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected ...The minister is clearly officially connected to regional affairs. You did not allow the member to finish his question which concerned important aspects of the minister's responsibilities. So as a starting point, I would ask you—before ruling the way you have—to hear the rest of the member's question. I think it is only fair.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley is well aware that had the member for Lyons wanted his question to stand, he would have given the Speaker something by which he could have allowed the question to stand. Let me quote—for the benefit of the member for Lilley and other members—page 526 of the House of Representatives Practice:The underlying principle is that Ministers are required to answer questions only on matters for which they are responsible to the House. Consequently Speakers have ruled out of order questions or parts of questions to Minister which concern, for example:statements, activities, actions or decisions of the Minister's own party or of its conferences or officials, or those of other parties, including opposition parties.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, in relation to that ruling there are a couple of points I would like to make: the first point is that the question was asked of him in his role as leader of that party—a terminology used in this House by both sides when questions are directed to that person. Secondly, in a previous answer the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations spent a very considerable amount of time talking about the Labor Party for which he clearly has no responsibility. So when are we going to get some consistency from you?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lilley! Were it not for the behaviour of members on both sides of the House, I would have dealt even more sternly with the member for Lilley. He knows that that reflection on the chair is totally out of order. The member for Lilley's reference to an earlier answer—not question, I might note to the House—from the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations bears no relevance to the ruling I have just given. That does not alter the fact that I considered the minister to be well wide of the mark in his answer and I intend to have words with him about that at the conclusion of question time. DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the Leader of the Opposition!5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, further to the point of order raised by my colleague the member for Lilley, I refer to the question asked by the member for Mackellar which, as I recall it, referred to the question of block votes in political parties. Given that the minister is not responsible for any political party—and most political parties wish they were not responsible for him—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for Fraser!5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—it is unequivocally the case that, if you are going to allow that question to be asked of someone who is not the leader of the party in question, you cannot fail to allow the question to be asked of the person who is the leader of the party responsible for the matters that the member for Lyons is raising. We have had ample precedent of such questions asked of the former Deputy Prime Minister as leader of the National Party and he was capable of answering them. I do not see why we cannot ask them of this Deputy Prime Minister. Just because he is not capable of not answering them is not a ground for ruling them out.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser is doing nothing to advance his case.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—We have ample precedent for that, Mr Speaker. There is ample precedent for asking questions to leaders of the National Party and leaders of the Liberal Party—and when we were the government, questions were asked of leaders of the Labor Party—about internal affairs of their party. They were asked of this Prime Minister, of the former Labor Prime Minister and of the previous Deputy Prime Minister on several occasions. This question, notwithstanding all those points, also substantially goes, and has already referred, to the question of the privatisation of Telstra which is properly related to the question of the responsibilities of this minister. I cannot see how on any of those grounds you can rule this question out of order. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—If I had acted as previous speakers have asked, the member for Lyons would have been obliged to resume his seat much earlier. In fact, I allowed him to continue for some time in order to give him an opportunity to tie the question in some way to the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. That he failed to do so was the reason that I required him to resume his seat.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question of the member for Lyons to the Leader of the National Party was in respect of Telstra. If you are ruling that question out of order, on what basis have you allowed questions to him today, in this parliament, and in the previous parliament in respect of Telstra?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Before I recognise the Treasurer, I would point out that the question of the member for Lyons was so framed as to refer entirely to the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibility as the Leader of the National Party, not his portfolio responsibility. I add for the information of members, particularly the member for Fraser, that, as all members know, I note questions. The question asked of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations was framed in reference to the Workplace Relations Act.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have ruled on the question in accordance with precedent—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I can understand the Treasurer's proffering remarks but, in truth, I have not ruled on the matter at all.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Mr Speaker, you have referred to precedent in relation to the matter, very properly. Can I put it to you that the points of order are just rehashing the same material, that your ruling has been totally within order and that it will not be changed by continual repetition of the same material by other members.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, have you ruled that question out of order?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—No, I have not.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Are you so ruling?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Yes, I am.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I wish to move that your ruling be dissented from.9V5Pyne, Chris, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Sturt is warned!LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—You crawl back into your doll's house—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman is also warned!LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—What about him?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Batman is named.Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.30 p.m.)—I move:That the member for Batman be suspended from the service of the House.Question put.15:30:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 77Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.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.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.63Adams, 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.McLeay, L.B.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—Order! The honourable member for Batman is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours in accordance with standing 303.The member for Batman then left the chamber.Dissent from Ruling246815:36:002468Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I move:That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.Mr Speaker, it is with no pleasure that we move this dissent motion—no pleasure whatsoever—but things have deteriorated in this House to the point that there is one standard for the government, who can do anything they like in this parliament, and entirely another for the opposition. You ruled a perfectly legitimate question out of order. Standing order 142 states:Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible.Time and again in this House questions have been asked about the party affairs of people in this House who have administrative responsibilities in this House—time and again. Indeed, today we had the minister for industrial relations, Mr Abbott, lecturing the Labor Party about internal affairs of the Labor Party and you thought that was okay. That was fine—that was entirely within standing order 142 or standing order 144. It was fine for that thug across the road there, the Leader of the House, to come into this House and denigrate the Leader of the Opposition and those behind him. That was okay, but the member was ruled out of order. He was ruled out of order on what I regard as a question that was entirely in order. That question could not have been properly ruled out of order when the member had never even completed the question. I can tell you what he may have been saying, Mr Speaker:Given that you have admitted in this House today that telecommunications services are not up to scratch in the regions, can we take it that the National Party bride will not be wearing white?That was the question: `Can we take it that the National Party bride will not be wearing white?' because he has admitted that telecommunications in the regions are not up to scratch. What could be more in order in connection with standing orders 142 and 144? As we have said in this House on many occasions, standing order 142 is the cornerstone of question time. It gives a broad responsibility and a broad ambit for you to rule questions in order. The problem, Mr Speaker, is that the practice in this House is now different for one side. Anything is in order from the government and everything from the opposition is now out of order. The orders that are coming from you, Mr Speaker, are now completely out of order, obnoxious to this side of the parliament and completely at variance with the stance of someone who says they are independent in this House. We object to what is being done.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! I am obliged to remind the member for Lilley that, if I were acting as he alleges, I would in fact have acted earlier to interrupt him. The standing orders still oblige him not to reflect on the chair but to indicate where the chair's ruling has been out of order.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Under standing order 142, if you were going to be consistent you would have ruled the Leader of the House out of order. You would have ruled the question out of order and you would have ruled his answer out of order, not just because the question was way away from his responsibilities, but because the answer was offensive to this side of the House. There are standing orders that deal with that. It was only the week before last that the leader of government business in this House came in and put a blanket slur across this side of the House when he said that we are all corrupt. I got up and objected and you said that it was okay. In fact, you said that you would come back and discuss the matter with the opposition and you never did. Then we had the example of you expunging the Hansard unilaterally, without any reference to this side of the House, because you were offended by some words used by the member for Werriwa. You do not expunge the Hansard because you are offended. You do not eliminate arguments from the Hansard because you are offended. This is the official history of the Australian parliament and it does not go down to one person to decide upon taste and what is in the record of this parliament. That brings me back to standing order 142 and your bizarre ruling that that question was out of order.Today's events and the events of the week before last have brought to a head matters which have been boiling in this parliament. We have decided for a number of weeks to turn the other cheek, hoping that we would get the sort of fairness that we expected from you when we made the offer to the government, when you were elected, to move towards an independent Speaker. When we put forward to the government the idea of the movement towards an independent Speaker, we did that very genuinely. We did it because we had some respect for your capacities. We did it because we wanted to break the cycle of partisanship in this House. We did it because we wanted the community to believe that we were going to break the cycle, that we were going to be a parliament which was going to work for accountability and fairness, and to do something to restore the standing of this parliament in the eyes of the Australian people. We made a very genuine offer to you, Mr Speaker, and to the government and that was refused.The day after that was refused, this article appeared in Brisbane's Courier-Mail. It says:Federal Speaker Neil Andrew has told colleagues he will be tougher on the Opposition in Parliament, after he narrowly survived a strong challenge for his position yesterday.Mr Speaker, we found that pretty offensive at the time, but I decided, and so did the opposition, to turn the other cheek, that we had put up genuine proposals for parliamentary reform, not just for an independent Speaker but also for a new approach to question time. You are as aware as anybody in this House that it is the image of question time that does this House and all the members in it so much damage. What the people out there get the impression of is just a bin of yelling monkeys. It drags down the reputation of everyone in politics. One of the reasons we have that reputation is that the rules are not being interpreted fairly. When I am out among the public, people come up to me in the street and say, `Wayne, I'd really like you to ask this question in parliament.' I say, `There's probably not a lot of point because you will not get an answer; there will not be an answer.' Even if there is a valid attempt to ask the question, there will be abuse and denigration instead of information. That is what occurs.We had hoped, through that offer we made to the leader of government business in the House, that we would have seen some more civility from the government and that maybe for the first time they may have realised that now is the time for reform of the parliament; maybe they would have realised that this Prime Minister—comfortable as he is— might have wanted to leave a legacy of parliamentary reform, but no. What has occurred in this parliament in the last few weeks is simply obnoxious. It is simply repulsive, not just to the people who sit in the parliament, but to the people of Australia. For that reason we have been forced to move this motion today. We have been forced to move it because this parliament is not going to work if we do not get some even-handed behaviour. That is our view. Even-handed behaviour starts with a fair application of the standing orders as they apply in question time—standing order 142 and standing order 144.Standing order 142 makes it absolutely clear that it is entirely in order for a member to ask the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister of this country about matters affecting his party and how those matters affecting his party affect policy and, in particular, telecommunications policy. That is entirely what the member was doing, entirely in order. What was so offensive about your action, Mr Speaker, is that he did not get even get to finish the question, and that contrasted markedly with the approach that we saw in the previous answer, when the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations was asked a question in a form which would have been ruled out of order had you been consistent with the next ruling. Not only was the question out of order but the answer was entirely out of order—not in terms of standing orders 142 and 144 but in terms of the standing orders that exist about objectionable behaviour, in terms of the standing orders that exist about denigration of members of parliament. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?15:45:002470Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I second the motion. Clearly, the question asked by the member for Lyons is in order. It is in order because it was the fifth question that was asked today of the Leader of the National Party about Telstra; the previous four were ruled in order by you. You allowed questions from the opposition to the National Party leader on Telstra and you said that each and every one of them was in order until we got to the question by the member for Lyons. The question from the Leader of the Opposition to Mr Anderson on Telstra was ruled in order. The two questions by Mr Tanner to the Leader of the National Party on the Telstra issue were ruled in order by you. Then a question by the member for McMillan to the Leader of the National Party was ruled in order. There are four questions to the Leader of the National Party on the issue of Telstra that you have ruled to be in order. It begs the question as to why you have decided to rule the fifth question out of order. I repeat to you the words that were given to this House in the question by the member for Lyons. He asked the Deputy Prime Minister:Was Senator Boswell on Sunday offering the dowry by accepting the full privatisation of Telstra, and is the front page story in today's Australian the announcement of the wedding date?That is a question to the Leader of the National Party about Telstra. It is in order, as are the other four questions that were asked by members of the opposition of the Leader of the National Party. It begs the question of why the question by the member for Lyons was ruled out of order. Was it because the question was too good or too humorous or showed a bit of irreverence—concepts that are foreign to the chair in the House of Representatives?That is the thing that I find offensive, Mr Speaker: here is a question asked in good faith, expressing goodwill, a bit of good old-fashioned Australian humour placed before the House of Representatives, a bit of irreverence from the member for Lyons. But that is the point where your ears pricked up and you decided that this was a question that could not go forward in the House. I say this is a double standard. Why allow the four previous questions to be in order, asked and answered by the Leader of the National Party, and rule out the fifth? I would maintain it was because this was a question that was a bit too good for the government, a question that was a bit too irreverent, a question that expressed a bit too much good old-fashioned Australian humour. Your double standards, Mr Speaker, have been demonstrated in this House today. You have provided a compelling argument for the election of an independent Speaker, because not only is it wrong to rule out of order the question that was asked by the member for Lyons but it is wrong to sit there and listen to the minister for employment clearly breaking the standing orders, clearly outside the answer that needed to be provided to the House, and then meekly say at the end of it, `I will have a word with him in my office later on.'What does that say to the House of Representatives, Mr Speaker—that you are too scared to stand up to a minister who is out of order in your opinion and the best you can do is take him into your office and offer him a cup of tea? What do you say then? Do you say: `Oh, Tony, I'm afraid you run the House of Representatives. I'm too scared to stand up to you in the chamber and actually bring you into order. I just sit there thinking it'? What sort of Speaker has those standards where he thinks those things but has not got the guts—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I remind the member for Werriwa of his obligation under the standing orders, or I will deal with him. Under the standing orders, the member for Werriwa is obliged to confine his remarks to the dissent from the Speaker's ruling, and I am reminding him of that.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Mr Speaker, I am reflecting on the standards we have seen in the House today. These are standards where you openly said to the House that this minister was out of order, but you refused to bring him into order and you said that you would take him into the privacy of your office and have a word with him. Why is it that the government gets a private word in your office while opposition members are ruled out of order? Why is that?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I very much understand the feelings of members opposite, but the fact is it is never in order—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has the call. I cannot hear him.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—to reflect adversely on the chair. Certainly in a dissent on a ruling it is not in order to reflect adversely on the chair and, Mr Speaker, your admonition of the member for Werriwa was completely correct.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have reminded the member for Werriwa of his obligations, and I remind the member for Swan of his status.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—What is the minister for employment saying—it is all right for him to try and stand over the Speaker and get a private word in the back office while members of the opposition are ruled out of order? Is that what you are saying about the standards that you are trying to apply in this House? That is the truth of what happened here earlier today.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPK26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—You want to talk about standards, do you? You are the bloke always trying to give us your—EZ5Abbott, Tony, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister! The member for Werriwa will address his remarks through the chair.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—And you want to talk about Labor families! You are always trying to give us your problems. The big news, pal—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat. The member for Werriwa. K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Thank you, Mr Speaker. If the minister for employment wants to talk about standards, he is going to get it back. He is going to get it back today and every day in the future, because you have got no standards. Your standard is to allow—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat. The chair has exercised extraordinary tolerance in the way the member for Werriwa has treated the House in the last three minutes. He understands his obligations to address his remarks through the chair. If not for the tolerance being exercised by the chair, he would not still have an audience.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am highlighting the double standards that have applied here in the House of Representatives today. The minister for employment was clearly out of order. The standard that was applied was that he got a quiet chat in the back office after question time. When you believe that members of the opposition are out of order, a different standard comes into play. The standard is to rule their questions out of order, to sit them down, to name them and to throw them out of the chamber. How long can you expect the opposition to put up with these double standards? It was so evident today. The minister for employment was clearly outside the standing orders. You were edging forward in your seat, worried about it, but clearly you decided not to take action. For the opposition, it is appalling to hear that the only action that is taken is a quiet word out the back. It makes us wonder: who is running the House of Representatives—the Speaker or the minister for employment? This is the question that the opposition can legitimately ask.The other question that we ask is: when are we going to get an independent Speaker? When is the Howard government going to live up to its promise made prior to the 1996 election of having an independent Speaker? So far we have had Speaker Halverson, whose previous job was the Liberal Party Chief Whip—one of the most political roles in the chamber—and then he moved straight into the Speaker's role, but the government pretended that some sort of political independence was going on. The next Speaker we had, of course, was Ian Sinclair, a former National Party leader and one of the great warhorses of Australian politics. The idea of Sinkers being independent is as foreign as him flying to Mars. It just was not going to happen. Now we have Speaker Andrew. What was his previous job? Surprise, surprise—this is the job application that you need to put in on the government side—his previous job was the Liberal Party Chief Whip. We know how this place works. Someone who is elected as whip and then Speaker in the party room is a party man—a party man who will not exercise independence in this chamber. That is why we get the sorts of double standards that we have seen here today.Mr Speaker, you were elected at election time as a Liberal. As I understand it, you still attend and participate in the party room. You were a former Liberal Party whip, and the double standards and hypocrisy we see in this chamber just demonstrate the ongoing political role. I think it is important for the House to recognise the goodwill that has been exercised by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lilley in saying that the opposition will support an independent Speaker and put in place all the procedures that are necessary to facilitate that, so that never again do we have a Speaker who was previously a party whip and never again do we have a Speaker who is determined in the party room and acts as a party man in the chamber.I hope that in this House we can one day have a Speaker who is truly independent, who has the goodwill and respect of all the members in this chamber and who also recognises the importance of a bit of larrikinism, a bit of irreverence and a bit of good humour like that displayed by the member for Lyons. I hope that we can get on and be a good Australian debating chamber where there is a bit of irreverence, a bit of larrikinism and a bit of good humour, where the debate flows and where we do not have so much party politics being exercised from the chair. There was a definite demonstration of double standards today, and the opposition are not going to take it any more. We just cannot have a standard in this House where it is a quiet word for government members out the back, while an irreverent question asked by the member for Lyons is ruled out of order and other opposition members are immediately seized upon and then ejected from the chamber. We desperately need an independent Speaker and we desperately need a bit of goodwill from the minister opposite. How about Tony Abbott displaying a bit of goodwill and good faith in his role as the Leader of the House? We do not want a prim and proper British chamber here; we want an irreverent, provocative Australian debating chamber. The minister opposite might have been born in Britain and he might tug the forelock as often as he can to the British monarchy, but we do not want a prim and proper British parliament where members of the opposition are treated differently from government members, where members of the opposition cannot ask a question in good humour, in good faith and with a bit of Australian irreverence. Most of all, we do not want the double standards that we have seen here today. The truth is that the manager of government business should never have got the job. He was the man who three years ago in the republican referendum was going around shamefully telling Australians that they could not trust any of their representatives. He said: `Don't trust any of your representatives, don't trust the political system and vote no to the republic.' The man who went out of his way to say that you cannot trust the people's representatives is now, shamefully enough, in charge of the House of Representatives. This is the abuse of the Howard government. They threw away the promise of an independent Speaker. They have been shoehorning party whips ever since into the chair, and now they have put someone in charge of the business of the House who is blatantly unfit for the job, and we see that in the double standards that have been exercised in the chamber today.This is a very disappointing moment. I have sat here over the last three or four months of the parliament, and I have heard the goodwill and good faith exercised by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lilley. I would have thought there would have been a chance for real parliamentary reform, for the government to take up the cudgels of an independent Speaker, for the government to recognise that they made that selfsame promise in 1996 and for the government to say that we could have a House of Representatives that functions fairly. For four questions today we had that. For four questions to the Leader of the National Party on the question of Telstra we had questions that were ruled by you, Mr Speaker, to be in order. They were questions that were asked and then fully answered by the Leader of the National Party. It defies belief that the question that was asked by the member for Lyons was the only one out of the five to be ruled out of order.Why was that question ruled out of order? It goes to the heart of the double standards that we have seen here today. It was a decent question. It was a great question that demanded to be asked and answered in this House. What is wrong in saying to the Leader of the National Party that one of his senators has been making comments about Telstra? What is wrong with saying to the Deputy Prime Minister that one of his cabinet colleagues, Senator Minchin, has called for the amalgamation of the Liberal and National parties? We have always had those sorts of questions in the House. They have consistently been ruled in order, and today it is only when the member for Lyons displayed what you regard as a bit too much humour—we regard it as good faith and Australian irreverence—that it has been ruled out of order.How about we have one standard in this House, not two? How about we have a standard whereby, if the opposition do something wrong, you call them to order and act and, equally, if the government do something wrong, you call them to order and act, instead of this unaccountable nonsense of a cup of tea and a quiet word in a backroom? That is no way to run a parliament. You just cannot expect to run a parliament on those standards and ever get any amount of good behaviour and goodwill from the opposition. It is not possible. No self-respecting parliamentarian would sit there and allow that double standard to take hold in the House of Representatives. The question is in order. The member for Lyons should be invited now to stand in his place and ask his question—to finish the question and to cap it off with that great line, `Deputy Prime Minister, can we take it that the National Party bride will not be wearing white at this marriage of convenience?' He should be allowed to complete his question. There is nothing wrong with it; it is equally in order as the previous four that were asked.But most importantly, Mr Speaker, we need to get serious about your role and your independence in this place. It is not good enough to see what has happened here today. It is not good enough to have two standards. I take seriously the promise that the Prime Minister made in 1996 to have an independent Speaker. We should all take seriously the notion and the goodwill that has been exercised by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lilley. This Australian parliament can operate more effectively. We can incorporate all the goodwill, good humour and irreverence of a provocative Australian debating chamber with fairness in the House of Representatives. That is all we ask for, and that is what the House should vote for right now.16:00:002474Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPLeader of the House10—What we have seen today is an ugly, partisan attack on an excellent Speaker. What we have seen today is an unworthy motion of dissent from an opposition which promised to raise parliamentary standards but, in the six months since the election, has done everything it possibly can to undermine them. This is a trivial motion. It does not deserve to have detained the time of the House for as long as it has. It deserves to be dealt with peremptorily, and that is what I propose to do.Mr Speaker, your ruling today is entirely in accordance with precedents set again and again in this House. To start off with, under standing order 142, questions can be asked of ministers concerning only matters for which they have responsibility before the House. Questions can be asked of ministers only about matters relating to their portfolio. As the House of Representatives Practice clearly states, and as you stated, Mr Speaker, for the benefit of members of this House earlier:The underlying principle is that Ministers are required to answer questions only on matters for which they are responsible to the House. Consequently Speakers have ruled out of order questions or parts of questions to Ministers which concern, for example:· statements, activities, actions or decisions of the Minister's own party or of its conferences or officials, or of those of other parties, including opposition partiesWhen we look at the question that was asked by the member for Lyons, we see that it was plainly asking the Leader of the National Party to talk not about matters relevant to his portfolio but about matters of alleged confusion and division inside his own party. If the question was not out of order under that principle, it certainly offended against standing order 144, which states:The following general rules shall apply to questions:Questions cannot be debated. Questions should not contain—... ... ...(b) arguments;(c) inferences;(d) imputations;(e) epithets;(f) ironical expressions; or(g) hypothetical matter.So, on two counts, this was a question which deserved to be ruled out of order. Mr Speaker, your ruling was entirely in accordance with the precedents of this House. Your ruling was entirely in accordance with the scrupulous impartiality that you have consistently shown in the chair since you first became Speaker after the 1998 election.As I said, what we have seen today is an ugly, partisan attack on an outstanding occupant of the chair. There have been some nasty, unnecessary and unworthy references to double standards. The fact is, as members opposite well know, there is a clear distinction, under the standing orders and the practice of this House, between questions and answers. There are very strict rules on the asking of questions; there are no such rules on the provision of answers. The only rule governing the provision of an answer is that it should be relevant to the question asked. As Speakers from both sides of this parliament have consistently ruled, answers can range very widely indeed. Mr Speaker, you have been much stricter on ministers ranging widely than any of your predecessors that I have been familiar with in this House. As an example of your scrupulous impartiality, what you did today was simply rule out of order a question from the member for Lyons that was plainly out of order; you simply sat him down. By contrast—and I commend you for your scrupulous fairness in this matter—you actually mildly rebuked me, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I have felt the sting of your displeasure on numerous occasions. You have rightly and properly called me to order. Not only have you consistently demonstrated fairness but also at times you have bent over backwards to be fair, and I commend you for it. You have been a model of fairness in all your conduct of office.You have been the perfect gentleman, adjudicating between people trying to make their various political points. You have a difficult job, Mr Speaker: sitting in the chair of this parliament would have to be one of the most difficult jobs in the country. You sit and adjudicate, as it might be, `between the pass and fell incensed points of mighty opposites'. You do an extremely good job. You have the gratitude of one side of the House. You deserve the gratitude of both sides of the House. Certainly you deserve the thanks and gratitude of the nation for the fine and impartial job that you do in the chair.You have to ask what is really motivating the confected indignation of members opposite. There are two factors behind the confected indignation of members opposite today. The first is their continuing sour grapes over losing what they thought was the unlosable election. What we are seeing today, as we see so often in this House—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, you were at great pains to tell the member for Werriwa that he should relate his remarks only to the motion before the chair, not going on about matters relating to other people, which is what the minister was just about to do.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Watson will resume his seat. No more tolerance is being extended to the minister than was extended to the member for Werriwa, by any measure.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—It is a double standard.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Watson is warned!EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—What we are seeing is yet another manifestation of the sour grapes syndrome which has afflicted members opposite ever since November last year: sour grapes from sore losers, one long, noisy dummy-spit by members opposite who cannot believe that the Australian people sat in judgment of government and opposition and returned this government so resoundingly. I can understand the frustration that members opposite feel. There is a difference between being in government and being in opposition: members of a government get to run the country; members of the opposition simply get to complain—often futilely—in this parliament against what they perceive to be the injustice of it all. But the fact is that is the way the Westminster system has always worked. That is the way the Westminster system would work if we were in opposition. It is the way the Westminster system is properly working now, and I say to members opposite: get used to it, get over it and grow up.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will come back to the dissent motion.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—The other thing that we saw today in debate from the member for Werriwa is his continuing deep resentment over your perfectly fair and legitimate decision last week to expunge some unworthy comments that he made in this House from the Hansard record. I think it says something about members opposite that they should have chosen to put up in this House the member for Werriwa, a man who is well known for his attitude towards standards of debate, to claim that standards were being abused. If we look at your decision last week, Mr Speaker, which was constantly being referred to by the member for Werriwa in his contribution to debate today, again it was entirely in accordance with the precedents and practices of this House. I am quoting from House of Representatives Practice: Rulings of the Chair form the guidelines for what is to be deleted from the debates and what is to be incorporated.... ... ...The Chair has a responsibility to ensure that no objectional material is included in the debates. Exceptionally offensive remarks ordered to be withdrawn have been deleted from the record.Mr Speaker, your action last week was entirely in accordance with the standing orders. It is entirely in accordance with the decision back in 1985 of Speaker Jenkins, who asked that comments from a member of this side of the House—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am not aware that we are discussing your particular ruling of last week. It has got nothing to do with it.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Brand will resume his seat. He makes a valid point of order. However, if I were to be consistent, I would have had to take action against the member for Werriwa, who did spend some time canvassing this in the debate.Opposition members—He didn't mention it.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will not be defied by members opposite. The Hansard record will show that the member for Werriwa did make reference to last week's remarks.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, I think you have shown tremendous tolerance in the chair. I think your tolerance must have been sorely tested today because smear, imputation and aggressive untruth have been laid before you and about you in a way that is totally undeserved and is totally out of keeping with the standards of this House and the spirit in which debate in this House should be conducted. We all know that the member for Werriwa is often described by his own colleagues as a Liberal in disguise. We know how much this stings the member for Werriwa, and so he is attempting to deepen the disguise by increasing the level of abuse which he constantly uses in this chamber and out of this chamber. Mr Speaker, I would like to say that both last week and this week what you have been trying to do— quite rightly—is protect the member for Werriwa from himself. The member for Werriwa is a strange mixture of policy idealist and political brute. He is a Jekyll-and-Hyde character. Unfortunately, what we saw today was Mr Hyde in the ascendancy.Mr Speaker, as I said, you have been a model of independence and impartiality in the chair. We have had members opposite talk today about the need for an independent Speaker. Well, Mr Speaker, you have been the very model of what an independent Speaker should be. We have had members opposite talk about how important it is to have a Speaker who is not only independent in fact but independent in theory. This was never the view that members opposite took in the 13 years that they were in government. They are certainly very late converts to the idea of a Speaker who is independent in a way which has never previously been contemplated by the practices and the traditions of this House in Canberra. Mr Speaker, I note that one of your predecessors, the member for Watson, went on to become Chief Government Whip. I do not want to cast any imputation on the member for Watson but, given the restraint that this government shows in this matter, it becomes very ill of members opposite to abuse you—as they have so wrongly and so unfairly today— simply because of a position that you might have had prior to becoming Speaker.Mr Speaker, I think this parliament is extremely lucky to have a Speaker of your calibre. I think that every minister in this government is conscious of the need to scrupulously adhere to the standing orders, because we know your character, we know your sense of duty, we know your sense of service, we know your commitment to the very best standards of this parliament and we know the way you have consistently treated members opposite as decent Australians who have a point to make, even though their positions have not been supported by the Australian people at the recent election. We have an independent Speaker in this parliament, a Speaker who will not be bullied by anyone; certainly a Speaker who will never be bullied by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Lilley or the member for Werriwa. This dissent motion certainly deserves to be treated with contempt. It certainly deserves to be crushingly defeated, as it will be in this House. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Before I put the question, can I indicate to the member for Brand that it may have been the member for Lilley and not the member for Werriwa who made that reference. If that is the case, I apologise to the member for Werriwa. But I clearly referred to it as having been made during the debate and it was in that context that I had allowed the minister to continue. I will check the Hansard.Question put:That the motion (Mr Swan's) be agreed to.16:19:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 63Adams, 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.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.McLeay, L.B.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.Windsor, A.H.C.Zahra, C.J.76Abbott, 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.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.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.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.Burke, A.E.Kelly, J.M.* denotes tellerQuestion negatived.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Miscellaneous247816:27:002478SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—After question time on Thursday, 16 May 2002, the Chief Opposition Whip drew my attention to an incident involving the Leader of the House. She raised a concern that the Leader of the House had addressed me without receiving the call and queried, among other things, whether his remarks would be recorded by Hansard. In my immediate response to the Chief Opposition Whip I inadvertently referred to a separate and later incident which involved the Leader of the House and the member for Batman. I have since viewed a videotape of the period in question and have advised the Chief Opposition Whip that the circumstances as she outlined them were correct. The Leader of the House did in fact continue to address the chair for a number of seconds. He had not been given the call and therefore his microphone was not switched on and his words were not broadcast or recorded by Hansard. Let me reassure the House, however, as I have previously confirmed to the Chief Opposition Whip, that nothing said by the Leader of the House in the period he did not have the call either influenced my judgment or affected my subsequent course of action in relation to the issue then before the House. This incident serves to remind us all that, until members are called by the chair, their remarks are neither carried by the live microphones nor recorded by Hansard. As members would also be aware, members' remarks cease to be recorded when members are invited by the chair to resume their seats.Questions to the Speaker2478247816:28:002478Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Speaker, I would like you to round up the Attorney-General in relation to my question on notice No. 284. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lowe is seeking my attention, but I know not what for.83DMr MURPHY—Mr Speaker, I would like you to—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the member for Lowe want me to take action under standing order 150?83DMr MURPHY—I do, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lowe may proceed.83DMr MURPHY—Mr Speaker, it has been 9½ weeks since I put to the Attorney-General my question No. 284, which appeared on the Notice Paper on 21 March. I would be grateful if you would crack the whip and get him to give you a response.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Lowe, as the standing orders provide.Documents2478247810000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit reports Nos 51 and 52 of 2001-02 entitled No. 51—Performance audit—Research project management— Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO); and No. 52— Financial control and administration audit— Internal budgeting.Ordered that the reports be printed.Documents2478Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (4.30 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 and I move:That the House take note of the following papers:DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AGEING Private Health Insurance—Report on Premium Increases for Quarter Beginning 1 January 2002—subsections 78(8)-(11) of the National Health Act 1953. (15 March 2002/15 March 2002)AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY AGENCY Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)—Quarterly Report of the Chief Executive Officer of ARPANSA for the Period 1 July to 30 September 2001—section 60 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (ARPANS) Act 1998. (7 February 2001/ 8 February 2001)AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY AGENCY Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)—Quarterly Report of the Chief Executive Officer of ARPANSA for the Period 1 October to 31 December 2001—section 60 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (ARPANS) Act 1998. (8 February 2001/ 9 February 2001) DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE Natural Heritage Trust—Annual Report 2000-01—section 43 of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1975. (12 April 2002/16 April 2002)Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance2479247910000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Werriwa proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Government to come up with a coherent strategy to respond to the crisis in public liability insurance.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—16:30:002479Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Speaker, another day, another policy failure by this government—Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (4.31 p.m.)—I move:That the business of the day be called on.Question put.16:35:00The 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.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.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.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.61Adams, 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.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.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.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.Kelly, J.M.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion agreed to.Questions to the Speaker2480248016:41:002480Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. I gather from speaking to you directly and from reports in the Hansard that you took a decision over the break to expunge some words from the Hansard relating to matters which occurred in this House when we last sat on that Thursday. I then raised with you my reservations about the decision that you announced, and you indicated then that you would consider the matter and come back. In the interim you have taken a decision on this matter and these words have been expunged from the Hansard. Mr Speaker, have you ruled that way?2480SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yes, consistent with the remarks that I made in the Hansard on last Thursday week. I did not indicate that I would return to the parliament; I said that I would consider the matters raised by the member for Lilley. I spoke to the member for Lilley and have sent a letter to Hansard—I do not know whether or not the member for Lilley is in receipt of it, and I will make sure he is if he wishes—asking that the words referred to be expunged.Dissent from Ruling248016:43:002480Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, if you have so ruled, I move: That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.Your decision to expunge these words from Hansard is something altogether new in the history of this parliament and something completely disturbing, because there is not one precedent in the history of this parliament which could justify your action. When I discovered that you had taken that decision, I thought that there must be substantial precedent that we can find in House of Representatives Practice, that there must be some basis on which this decision has been taken, but there is none. I have now read all of the references. There is not any precedent that could possibly justify giving you the power to take a unilateral decision to expunge matters from Hansard. If you can do that, Hansard will become the official record of the Howard government and will not be the record of the parliament.Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (4.44 p.m.)—There has been enough abuse of the Speaker today. I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put.16:48:00The 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.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.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.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.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.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.McLeay, L.B.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.Kelly, J.M.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion agreed to.16:54:002481Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00— The Speaker has been protecting the government; now the government is protecting the Speaker—Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (4.54 p.m.)—To save the member for Werriwa further embarrassing himself, I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put.16:55:00The 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.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.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.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.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.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.McLeay, L.B.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.Kelly, J.M.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion agreed to.16:57:002482McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—We have seen the processes of the parliament be abused—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Barton must indicate what he is seeking from me.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—I am sorry. I wish to speak on the motion.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Barton.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—We have seen today the processes of the parliament—Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (4.57 p.m.)—I move:That the question be now put.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Barton will resume his seat. The question is that the question be now put.Question put.16:58:00The 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.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.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.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.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.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.McLeay, L.B.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.Kelly, J.M.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion agreed to.Question put:That the motion (Mr Swan's) be agreed to.17:01:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 60Adams, 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.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.McLeay, L.B.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.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.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.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.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.Burke, A.E.Kelly, J.M.* denotes tellerQuestion negatived.Miscellaneous2484248417:08:002484Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Lilley from moving forthwith the following motion:1. the unprecedented decision of the Speaker to expunge the Hansard record without reference to precedents of the House;2. his continuing application of standing orders in favour of the Government exemplified today in Question Time by refusing to rule the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations out of order, rather, extending to him latitude denied to the Opposition to ask a relevant and in order question to the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party; and3. the abuse of House procedures in gagging a dissent motion to protect the Speaker from scrutiny over his rulings in the House.This is unprecedented. There has never been—Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (5.10 p.m.)—I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put.17:14:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 76Abbott, 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.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.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.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.59Adams, 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.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.McLeay, L.B.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.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Kelly, J.M.Burke, A.E.* denotes tellerQuestion agreed to.17:19:002485Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—This is an abuse of parliament, an abuse of position. Abuse of parliament—Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (5.19 p.m.)—I move:That the member be not further heard.Question put.17:21:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 76Abbott, 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.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.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.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.59Adams, 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.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.McLeay, L.B.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.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 Swan's) be agreed to.17:24:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 59Adams, 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.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.McLeay, L.B.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.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.76Abbott, 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.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.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.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.Burke, A.E.Kelly, J.M * denotes tellerQuestion negatived.Committees24862486248617:32:002486Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 3 June 2002.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 3 June 2002Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 3 June 2002. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Ms George to move:That this House: (1) condemns the decision of the Bush Administration to impose tariffs and quotas on Australian steel imports;(2) welcomes the recent backdown on the import of hot rolled coil;(3) recognises that the US decision makes a mockery of the Administration's free trade rhetoric; and(4) indicates deep concern about the impact of the decision on:(a) employment levels within the steel industry and in the coal and iron ore sectors; and(b) the dumping of increased volumes of surplus steel. (Notice given 12 March 2002.)Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking— 10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2 Mr McArthur to move:That this House:(1) registers its concern about the escalating cost of public liability insurance, especially for smaller non-profit community groups; (2) notes that a number of sporting and community groups indicate that further premium increases will curtail or end their activities in both urban and regional Australia; and(3) calls on the Government to co-ordinate with State Governments urgent measures to cap claims and act against the litigious culture that contributes to high insurance premiums. (Notice given 14 May 2002.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—5 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3 Mr Haase to move:That this House:(1) recognises and acknowledges the contribution made to the Australian economy by people working in remote areas of Australia;(2) recognises the disparity of services and increased cost of living faced by people working and living in remote areas of Australia;(3) encourages and compensates people choosing to live and work in remote areas of Australia by increasing the taxation zone rebate to an adequate level; and(4) discourages the practice of fly-in, fly-out employment by restricting the payment of taxation zone rebate to permanent residents in remote areas of Australia. (Notice given 18 February 2002.)Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking— 10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4 Ms J. I. Bishop to move:That this House:(1) recognises the need for additional funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to be allocated specifically for research into various forms of muscular dystrophy;(2) notes the various forms of muscular dystrophy include Duchenne, Becker limb girdle, congenital, facioscapulohumeral, myotonic, oculopharyngeal, distal and Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophies;(3) acknowledges that Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy is the most common lethal genetic disorder of childhood, characterised by a rapidly progressive muscle weakness which almost always results in death usually by 20 years of age, and affects approximately 1 in every 3500 boys worldwide;(4) acknowledges the urgency of the need for further research into Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy; and(5) urges the Government to provide additional opportunities to enable medical scientists in Australia to undertake further research into muscular dystrophy. (Notice given 14 May 2002.) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking— 10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2488248817:32:002488Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6CanningLP10—I present the first report from the Publications Committee. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—agreed to.Miscellaneous248810000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 29 May 2002, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous2488Mr LLOYD (Robertson) (5.33 p.m.)—I move:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2002Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment Bill 2002Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002Question agreed to.Miscellaneous248824882488Mr LLOYD (Robertson) (5.34 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That the following order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate:East Timor—Ministerial statement—Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate.Question agreed to.Bills2488R14722488Debate resumed from 16 May, on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane:That this bill be now read a second time.upon which Dr Emerson moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:(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”.17:34:002488Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—When I last spoke on the Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002, I pointed out that the government third-party indemnity of $3 billion provided for licensed space launches was probably based on a US assessment of the worst-case scenario, which I understand involved a launch vehicle hitting the Miami Hilton during an American Bar Association convention. As I said previously, I think it is very unlikely that a space launch from Australia would hit an American Bar Association convention, unless of course it was meeting in Broome. I suspect that there may have been scope for a more realistic assessment of the potential third-party risks from a space launch from Australia that would limit the size of the indemnity. I understand that the North West Shelf joint venturers have made some significant play about the risks of overflight by space vehicles of their petroleum production facilities. I understand that they were strident on this matter and that their contribution on this issue was neither constructive nor realistic. I do not think that such an incident would be likely to have a cost approaching $4 billion in the unlikely circumstance that it did occur. A careful government protecting the interests of taxpayers could be expected to exercise considerable care in minimising the amount of any indemnity which it did extend. In this case, it should be remembered that the liability which is indemnified is not limited to one incident: it is possible that it could be invoked on more than one occasion. Therefore, limiting the size of that indemnity is all the more important.In 1999 the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit tabled a report on Commonwealth guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort. The report followed a performance audit by the Auditor-General. In that audit it was noted that the Commonwealth's exposure had fallen from a total of $415 billion, as at 30 June 1996, to $215 billion, as at 30 June 1997. The fall reflected two things. The first was that asset sales had shifted risks to the private sector. In the relevant time frame the sale of the final tranche of the Commonwealth Bank occurred. That was a decision of the previous Labor government, and one of the significant policy reasons for it was to limit the exposure of the Commonwealth to financial risk. The second was the exclusion of Commonwealth superannuation liabilities from that figure. The budget papers this year show that those Commonwealth superannuation liabilities will have grown to $82 billion by the end of next month. The most positive thing I can say about this $3 billion third-party indemnity for space launches is that it is being dealt with in a transparent manner here in this bill. That is quite unlike a lot of other guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort that the Commonwealth has accumulated over the years.It is important to break the psychology that these things can be given without cost. The Commonwealth accepting a financial risk may seem a costless way to assist a project, but the reason the proponents seek a government guarantee is that they are unwilling or unable to assume that risk themselves or cannot find an insurer or a bank to take that risk. The reason for that is that these risks are not costless. Sometimes the chickens come home to roost in unexpected ways. For years the Wheat Board sold grain to Iraq and was able to do so because the government, through EFIC, provided cover on the national interest account. When Australia went to war with Iraq in 1991, the outstanding liability was, from my memory, around $400 million. People who you go to war with usually do not pay their trade bills.If risks are taken so seriously that they require a government third-party indemnity for a project to proceed, then those risks should be carefully calculated and weighed, and the government should take all reasonable steps to protect taxpayers' interests. In this case, where the amount of risk that the proponent is expected to take is fixed in nominal terms, the proportion of the risk effectively borne by the Commonwealth will increase over the years. I think the Commonwealth should not be afraid to revisit the issue of the size of this indemnity when it has gained a better appreciation of the risks that are being taken in this endeavour.17:40:002489Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002. This bill is ultimately about support for the high-technology industry within Australia. It is about an industry which has enormous potential and is capable of producing a high level of export dollars for Australia, about creating jobs and also about national pride as a symbol of Australian high-technology leadership in the world. In looking at the bill, I want in particular to address three elements. Firstly, there are the provisions of the bill itself. Secondly, I want to look at a particular example of a project which is of great importance within Victoria and has particular relevance for my electorate—the STARS Supanova project. Thirdly, I want to examine the broader question of what is necessary to create the conditions for high technology and IT investment in Australia and show how this bill contributes to that overall practice and pattern. Looking at the first of those questions, the provisions of the bill: the bill is to amend the Space Activities Act 1998. In essence, the bill implements new arrangements relating to liability, insurance and safety, and it has three principal effects. Firstly, it provides greater protection to the public and industries underlying flight paths, so it provides a means of protection for all of those people in industries who fall within the flight path of a space launch from Australian property. In particular, that has significant relevance for those launches which occur in the north-west of Australia and for underlying gas and oil production, hence the high level of liability compared with that of a conference in Miami, as the previous speaker referred to. (Quorum formed) I would particularly like to thank the member for Franklin for inviting other members into this House to talk about the value of high-technology industry to Australia.The second benefit of the Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002 is that it improves the competitiveness of Australia's space launch industry. Thirdly, it increases opportunities for non-profit, scientific and educational organisations to engage in space and science research. How does it do that?Firstly, it provides protection and it increases competitiveness. It provides protection by requiring that launch proponents— those firms engaged in the process of preparing to launch satellites from Australian soil—have $750 million in public liability insurance of their own. In addition to that, as a symbol and as a tangible sign of Australian government support for that activity, the Commonwealth takes responsibility under this amendment for liability for the gap from $750 million to $3 billion. In addition, it assumes liability for any costs or damage to foreign nationals or their property. The real purpose of this is the focus on preventing any harm, either to the tangible assets or to the notional assets, of offshore drilling in Australia's North West Cape and Shelf.Secondly, the bill also applies a stronger test of risk to space launch activities, so it imposes the requirement that the risk before any activity is approved should be as low as reasonably practicable. Thirdly, it provides opportunities for scientific and educational organisations. In particular, the bill implements new arrangements to license scientific and educational institutions conducting research based launch activities. Importantly, these arrangements will provide for an alternative application process and fee structure which is less onerous and better suited to the modest scale and limited risks associated with scientific and educational launches and returns. Very simply what that means is that scientific or educational groups wishing to participate in space launch activities within Australia are encouraged rather than discouraged from doing so.In particular, I want to refer to an example from Victoria: the STARS Supernova program. While not benefiting directly from this particular amendment, it is an example of exactly the sort of activity which we seek to encourage within Australia. In 1999, the then Victorian Premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, and Australia's own astronaut, Andy Thomas, helped launch the STARS Supernova program. It was a program which aimed to allow a Victorian school to contribute an experiment to a NASA space shuttle project. That project was won by Glen Waverley Secondary College and it was coordinated by Kevin and Jenny Manning, NASA teachers from within the town of Cranbourne. Cranbourne is within my electorate and hence I have a particular interest in that. Since that time, Kevin and Jenny Manning, with the strong support of Gary Rowe, the Victorian MLA for the seat of Cranbourne, have worked towards bringing this project to fruition.The space shuttle was due to be launched on 9 July 2002, just over 1½ months from now. But what has happened is an extraordinary piece of bureaucracy. The Victorian Department of State and Regional Development, under Minister John Brumby, wrote to the United States authorities cancelling the project only some months before the space shuttle was due to be launched. Worse than that, students had already been to the United States and spent their own money on the basis of this promise. What was the total project cost to the Victorian government? It was $US65,000. But there was a cancellation fee. How much was the cancellation fee? It was $US60,000. So for a benefit of $US5,000 the Victorian government wastes $60,000 and destroys a nascent space and scientific activities program. I call on the Premier of Victoria and the state and regional development minister, John Brumby, to take urgent action to allow the students of Glen Waverley Secondary College and Kevin and Jenny Manning to be allowed to participate in and complete this project. If the opposition in this place talks about its commitment to high technology then they should speak very quickly with their Victorian counterparts to make sure that a project, for the benefit of $5,000, is not discontinued and $60,000 wasted in the process of so doing.I want to turn briefly to the final point, and that is that this bill is part of establishing the conditions for high-tech and IT investment in Australia. Firstly, you require a legislative regime which is encouraging, and that is where this bill fits in. Secondly, you require appropriate research and development support. The current federal government has already agreed to provide $100 million from the strategic investment incentives program to facilitate the Asia Pacific Space Centre at Christmas Island. So there are a number of commercial contracts and intergovernmental agreements already in place which all work towards providing the basic facilities for space activity—airport, road, port, and all at Christmas Island. That is a tangible show of the government's support for R&D for space activities within Australia.Finally, there has to be a general economic environment which encourages overseas investors. Those facts, as were set out in the budget last week, are very clear. We have interest rates in the low six per cent range. We have a labour force which has dropped in unemployment from 10 per cent in 1991-92 to 6.3 per cent now, and in so doing there are increased levels of skills and effectiveness. Interestingly, we have had an increase in the participation rate from 62.9 per cent in 1991-92 to 63.4 per cent now. Very importantly, we have a low inflationary environment and a low debt environment—from 19.1 per cent of Commonwealth government debt as a percentage of GDP in 1996 to 5.8 per cent now. All of these activities have a significant impact on the overall economic environment.In arguing for the bill, I note simply that it provides the legislative arm of a three-part process for encouraging the conditions for IT investment. Firstly, there has to be the legislative regime; secondly, there has to be R&D support; and, thirdly, there has to be a solid economic environment. This bill firmly puts in place the first limb of those elements. I commend the bill to the House.17:53:002491Windsor, Antony, MPMr WINDSOR009LPNew EnglandIND00—I would like to speak very briefly to the Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002. I think most members would be supportive of the general intent of the bill. I would like to reflect on some parts of this bill. I listened to the previous speakers talk about the insurance indemnity issues and the insurance dilemma that the Commonwealth may face in relation to some problems with space material. I would like to place on record my absolute disgust that parliament today is not even bothering to debate the issue of public liability and the concerns that the general community have about medical indemnity and public liability in relation to the normal activities of our daily lives. I know it is terribly important to have indemnity insurance for things that may happen in space, and I know that this bill is of crucial importance to what may fall on us at some future time. But I think those crucial matters of medical indemnity and public liability are of much more importance for this parliament to debate at this particular time. I think the general public of Australia would be more concerned about having space for their kids at a pony club, space in a doctors surgery somewhere in country Australia or space for a Lions Club to carry out a charitable event in the future for their communities, rather than having the debate on public liability insurance gagged today to bring on the space activities debate which is about liability in terms of junk from space and some of the activities of our own space program. So I want to put on the record my absolute disgust at the way the parliament has conducted itself today, the lack of concern displayed by the Liberal and National parties about the public liability issue and the need for that debate to take place. I would hope that the opposition or perhaps the Independents at tomorrow's sitting will raise that issue once again, because it does need debate. The Australian public is looking for some leadership in relation to this issue. They are looking for solutions in relation to this issue. DK6Hockey, Joe, MP009LPWindsor, Antony, MPMr WINDSOR—It is all very well for the Minister for Small Business and Tourism to interject and suggest that it all has to be done by the states. There is a leadership role, particularly in the medical indemnity area—DK6Hockey, Joe, MP10000Price, Roger (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. L.R.S. Price)—Order! The minister is not in his seat. It is highly disorderly to interject that way.009LPWindsor, Antony, MPMr WINDSOR—There is a leadership role for the Commonwealth to play, particularly in relation to medical indemnity. There are a lot of people in our community who are very concerned about what is happening. There is a lot of stress in our community, particularly in relation to the doctors at the moment, and 2 June is becoming a very crucial date in relation to those particular issues. I would urge the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, who is now seated, to take that on board and show some leadership on what this place can do in relation to medical indemnity.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—You should have done this back in the state parliament.009LPWindsor, Antony, MPMr WINDSOR—I support the bill before the House, and I ask the parliament to debate a much more important issue at the next available time.17:57:002492Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—I would like, first of all, to thank those members who participated in the debate on the Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002 today. I welcome the opposition's general support for this bill. The government, however, does not support the amendment moved by the member for Rankin. As important as the issue of the rising cost of public liability is, with all due respect, it is not relevant to debate on this particular amendment bill. It is, of course, nonsense for the member for Rankin and for the member for New England to suggest that the government has been inactive in addressing concerns associated with the rising cost of public liability. As the Minister for Small Business and Tourism suggested a moment ago, had the member for New England been a little more proactive when he was a member of the state parliament, a lot more could have been done to address these concerns. It is very much a real concern to the coalition government. The Assistant Treasurer, Senator Helen Coonan, has been doing a magnificent job in facilitating negotiations with the Labor states and territories on this issue and is certainly driving the issue forward. I would remind both the member for Rankin and the member for New England that, as I said earlier, the bulk of the responsibility for fixing these problems in fact rests with the Labor state and territory governments. I thank the members for Flinders, Wentworth and Kooyong for their positive contributions and comments.I welcome the commitment of $100 million towards the development of Christmas Island as a centre for commercial rocket launches. The aim of the strategic investment coordination process is to attract to Australia investment that would otherwise be located offshore. Indeed, just a little over 12 months ago, countries such as Brazil were very actively trying to lure APSC to their purpose-built rocket facility. The imminent commencement of construction of APSC's facilities on Christmas Island brings Australia to the closest point that we have ever been to successfully starting a commercial rocket launch industry. It is estimated that $800 million will be invested by APSC and up to 550 jobs created. This will certainly be a tremendous outcome and I wish APSC every success.The Howard government is committed to supporting the aspirations of the Asia Pacific Space Centre in establishing a rocket launch facility on Christmas Island, as we are committed to supporting the aspirations of other potential proponents; namely, Spacelift Australia and Kissler Aerospace. Indeed, the amendments in this bill are critical to the future success of those project proposals. A number of commercial contracts and intergovernment agreements are already in place and others are in the process of being finalised. I reject the member for Corio's claim about an alleged lack of consultation with the Christmas Island community. I know for a fact that former territories minister, Senator Ian Macdonald—who, I must say, played a vital and integral role in locking in APSC's commitment to locating their project in Australia—made a number of visits to Christmas Island to discuss the development of the APSC project. He met the Christmas Island Shire Council and other community leaders as well as the island's administrator. I, too, have been to Christmas Island to discuss the APSC project and to meet with representatives from the shire council and other community leaders. I am sure that the current minister is continuing that dialogue and consultation.Only yesterday I met with APSC's Managing Director, Mr David Kwon, who outlined the company's plan for the next round of consultation with the Christmas Island community. I understand that Mr Kwon also met yesterday with members from the Northern Territory and the member for Batman to update the opposition on the progress of the APSC project. I have also seen publications that were put out by APSC in other languages so that there could be no confusion by the Christmas Island community. So any suggestion that there has been a lack of consultation is totally rejected and is just an absolute nonsense.In terms of the environmental impact assessment, APSC committed some $2 million to this process, developing a detailed management program over the course of some three years. The proposal by APSC to construct and operate a launch facility on Christmas Island has been subjected to a full environmental assessment under the Environment Protection Impact of Proposals Act 1974. The former environment minister, Senator Robert Hill, set down some 65 conditions for APSC to meet with regard to environmental management and the conduct of their proposed commercial rocket launch facility. This has been by no means a quick and expedient process as suggested by some members opposite.As set out in Minister Ian Macfarlane's second reading speech, the Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002 amends the Space Activities Act 1998. This bill enhances liability and insurance arrangements governing space launches and affords greater protection to Australia's oil and gas facilities. It also brings Australia's insurance and liability arrangements into line with international practice. This will enhance certainty for, and the competitiveness of, Australian industry and will protect Australia's strategic economic assets. In addition, this bill provides for new arrangements for the licensing of space launch activities conducted by scientific and educational organisations, thereby promoting the development of space science expertise in Australia. The Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002 facilitates the development of Australia's space industry by putting in place the regulatory framework needed to create a competitive environment, to promote research into space science technology and to encourage private investment in emerging space launch and research projects.10000Price, Roger (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. L.R.S. Price)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Rankin 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. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.2494Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) (6.06 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills2494R15432494Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Slipper:That this bill be now read a second time.18:06:002494Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2002 amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low income threshold amounts for individuals, married couples, sole parents and pensioners below age pension age. It also increases the phase-in limits as a result of the increased threshold amounts. There are also two minor technical amendments. These measures were announced in the recent budget. In general terms, the bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to increase the Medicare levy low income thresholds for individuals, married couples and sole parents. The dependent child-student component of the family threshold will also be increased. These increases are in line with movements in the CPI, which is the tradition in which this bill has been effected for a number of years. The bill also amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to increase the Medicare levy low income threshold for pensioners below age pension age so that they do not have a Medicare levy liability where they do not have an income tax liability, and it also amends the Medicare Levy Act to allow a family income threshold to apply to a taxpayer where the taxpayer is entitled to a child-housekeeper rebate or a housekeeper rebate. The bill also amends the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy surcharge low income threshold, again in line with movements in the CPI, which is the annual tradition in this matter. The bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to make a technical amendment to correct references to the provisions of the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986. The increased Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge low income thresholds will apply from the 2002-03 year of income and later years of income, the technical amendment to the Medicare levy family income threshold applies to assessments for the 2001-02 year of income and later years of income and the technical amendment of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to the definition of prescribed purposes for the Medicare levy purposes applies to assessments for the 1997-98 year of income and later years of income. As those amendments apply a benefit to the taxpayer rather than a detriment, there is of course no objection to the retrospective nature of the effect of those amendments to those assessments for the years 1997-98 and continuing.No Medicare levy is payable for low income individuals and families where taxable income does not exceed threshold amounts. For couples and single parents, the family income threshold amount increases by a set amount per child. The Medicare levy shades in at a rate of 20 cents in the dollar where the taxable income or family income exceeds the threshold amounts. The individual threshold amount is proposed to be increased from $13,807 to $14,539; the family income threshold is increased from $23,299 to $24,534; the amount added by each dependent child or student is increased from $2,140 to $2,253; and the threshold amount for pensioners who are under age pension age is increased from $15,970 to $16,570. A surcharge of one per cent applies on taxable income in certain circumstances where taxpayers do not have private hospital cover. However, a married person is not required to pay the surcharge where the total of their taxable income and reportable fringe benefits does not exceed the individual low income threshold amount. The threshold for the Medicare levy surcharge is proposed to be increased from $13,807 to $14,539. So far as child-housekeeper rebate or housekeeper rebate amendments are concerned, taxpayers are generally denied a child-housekeeper rebate or a housekeeper rebate due to the introduction of the family tax benefit. However, some persons are still entitled to this rebate and in these circumstances a family income threshold can be used when determining their Medicare levy liability. The opposition has no objection to those amendments; indeed, we support them. These have been done essentially on an annual basis to ensure that low income members of our community are not adversely impacted upon by increases in the CPI, and the threshold and levy arrangements reflect that. This bill goes to the heart of Medicare and goes to the heart of an important component of Medicare and, as a consequence, at the conclusion of my remarks I will formally move a second reading amendment, which my colleague will second. To draw the attention of the House to that second reading amendment, the second reading amendment is in the following terms:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House, recognising that the provisions of this equitable measure will appropriately exempt some individuals, couples and sole parents from the levy and surcharge in line with movements in the consumer price index, supports the bill but:(1) notes that the Government's overall approach to Medicare has seen the regrettable position where General Practitioner bulk billing usage has declined to only 74%;(2) notes that the average extra cost to a patient for a non bulk billing GP visit is now $12;(3) notes that those who can afford private health insurance have been subject recently to substantial increases in premiums, on average $150 extra per year;(4) notes that pensioners and concession card holders and those families under financial pressures will suffer further as a result of the Government's latest budget measures, in particular the proposed 30% increase in payments for essential medicines; and(5) calls on the Government to recognise the Australian community's belief in and support of bulk billing and Medicare and to accept that the Government must match that community commitment in its health policies”.In some important respects there is an irony in the bill before us. The essential irony is this: the bill seeks to implement increases in threshold and levy measures equitably so far as low income persons are concerned, and that is supported. But it is against a backdrop of a range of measures which the government has effected or is proposing to introduce which place enormous financial pressure on the one hand on pensioners and concession cardholders and on the other hand on families under financial pressure. Bulk-billing goes to the heart of Medicare as a universal health care system, and visits to general practitioners go to the heart of primary care for beneficial health outcomes for Australians, and they go to the application of preventive measures so that Australians will not fall even further into our health system. Bulk-billing is an essential part of Medicare. Last week we saw the annual quarterly production of the Medicare statistics—an invaluable document produced by the Department of Health and Ageing. The statistics go from 1984-85 to the March quarter. I will draw the attention of the House to a couple of extracts from the Medicare bible. On page 18 there is graph No. 5, `Medicare services by broad type of services for the year 2000-01'. It simply makes the point that GP consultations make up 47 per cent of Medicare services by broad type. So almost half of Medicare is essentially consultation with general practitioners. What we also see in the Medicare statistics published last week in table B7, which is again an invaluable table in this matter, are details of the percentage of services direct billed by quarter and financial year of processing. There are some important adverse and deleterious developments which we are seeing, not based on quarterly figures but on annual figures, over a period of time. I take the government back to when it was elected to office in March 1996. Looking at table B7—it does not much matter whether you take the 1995-96 financial year—I think you can fairly say that by June 1996 it was unlikely that any of the government's new policies would have had an impact on those statistics. So you can take the 1995-96 year and fairly say that it probably accurately represents the last annual statistic of the previous Labor government. The year 1996-97 is, if you like, the first accurate year of life under this government as we have come to know it. I draw the House's attention to the fact that in the 1995-96 financial year the percentage of general practitioners' services directly billed or bulk-billed was 80.1 per cent. In the following year, 1996-97—the first full year of the Howard government— the statistic was 80.6 per cent. That makes up, as I have indicated from the graph in table No. 5, about 47 per cent, which is essentially half of the Medicare services. Table B7 also deals with specialist services, obstetrics services, anaesthetist services, pathology services, diagnostic imaging, operations, optometry, and totals them all up.I will not draw the House's attention to all of them because not all are directly relevant to this debate, but I make the point that, in 1995-96, 32.5 per cent of specialist services were bulk-billed and, in 1996-97, 32.4 per cent. For pathology, the rate was 76.1 per cent in 1995-96 and 77.8 per cent the following year, 1996-97. For diagnostic imaging, it was 61.3 per cent in 1995-96 and 62.7 per cent in 1996-97. For optometry, it was 94.5 per cent in 1995-96 and 96 per cent in 1996-97. When that was averaged out by the department for a total in the financial year 1995-96, 71.1 per cent of Medicare services were direct or bulk-billed. In the following year, 71.8 per cent were direct or bulk-billed.When you come to this quarter—essentially, the period of life under the Howard government as we have come to know it— the rate of bulk-billing or direct billing by general practitioners has fallen from a high of 80.6 per cent—essentially 80 per cent when the government came to office—to 74.5 per cent. That has shown a decline year in, year out, since 1996-97. So only 74.5 per cent of GP services now are bulk-billed. So far as specialist services are concerned, we have seen a fall from 32.4 per cent to 29.2 per cent. You would not regard that as being historically surprising. In pathology, we have seen an increase from 76.1 per cent or 77.8 per cent in those respective financial years to 84.1 per cent. In diagnostic imaging, it has been relatively stable—61.3 or 62.7, down to 60.4. So far as optometry is concerned, it has gone from 94.5 or 96 per cent to a relatively stable 96 per cent and it all averages out at 70.5. When the government is confronted with these statistics, the Minister for Health and Ageing in the other place says, `Oh no, you have to look at the total amount, not at the GP decline.' When we see increases in optometry and quite substantial increases in pathology it is no wonder that the decline in the average or the total amount is not as stark as the average for GPs. But this is 47 per cent of Medicare services and it is at the heart of primary care or preventative care for Australians. I drew attention to pathology and diagnostic imaging because, when you go back to the graph in table 5 on page 18, pathology makes up 29 per cent, nearly one-third of Medicare services by type, and diagnostic imaging makes up six per cent. So if pathology makes up one-third, then the increase from 1994-95 from 74 or 76 per cent to 84 per cent gives you the explanation as to why the total, or the average, has only fallen from a 1995-96 figure of 71.1 to a 70.5 figure today, which is the minister's relatively or completely implausible excuse for the situation that we see in the bulk-billing decline by GPs. That concern is reflected by the second reading amendment. It means that bulk-billing rates for GPs are now the lowest in a decade. When the Prime Minister and the government came to office the rate of bulk-billing for GPs was over 80 per cent. Now it has fallen below 75 per cent. There are about 100 million GP services a year. That means that on John Howard's watch the number of GP services which are bulk-billed have declined by five million a year over that period. The average cost of a visit to a GP who does not bulk-bill is now $12. That can vary. In some instances that have been drawn to my attention, it can go as high as an extra charge of $50, but the average cost, in accordance with the departmental figures, is $12. That means Australian families are paying $60 million extra each year for GP visits than they were paying when the government came to office. DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Did you introduce it? 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—You do not even know what we are talking about, Minister. I would not interject. I am talking about GP bulk-billing; I am not talking about pharmaceutical benefits. I will happily move on to that. Joe, you have difficulty in getting it right when you know what subject matter you are talking about. When you interject and you do not know the subject matter, you are even worse.10000Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lindsay)—Order! Please address your remarks through the chair.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Why shouldn't people pay for it?10000Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—I am asking him a question and he doesn't want to answer it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Member for Perth, through the chair, please.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I am happy to respond, but the impression I have, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that you do not want me to. Australians are paying $60 million more per year for their doctor visits. In terms of the burden that places on Australians under financial pressure, that is on top of the extra $500 million Australians are now paying for increases approved by the government in private health insurance premiums—and that comes to an average of $150 per family per year—and in addition to the extra $300-odd million that the government would want Australian pensioners and concession cardholders to pay on their Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme copayments if the government's proposals in the budget go through the parliament, which we, of course, will oppose.It is quite clear, by the range of government proposals—whether it is GPs bulk-billing, the cost of essential medicines or private health insurance premiums—that this government is placing a huge burden on families under financial pressure, those who are the sickest and those who are least able to afford it. There is an element here of `one story before the election and a different story after,' which we have seen so much from this government.DK6Hockey, Joe, MP5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—The minister interjects about whether people believe what they say. We know precisely what the government and the Prime Minister think about bulk-billing. Whilst they tugged their forelock and said they had a different view in the run-up to the 1996 election, and continue to say that disingenuously now, we know what John Howard and the Liberal Party actually think about bulk-billing. In the run-up to the 1987 election, when John Howard was Leader of the Opposition, he said:We will end bulk billing, which produces a scandalous waste of money.He was being interviewed by John Laws, and he said:We will be proposing changes to Medicare that amount to its defacto dismantling. John Laws asked:So you'll pull it apart?And John Howard responded:Yes, we'll pull it right apart.To get yourself elected in 1996, you said you would not make any changes. What have you been doing for a six-year period? You have been doing what John Howard said you would do: de facto dismantling. Your inaction on the medical benefits scheme and the relative value study has seen a deliberate policy approach to ensure that more and more doctors are forced to charge a copayment and not engage in bulk-billing. This has been John Howard's approach from day one. You could not do it through the front door because you knew the backlash in the community would be substantial, so you spent a six- or seven-year period doing it through the back door. I do not need to go through the litany of other quotations in that respect.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—How are you going to pay for it?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—One thing you might want to do, Minister, is have a look at the relative value study, which you have put in the dust cupboard and not looked at. That might actually be a sensible way of proceeding in this area, rather than sitting on your hands, doing nothing and deliberately running bulk-billing and Medicare down, which is your strategy. DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Bulk-billing is in place. You know that.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Bulk-billing is in place. It has fallen every year since you have been in office. It has fallen from a high of 80.6 per cent in the former Labor government's time to 74.5 per cent on this occasion.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—So people are choosing to pay. It isn't a bad thing if people choose to pay.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—People are not choosing to pay; people are being forced to pay. What do we find? We find plummeting rates so far as bulk-billing is concerned; we find a $500 million increase in the cost of private health insurance premiums to Australians—on average $150 per family—and we find the government introducing a 30 per cent copayment increase so that one million pensioners and concession cardholders will pay the maximum extra $52 per year for their essential medicines and 300,000 Australians in families will pay the maximum of $190 extra per year.Across the board, we find increasing copayments for pharmaceuticals, increasing payments for visits to doctors for primary care and preventative medicine, increasing costs of essential medicines and increasing costs of private health insurance—not to mention the way in which this government, over a six-year period, has ripped between $600 million and $700 million out of the state public hospital system. There is a nice irony about the equitable nature of this proposal in the bill and the great inequity which we see across the board now so far as the government's approach to health policy is concerned. I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House, recognising that the provisions of this equitable measure will appropriately exempt some individuals, couples and sole parents from the levy and surcharge in line with movements in the consumer price index, supports the bill but:(1) notes that the Government's overall approach to Medicare has seen the regrettable position where General Practitioner bulk billing usage has declined to only 74%;(2) notes that the average extra cost to a patient for a non bulk billing GP visit is now $12;(3) notes that those who can afford private health insurance have been subject recently to substantial increases in premiums, on average $150 extra per year;(4) notes that pensioners and concession card holders and those families under financial pressures will suffer further as a result of the Government's latest budget measures, in particular the proposed 30% increase in payments for essential medicines; and (5) calls on the Government to recognise the Australian community's belief in and support of bulk billing and Medicare and to accept that the Government must match that community commitment in its health policies”.That does not mention the adverse implications that will come with the cost to the Australian taxpayer and the Australian community as a result of the government's mismanagement of medical indemnity insurance and public liability insurance—matters, Minister, in respect of which you do not come to either argument with clean hands. On medical indemnity insurance, we find a government asleep at the wheel and subsequently mismanaging a crisis.The opposition support the bill, but we place very strongly on record the concerns that we have about the government's deliberate attempt to reduce the capacity of Medicare to be a universal health system and to reduce the capacity of bulk-billing to continue to play a very important part in our national health care system.10000Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lindsay)—Is the amendment seconded?849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:002498Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—It is a great pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield. I know that many of your constituents will find that the Taxation Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2002 fits the bill for them. It will be just perfect for your constituents, many of whom I know. For those whom I do not know, I know you will be advocating the attributes of this tremendously thoughtful government. The bill is only 19 lines long but it does some important things: it changes the limits for people who do not have to pay the Medicare levy and it increases the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals, married couples and sole parents. The dependent child/student component of the family is important in the way in which those assessments are made. The bill applies to people who are below pension age so that they do not have a Medicare levy liability where they do not have an income tax liability. It allows a family income threshold to apply to a taxpayer where the taxpayer is entitled to a child-housekeeper rebate or a housekeeper rebate. There we are, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is a very comprehensive piece of legislation that is only 19 lines long but it has attached to it two schedules that set the levels of the levy that will be applied under this government in 2002. The increases are set out in schedule 1. The minister made a speech of about 20 lines when he introduced the bill but we are giving it too little attention, bearing in mind what it achieves. The bill grants concessions for people who deserve concessions. The thoughtfulness in the way in which this is to be applied, due to the changes in the tax system, indicates the heart of this government for Australian families.The bill provides that no Medicare levy is payable for low-income individuals, as I have said, and families where taxable income does not exceed a certain threshold. The documents show that for an individual taxpayer this year no levy is payable if the taxable income or family income for the current financial year does not exceed $14,539. There is a reduced levy if taxable income or family income is within the range of $14,540 to $15,717. A pensioner under age pension age is relieved from paying any Medicare levy if their taxable income is below $16,570, and that is an increase of about $600 per year. The levy is reduced if there is an income range of $16,571 to $17,913. A married taxpayer with children or students has this benefit: with a family income of $24,534 or less there is no levy. If their income ranges from roughly $24,500 to approximately $26,500, they will get a graduated payment opportunity. What I like, what your constituents will like, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, and what the people of Mitchell will like is that where there are children the levy goes up— there is increased income without the levy being paid—and the amount rises. Regrettably these days, not too many families have six children, but a family with six children can have a family income of $38,052 and not pay the levy. It is then graduated from $38,053 to $41,000-odd. There is a real advantage for families. That is what the government has been on about. Nothing better illustrates the commitment of this government than the Medicare levy or the Medicare levy surcharge. There we have it in a nutshell: all the levels have increased from about $500 to a couple of thousand dollars per year for families with several children. That makes quite a difference per week for the average family. Throw in the other benefits of the changed tax scales—low inflation and low interest rates—and it is evident we are trying to do a better job for families.I would be the first to admit that you are going to identify problems and find individuals who fall outside the range of what governments do. Whilst this is very significant and laudable, there will always be more that we can do for families. The trouble with government from such a distance as Canberra is that it is so generalised in the application of its formulas that people fall between the cracks. That is where we need to support and rely on non-government agencies to pick up on what governments cannot do. Governments cannot do everything, but they should assist those agencies which have the ability to assist families. They should be supporting those agencies to fulfil a total delivery.The financial impact of this process and the changes are valued at $42.8 million in the coming financial year, $21 million in the following year and so on. In each year there is a cost to the tax revenue, as the tax commissioner puts it, but I prefer to say that there is a concession for families that is well warranted. I am delighted that we are passing this legislation through the House tonight and I am delighted at its impact on Australian families. However, I am not so pleased about some aspects of the amendment moved by the Australian Labor Party. One aspect is completely and absolutely dishonest. Paragraph (4) of the opposition amendment makes the claim about: ... the proposed 30 per cent increase in payments for essential medicines.That is absolutely, grossly wrong. If you think that you are going to run that line out there with the community and frighten them as you tried to with the GST, you are going to fail again with this one. The fact is that medicines have not risen by 30 per cent. A product like a Ventolin CFC-free inhaler with 200 doses costs $17.20 and the price will stay the same for a non-pensioner; it has not increased. The only changes are at the margin where the benefit level changes from $22.60 to $28.60. That is an increase of $6. Some items are no longer within that previous range and some items will cost slightly more. However, no item, even at that top range, will cost more than $6 in addition to the $22.60. Some of the items that are subsidised by the government cost hundreds of dollars per prescription. Many of them are in the range of $60 to $80 per prescription. Nobody who is part of the national health scheme will pay more than $28.60. There is a slight change for people who are not eligible for pension benefits under this scheme, but let me repeat: to say that medicines have risen or will rise by 30 per cent is an absolute lie and the Australian Labor Party ought to be ashamed of itself for trying to run this line in its amendment. It will not work because people out there will find that there is no change for all low-priced medicines. They will go into chemists and will be amazed to say, `I thought this was going up,' and the pharmacist will say, `There's no rise. It's under $28.60 so there's been no change to it, and anything that's priced over $28.60 will not cost more than $28.60 because that's the way the subsidy program works.' For elderly people, pensioners or those on benefits, there has been an increase of $1—from $3.60 to $4.60. They will not pay more than $4.60 for anything. The 30 per cent increase just is not there. I do not know what you think you will achieve as an organisation by trying to run this line.The other line the Australian Labor Party has tried to run on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is that the changes mean that all prescriptions are going to increase by $6.20, and that is not right either. On both accounts you are wrong and have been misrepresenting the case. If it is so bad, you do not have to misrepresent it. Through this process I feel that you are cooking up something that you can manufacture as a reason for having a go at blocking this measure in the Senate. Whilst it would be most desirable that all pharmaceuticals never changed in price and the price always stayed the same, the fact is that the costs of the most beneficial products are increasing rapidly. There are high research costs and high costs to the taxpayer who subsidises them. In 10 years, the cost of this scheme has risen from a shade over $1 billion to over $4 billion. We need to take some action now, considering the population's age, and modify the process. The user needs to pay a little more and that is what this is about. The user will be paying a little more than previously.You can run through product after product, the commonly used products if you like. I will repeat some of the things that have been said in the House today, because they bear repeating. I will say again that a CFC-free Ventolin inhaler with 200 doses costs $17.20 today; with these changes, it will cost $17.20 tomorrow. There is no change in the cost of a product like Ventolin. If we take sleeping tablets, Normison, for instance, the cost for 25 tablets is $7.58 before the changes; after the changes it will be $7.58. No misrepresentation will add 30 per cent to that, and you will endeavour to fit the figures around it—I know you did not, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, but members of your party did prior to the introduction of the GST—to try to scare people. But, see, it just did not work. They did not believe you.You will not do it with this either, because the fact is that Normison, after these changes, will stay at $7.58. It will stay the same price before the changes as after the changes. Sleeping pills, antibiotics, Ventolin—you have consistently as an Australian Labor Party tried to mislead the people of Australia, and they are not going to accept that. They are not going to believe it, because that is not the way it is going to turn out. When they do see the impact of it they will be surprised by how little change there really is, and what change does occur is a necessary change. I conclude my remarks tonight on a related medical issue, which is partly referred to in the amendments by the opposition, and that is the problem of indemnity insurance for the medical profession and for specialists in particular. It is a huge worry for all Australians, and it is something that in my mind is much bigger than the Ansett crash, because it does affect everybody and the solutions are not particularly easy to find. I have a friend who is a neurosurgeon, a brilliant surgeon who is paying for insurance to protect himself and his family from any litigation. He is paying something like $96,000 a year. To join the fund he has paid $11,000. So you are looking at $110,000 before he opens the door. He is saying to me, `I can't go on like this, and not knowing whether I am going to be covered.' He said, `I don't expect the Australian government to pick up the total bill, but we have got to find a certainty through this.'One of the things that has disturbed me most in the process over the last few weeks is to hear the CEO of the Doctors Fund come out and so strongly endorse the fund and encourage doctors to continue to support it and then within a month it was in liquidation. That, to me, is a huge worry: that somebody can so, I would say in this place, misrepresent the situation of their company. It is totally unfair, totally unwarranted and totally inept. I wish the government well in the gradual process over the next few days of clearing up step after step in a methodical way. I wish to compliment the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer on the way in which she has been able to approach this. But it is a huge worry and it is going to be expensive for all Australians.I just hope that we do not find that we have a system where the only safe haven for doctors to practise is in the public sector and that we continue to have a thriving private sector, and that the insurance factors—the litigation, the greed in some ways of people wanting to demonstrate that they can grab some of the insurance companies' money by using clever lawyers or by having judges who seem to make very inconsistent decisions—support them when they go to court. We will all be aware of the case of the surf club and the man at Bondi Beach who received $3.75 million. I quote from the Daily Telegraph of 15 May—where that gentleman who received $3.75 million said that he would have been happy with half a million; he did not really need the extras—where it is claimed by Sir Harry Gibbs:Some judges seem to strive to find a reason for finding in favour of a plaintiff, particularly if the injuries are serious, so that he or she may receive compensation ... In the result, damages are sometimes awarded in cases in which a reasonable and informed person would not have thought that the defendant was at fault.Sir Harry Gibbs is a very distinguished former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. I think his comments are sensible. There is case after case of a similar nature. (Time expired)20:20:002501Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00— The Taxation Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2002 lifts the low income thresholds for the Medicare levy and in so doing is a progressive move, one of the rather few progressive moves that this government has initiated in its term of office starting back in 1996. It should not come as a surprise, because it is doing what a Labor government would do— that is, making sure that low income families do not pay the Medicare levy. For those very basic and fair reasons, Labor supports the legislation.Equally, Labor supports the second reading amendment to this legislation, because we remain very concerned about the direction of the government's health policy under the stewardship of the Prime Minister of Australia. When the Prime Minister was elected to that position in 1996, the Australian people knew very well what they were getting. He had been a man in public life already for a long time and, in lieu of any sort of vision for the country's future, he had a very simple agenda of three or four items. One of those items was changes to the industrial relations system, essentially to tilt the bargaining table in favour of employers at the expense of employees. Certainly under the current Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations the zeal with which the government pursues the Prime Minister's long cherished aims is undiminished. In fact, I think it is fair to say that even more zealotry is being displayed day by day under the current minister. So that has been a fundamental item on the Prime Minister's agenda for many years. Another, of course, was the implementation of the goods and services tax, which he first flirted with as Treasurer of this country as early as 1980—more than 20 years ago. We know that in the year 2000—20 years later— the Prime Minister achieved his cherished goal there and implemented the goods and services tax. I will say a little more about the implications of the financial arrangements flowing out of the GST for health in a moment.A third and critical item on the Prime Minister's narrow agenda has been the dismantling of Medicare. You do not need to rely on my assertions to form a judgment that what I am saying is true; you need to rely purely on the words of the Prime Minister himself when he was opposition leader. In the lead-up to the 1987 election in an interview with Alan Jones—the same Alan Jones who is still on radio in Sydney—on 27 May 1987, the then opposition leader and present Prime Minister said:What I'm going to do is take a scalpel, without punning too much, to Medicare. I'm going to say to people if you want to get out of Medicare and make your own private health insurance arrangements you can do so. They will be given an incentive to do it. They will not have to pay the levy. I'll get rid of bulk billing completely for people other than pensioners. I'll free up the whole private health insurance market so that health funds can in competition with each other offer a variety of packages to help consumers.That was the Prime Minister's agenda then, 13 years ago. Just a few days later, on 1 June 1987, he told the John Laws program:There will be many major reductions in health, the Medicare system is a total disaster, we will be proposing changes to Medicare that amount to its de facto dismantling. We will pull it right apart.That is what the Prime Minister has been on about all these years. But the Australian people delivered an adverse verdict on that agenda in 1987 and the Hawke government was returned with an increased majority. The opposition went underground with its desire to pull Medicare right apart, to take a scalpel to Medicare, and it decided that the smartest thing to do was to do it by stealth, because Medicare was, and is, very popular with the Australian people.They appointed an unfortunate man, as it turned out, as their health spokesman—Peter Shack. Peter Shack was an aspiring politician. He had made it to the opposition frontbench. He was a relatively young man and was given the job of coming up with an alternative health policy. Three years later, after the now Prime Minister had been saying that they would pull Medicare right apart, that they would make money out of the process and that they would make no-one worse off, he gave these as terms of reference to poor Mr Shack and, of course, they were impossible to achieve. Mr Shack did not know that and the pin was pulled on him just before the 1990 election. I would like to remind members of the parliament, many of whom were not around at that stage—I was a staffer—of a famous press conference where the coalition sent him out to explain how after three years there was no health policy. He had these remarkable statements to make:Now I want to say to you, with all the frankness that I can muster, the Liberal and National Parties do not have a particularly good track record in health and you don't need me to remind you of our last period in government.That last period in government was when they tried to gut Medicare, in the form of Medibank at that stage. He then went to say at the same famous press conference:We went through Medibank Marks 1 to 4, or 4½; or 5, when we were last in government. Since we have been in opposition we have had four health spokespersons and we have produced four health policies—two of which were never made public. I think the last one in the 1987 election probably lost us votes instead of winning us votes. That was the current Prime Minister's health policy in the 1987 election, and Mr Shack was right: it did cost votes. The hapless Mr Shack conceded at this great press conference, in this great moment of candour:You might accuse us of a lot of things but one of the things I don't think we're guilty of is learning from our past mistakes.Never a truer word was said. That was in 1987. In 1990 the Prime Minister was still at it, but he knew that the way to do it, because Medicare was so popular, was to dismantle Medicare by stealth—and that is the agenda. The parliamentary secretary at the table tonight used to work for the—JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—The member for McEwen.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—The member for McEwen, indeed. I am happy to acknowledge her as the member for McEwen. She was a staffer for the recently departed health minister.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—For a very short period of time.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—For a short period of time, she reminds me, and I am sure that she would not disown him! But the health minister at that time, I assert, did have some commitment to Medicare. I think the health minister, though a member of the coalition and a Liberal, did have some commitment to Medicare. If he had had no commitment to it, I think the Prime Minister's agenda of dismantling Medicare by stealth would have happened faster. I cannot pass a judgment in these early days on the new health minister, but I hope that she does stand up to the Prime Minister because he certainly will be continuing with zeal his ongoing effort to dismantle Medicare by stealth.That is why we moved the second reading amendment, which notes that `the government's overall approach to Medicare has seen the regrettable position where general practitioner bulk-billing usage has declined to only 74 per cent'. That is the lowest level in a decade. Let us recall what the Prime Minister said in relation to bulk-billing:I'll get rid of bulk billing completely for people other than pensioners.That is what he said in 1987 when he was telling the truth to the Australian people and that adverse judgment was delivered, but he is still committed to getting rid of bulk-billing. As a result of that, we have this appalling situation where bulk-billing has fallen to 74½ per cent. The second reading amendment goes on to note that `the average extra cost to a patient for a non-bulk-billing GP visit is now $12'. This is making it harder for patients who go to doctors who do not bulk-bill, because the average payment is a very significant sum— again, part of the ongoing agenda to dismantle Medicare by stealth.The second reading amendment also notes that `those who can afford private health insurance have been subject recently to substantial increases in premiums, on average $150 extra per year'. In the government's official projections before the last election, the projections for increases in the cost of private health insurance were much lower than what has actually happened—yet another example of the government saying one thing before the election and doing another thing after the election, saying and doing anything that it deems necessary to save its political bacon.We then move on to the next part of the second reading amendment, which notes that `pensioners and concession cardholders and those families under financial pressures will suffer further as a result of the government's latest budget measures'—that is, those measures in respect of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We have just heard from the previous speaker a very Orwellian observation that, although the changes in the PBS are going to yield hundreds of millions of dollars, they are really not going to hurt anyone. If you listen to his speech, he says, `No-one's really affected; we're just going to collect hundreds of millions of dollars.' It would be lovely if you could collect hundreds of millions of dollars from the community without them being affected, but of course we know that they will be adversely affected.We do not have to think back very far to remember the government's proud boast that health would be GST free. The argument at that time was whether there would or would not be a 10 per cent GST on health. The government said, `Of course we wouldn't do that; that would be a terrible thing to do.' That was before the election. After the election, changes to the PBS—if they pass the Senate—would increase pharmaceutical costs by up to 30 per cent: three times the 10 per cent GST. So the government had one position before the election and another position after the election. It is all right if you tell people before the election what you are going to do. But of course the government never told the Australian community that they were going to impose such large increases in the costs of pharmaceuticals for so many Australians. In fact, when the previous health minister was interviewed in the media before the election, he said that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was sustainable, that there would therefore not be any necessity for these dramatic changes, for these increases in cost to people who use pharmaceuticals. But of course once we get past the election the story changes: say one thing before the election and another thing after the election. Labor will use all our power in this place and, more importantly, in the Senate to do everything we can to protect Medicare, to protect universal health insurance, to ensure that the Prime Minister does not achieve his objective of dismantling Medicare by stealth, because that is what he wants to do. I was very encouraged that the Courier-Mail is onto the government. The heading of the Courier-Mail editorial on Saturday, 25 May is `States face attack on GST funds'. It points to the Intergenerational Report, which was used to justify these increases in the cost of pharmaceuticals. The article says, in part:However, it is likely the forecasts will be used by the Federal Government to push the states to take up more of the anticipated burden of providing services for an increasingly ageing population.That has always been on the cards. We indicated well before the last election, when the GST was coming in, that there would be a fundamental realignment of the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states, and so there was. The Commonwealth introduced the GST and, on the same day, they abolished all of the untied grants. You do not hear the present government talking about the fact that they abolished $17,000 million worth of untied grants to the states, but they did. Not only that; they are now attacking the tied grants to the states—again, something that we said would happen. The government put their hand on their heart and said, `No, that will not happen because we have signed an agreement with the states,' pretty much the same sort of agreement that the Treasurer signed with the then shadow Treasurer about fixing up the tax system by cracking down on tax avoidance. He said, `Yes, we'll do that,' and later laughed, virtually saying, `Why would you believe anything that I've put in writing?' Of course, the government did not do that; they reneged on those promises and they are reneging on the commitments that were made with the states to protect the specific purpose payments to the states, the tied grants to the states, just as we said they would.At the last meeting with the premiers, there were a number of aspects in which the government had already reneged. I can confidently predict that it will do the same thing with health payments. The specific purpose payments for health to the states add up to $8,000 million. The government's agenda will be either to cut those in absolute terms or to allow them to erode with inflation over time. The Courier-Mail is right. We were right in the statements that we made in the parliament. In fact, in an article that I had published in Labor Essays I predicted that this would happen, that the specific purpose payments would be attacked by the Howard government after the election; it would allow them to erode over time and it would break its agreement with the states. That is precisely what is happening.The total consequence of all this is that the Prime Minister is pressing ahead with his agenda to dismantle Medicare by stealth. It is a shameful agenda. He has never believed in Medicare, he has never believed in universal health insurance in this country; he has believed in people looking after themselves. Wealthy people will be able to, but if lower income people cannot look after themselves he believes that that is a bit of social Darwinism that they will have to come to terms with. I proudly stand here in the parliament tonight supporting wholeheartedly the second reading amendment to this legislation and condemning the Prime Minister for his ongoing efforts to dismantle Medicare by stealth. 20:38:002505Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10— The Taxation Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2002 amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low income thresholds for individuals, married couples and sole parents in line with the movement of the consumer price index. The individual low income threshold for Medicare levy surcharge purposes is similarly increased. The effect of this measure is to ensure that people on low incomes are exempt from the Medicare levy and the surcharge. The bill also applies to increase the income threshold for pensioners below the age pension age. The effect is that where these pensioners do not have a tax liability they will not be liable for a Medicare levy.This bill applies to the income year 2001-02 and later years of income. These are important measures that provide increases in the income threshold in line with the consumer price index for all those groups mentioned and for the dependent child student component of the family income threshold. It also allows a family income threshold to apply to a taxpayer where the taxpayer is entitled to a child-housekeeper rebate or a housekeeper rebate. These are people in the community who have very low incomes, and I support these government initiatives to alleviate financial burden in these cases.This bill provides the opportunity to highlight some of the issues raised in the recent budget in relation to the growing cost of health care and the need to effectively target taxpayer funded benefits to those in the community who are most in need. It is easy for the opposition to take cheap shots over the improved targeting of assistance in the health area and for public critics to suggest that this is just about the government saving money, but we do need to be constantly reminded that the taxes that are administered by government are moneys contributed by the taxpayers and there is an obligation to ensure that benefits are effectively administered to ensure appropriate levels of support for those who do need it. This bill does target that particular group of people. The Treasurer made an important point in question time today about appropriate targeting in response to a question about changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in the 2002-03 budget. I think it is fair to say that rapid and dramatic improvement in the diagnosis and treatment of many illnesses places a greater obligation on government to ensure the sustainability of the medical system—the health system—and, in particular, to subsidise pharmaceuticals, for example. The Intergenerational Report released by the Treasurer in the 2002-03 budget gives the community a basis for discussion, an input into policies for the future of health care. This is an essential process if we are to ensure a sustainable economic climate within the context of meeting social policy obligations and the social expectations of the community. I think communities do expect governments to take a responsible position with their fiscal management while at the same time making provisions, such as those that have been made in this bill, to protect those who are on the lowest income and assist them to access health care.The Treasurer made the point today and in the budget that, if we are to meet the increasing expectations of the provision of health services, then we have to take care to ensure sustainable programs for future generations. He foreshadowed that the pressure on health spending would come primarily from new technology. It already does: we have some very sophisticated diagnostic technology today involving nuclear medicine, and it is improving the outcomes in terms of better health care. But there is a cost. As I said, the Treasurer made the point that there are increasing expectations and foreshadowed that these cost pressures on health spending would come primarily from the new technology increasing the use of services and strong consumer demand and expectation, rather than the ageing of the population. The government has implemented sound economic management techniques to meet the considerable cost pressures in health that are placed on contemporary governments of all persuasions. It is a great disservice to the community when the opposition attempts to make capital out of the difficulties in continuing to provide quality health care to the public and being able to manage that within the context of a budget. It is a pity that these attempts do not always attract bipartisan support—I think that is a great disservice to the community. As the Treasurer highlighted on budget night, since 1991 the cost of the PBS has almost quadrupled from $1.2 billion to $4.2 billion, and this could be the most significant area of cost pressure on the health budget in the future. Over 40 years this could amount to a cost blow-out of $60 billion in today's dollars, and it would simply be irresponsible for government to ignore this pressure at the risk of jeopardising the listing of new medications coming onto the market and, of course, in terms of accountability to Australian taxpayers.There is no doubt that medical science is rapidly producing improved medications for many illnesses and this is resulting in a better quality of life and greater longevity for many. The ability of the community to access these medications must be considered a priority. The measures taken in the budget are significant and need to be coupled with a concerted effort to reduce overprescribing and the stockpiling of medications in the bathroom medicine cabinets around the country. I am sure all of us have had clean-outs from time to time and certainly any pharmacist can attest to the fact that they get bucket loads of these medications in for appropriate destruction. Their disposing bins are full of outdated medication. These prescriptions have been subsidised by taxpayers.Rather than money being wasted in medications that are never used where there is overprescribing or inappropriate prescribing of medications, that money would better go to targeted groups—such as we are targeting in this bill that we are debating tonight. In fact, I know that the government does have plans to look at the inappropriate prescribing of medications and other measures because we need to take those measures to help us reduce this waste, as I said, and better target that money to people who need it.Again in the budget papers, the Treasurer highlighted the high cost of some commonly used medications, some of them priced from $230 per prescription to over $1,000 per prescription. This tends to put things into perspective because the taxpayers, via government, are subsidising the high cost of these medications. In fact, a treatment widely used by insulin dependent diabetics costs $229.13 per prescription. When you consider that diabetes is a growing health problem with over four per cent of the population now at risk of developing diabetes, that is going to be a huge cost in that one area alone. If undiagnosed and untreated, diabetes is a major cause of blindness in people under 60 years of age. It is the most common cause of non-traumatic amputation and it is one of the most common chronic diseases in children. And there is a high mortality rate associated with the disease of diabetes.It is enormously important to recognise the many new treatments potentially available to improve the quality of life and longevity of people in the community and to ensure that nothing prevents the continuation of that process of listing new and improved medications. These are sensible measures and they do not mean that the price of all drugs will rise as result of copayment increases for families, as has been alleged by some members of the opposition. In fact, 45 per cent of items listed on the PBS are priced below the general copayment level of $22.40. The government anticipates that from 1 August those who fall into the non-concession category will not need to pay any more for many common and often used medications for asthma, high blood pressure, pain control, arthritis and many other common conditions that require medication.Furthermore, copayments for concession cardholders, such as pensioners and seniors health cardholders, will still be covered by a safety net that allows those with the need for a large number of prescriptions to receive all medicines free once they have paid the small copayment for 52 prescriptions. Even then, the copayment will rise for that category by $1 to $4.60. When you start to look at that in relation to the cost of medication, it is a relatively small contribution. Non-concession cardholders who pay $847.90 in a year for their PBS medicines will be eligible for further PBS medicines at concession rates for the remainder of the year. To return to this bill, it is a very positive step in providing some relief to low income earners. As I said, there has to be this proper management of the whole health system if we are going to be able to properly target the resources towards people in the community who most need them. Part of the reason for this bill is the introduction of a Medicare levy surcharge of one per cent, which applies to taxable income where taxpayers do not have private patient hospital cover. A married person who would otherwise be liable for the surcharge is not required to pay the surcharge where the total of the person's taxable income and reportable fringe benefits do not exceed the individual low income threshold amount. There is no shading of the surcharge above the threshold amount, unlike the Medicare levy.To summarise the main amendments in this bill, they include: the raising of the threshold amounts and the phase-in limits for individuals, married couples, sole parents and pensioners who are under age pension age; the raising of the threshold below which a family member is not required to pay the surcharge on taxable income; and the raising of the threshold below which a family member is not required to pay the surcharge and reportable fringe benefits. The amendments ensure that where a taxpayer is entitled to a child-housekeeper rebate the taxpayer is allowed a family income threshold, and that where a taxpayer is entitled to a housekeeper rebate the taxpayer is allowed a family income threshold.The Intergenerational Report demonstrates strongly the Commonwealth's commitment to health care. I think it is interesting to note that the Commonwealth is responsible for almost half of the total health spending in this country. I listened with interest to the member for Rankin and his comments about the state governments. I think people should pause for a moment and consider the enormous contribution that is made by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth in that spending—which amounts, as I said, to almost half of the total spending on health care in this country—has a primary responsibility to fund the medical benefits scheme, Medicare and the PBS. The government also makes a major contribution to funding public hospitals, which are really the responsibility of the state government.In my electorate there is a deep concern about the current state government in Western Australia looking at the running of state hospitals. I know what their agenda is. Lately, everywhere I go in the country, people express their concern to me, saying that the state government is looking at doing away with the volunteer country hospital boards. This work is done by people in the community for no remuneration and they know what the community needs; yet the Western Australian state government is in the process of unpicking this. We know what they will do. They will put in bureaucrats. They will have to have many more to cover the cost of the voluntary work done by the community. Then they will come back later and say, `This is too expensive; we can't afford to keep country hospitals, and we will start closing them.' So it is all very well for people to take a tilt at the Commonwealth, but the states have a lot to answer for in the way they have managed or, in some cases, mismanaged some aspects of health care.The Commonwealth government not only helps to fund public hospital services provided by the state governments but also provides a 30 per cent rebate to subsidise the cost of private health insurance. When the Medicare system was brought in the architect said that, if people going into the private health scheme fell below a certain percentage, the whole scheme was in danger of collapsing. That is where we were when we came into office. We have managed to turn that around by providing a 30 per cent rebate and ensuring that more people are going back into private health insurance, where they can afford to do so, and taking the pressure off the public health system. The Commonwealth also spends money to provide support for medical research, public health programs, indigenous health programs and education programs. One of the ways that we are going to reduce some of the pressures on health in the future is to ensure that we have strong public health education programs, helping people to live healthier lives. We are seeing some of this in operation today, where people are far more conscious about their diets and about exercise. These are some of the measures that can often prevent the onset of serious diseases. The Intergenerational Report does make the point that Australians' life expectations are among the highest in the world. In relative terms, Australia's health outcomes are achieved at a moderate cost, with total health spending about 8.5 per cent of GDP, which is about average for the OECD countries. As I said before, factors such as the listing of new medications and the greater use of sophisticated diagnostic procedures will save lives, add to the quality of life through early diagnosis and improve treatment regimes, but it is, and will continue to be, with great cost pressures that have to be sensibly managed. A responsible government will take measures such as those in this bill to give appropriate support to people and families on low incomes and take sensible action to ensure a sustainable health program for all citizens both now and in the future. I would like to strongly add my support for the measures in this bill that go to help those families and individuals in the community who most need this kind of assistance.20:56:002508Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2002 amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge-Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low income thresholds for individuals, married couples, sole parents and pensioners below age pension age. It also increases the phase-in time as a result of the increased threshold amounts. There are two minor technical amendments that the government has put into this legislation. I support both of those amendments because, for once, this government is moving to assist Australians on low incomes. That is certainly something that we are not used to seeing in this House. It is something which is very different for this mean spirited government that usually targets rather than assists people on low incomes.I also rise to strongly support the bulk-billing amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, you have been a visitor to the Central Coast, and you would be very aware of some of the facts I am about to present to you. General practitioners in the Shortland electorate have largely stopped bulk-billing. It has been said that there has been a decline to 70 per cent of GPs bulk-billing. The people in the Shortland electorate would be ecstatic if only 70 per cent of the doctors in the area bulk-billed. In 2000-01, a large number of doctors stopped bulk-billing. It started on 1 July when a few doctors ceased bulk-billing and on 1 September a large number of doctors decided that they would stop bulk-billing. They have ceased bulk-billing for not only families and working people but also pensioners—people who find it extremely difficult to pay for their medical care.I first raised this issue in parliament in September 2000. On the Friday following that we had a public meeting in the electorate. Over 100 people turned up from one small area, because every doctor in that suburb stopped bulk-billing. It was an area of high unemployment and an area where there were a lot of elderly people living. The suburb was Swansea in Lake Macquarie. That was the start of a major campaign within the Lake Macquarie area to restore bulk-billing. Out of that meeting a group called SMARTS was formed. They campaigned vigorously for bulk-billing to be restored and for the government to act to encourage doctors to resume bulk-billing.I think it would be appropriate if I shared with the House some of the concerns of the people of the electorate of Shortland—how they were upset and how they found it so difficult to cope with these changes. First of all, I will refer to a letter from one of the doctors to give you an idea of the sort of letter that was forwarded to the people of the Shortland electorate. I will say this surgery gave two months notice and said that they would stop bulk-billing and introduce a fee paying system from 1 September 2000. The letter went on to say that the cost of running the surgery was constantly increasing and that the margins they were receiving under Medicare had been reduced. That is an important fact to remember, and I will talk a little more about that further on. The letter went on to say that they found it very hard to do and they knew it would be unpopular but they felt that they must do it. It is very difficult for people that really have no choice about what doctor they go to to object to that. They are in a situation where either they go to that doctor or they find themselves queuing at the local hospital. I have a letter here from a lady who moved to the Toukley area and she wrote to me early last year. She said that she had searched around for a doctor but she was told that they were not taking any new patients. She finally found a doctor that agreed to see her. He would see new patients, but to see him she would have to pay $40 a visit. He had a sliding scale and he allowed some people to pay $30 but that was the minimum amount that he ever charged. This lady went on to say that she paid rent; she got some rent assistance but she did not know how she was going to cope because that $30 or $40 was a fair amount each week out of her pension. I am giving you a sample of the types of letters that I have received over this period of time.I received another letter from a young woman who received youth allowance of $150 a fortnight. Out of that she gave her mother $100. She wrote that she had rung at least seven medical centres and doctors surgeries to make an appointment for herself to get a prescription for the contraceptive pill. Of all places she rang, not one of them was bulk-billing any more. She went on to say that without the contraceptive pill she would have a greater risk of becoming pregnant and she would also have some medical problems. She was bringing it to my attention because she just did not know what she was going to do. She could not afford to see a doctor because doctors did not bulk-bill. There are a number of issues raised in that letter that will affect the health and wellbeing of that young woman.Another doctor wrote to me recently. I had written to this particular doctor because one of the practice's long-standing patients had come to see me and was most concerned because they were told that they needed to go on a six-monthly basis—and they had a yearly visit for a check-up—otherwise they would be treated as a new patient. The only patients that were being bulk-billed were long-standing patients. The doctor wrote to me saying:Please be advised, first of all, that we are a business and in financial trouble regarding bulk-billing. We did not take it lightly to stop bulk-billing but you, being a politician, should know how the medical profession is in trouble. We introduced to all patients that are not regular that we no longer can afford to bulk-bill them and as of 1 May this year the practice will stop bulk-billing. Once again, there is another doctor's surgery having problems and no longer able to bulk-bill.This is just a little bit of a different slant. This is from a Mr Smith who lives in Belmont. He had recently attended the accident and emergency centre in the local hospital. Unfortunately, he had to wait for a considerable time before he could get in to see the doctor. Whilst he was there he was talking to other people and these people were saying that they were there because they could not afford to go to see their doctor because their doctor was no longer bulk-billing. When people have to wait in excess of 2½ hours, as this gentleman did, it is no wonder that there are some problems. I spoke to another person who waited for five hours at the local hospital and the situation was very similar. He also spoke to people in the waiting room and was advised that they were going to the local hospital because they could not afford to visit the local doctor, who no longer bulk-billed. I have raised this issue a number of times with the government. I have made representations on behalf of these constituents and other constituents. But my words and my letters have fallen on deaf ears. I have raised it a number of times in this parliament and it really concerns me that the government has no commitment to Medicare, that it has no commitment to bulk-billing. I have submitted a petition to this parliament with nearly 10,000 signatures on it. Recently I attended a meeting on the Central Coast, as I mentioned when the member for Greenway was in the chair. That meeting was a public forum of people from the electorates of Shortland and Dobell. The issue that was raised time and time again was the fact that GPs were not bulk-billing in that area and that there was a shortage of GPs on the Central Coast and that the average time a person had to wait to see a doctor was between seven and 14 days. On the same day as that meeting I met with Mr King, who is a pharmacist in the area. He has been campaigning for some time to have the Central Coast recognised as an area of need. I notice that in the budget paper there is talk of outer metropolitan areas being recognised in that way, but I am very worried that yet again the Central Coast will be ignored. The average number of GPs is one per 1,000 head of population; that is the benchmark. In the northern part of the Central Coast there is one per 2,500 head of population. You can see the crisis that exists there. It was pointed out that bulk-billing is virtually non-existent. There is no Medicare office in Toukley and no Easyclaim facilities. That creates difficulties because that area has an elderly population and a very poor transport system; it is a private transport system and people have to wait a long time for buses and it takes quite a considerable amount of time to get to the nearest Medicare office. People also have to wait up to seven hours for treatment at the local hospital because they are being forced to, once again, use that hospital for day-to-day medical treatment. It really is an exercise in cost shifting by this government, shifting the cost of providing day-to-day medical care from the Commonwealth to the state. The government should stand condemned for that.GPs on the Central Coast are busier than in most areas because there is a shortage and also because of the chronic nature of the health problems experienced by the population: there are very old and very young patients and their health needs are much greater than those of people in other areas. When I saw those figures on bulk-billing that were released, I thought I would check on how they compared with the figures for the Shortland electorate. I discovered that on the Central Coast, which is in the Shortland electorate, the total number of GPs was 35. Of those 35, 63 per cent do not bulk-bill; 28 per cent partially bulk-bill; and only nine per cent, or three of those 35, fully bulk-bill. Those figures come from the Central Coast Division of General Practice and I can assure the House that they are correct. I also decided to have a look at how the Lake Macquarie area of the electorate lined up with those figures. My office rang 22 GP practices. Of those 22, 16 GPs do not bulk-bill at all, five partially bulk-bill, and one fully bulk-bills. I think that equates to something like 72 per cent that do not, 4.5 per cent that do and something like 22 per cent that partially bulk-bill. The other important point to note is that a number of doctors' practices on the Central Coast and at Lake Macquarie have closed their books. So what are the people in those areas to do? They do not have much choice, do they? If they can afford it, they will go to the doctor and pay the higher costs, then go to the Medicare office and collect their refund. But unfortunately the location of the Medicare offices themselves is a problem. I have already mentioned the situation in Toukley. At Lake Macquarie, one of the first actions of this government was to close the Belmont Medicare office. That closure seriously inconvenienced those elderly people of Swansea I spoke about earlier in my speech—people who in many instances no longer have a licence, who are unable to travel the 10 or 15 kilometres that they need to to collect their Medicare rebate and who quite often need that Medicare rebate to purchase their medicines.The government's response has been very poor. As I said, I have raised this issue a number of times. I must refer to a letter I received very recently from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Trish Worth. In it she mentions that 2000-01 Medicare billing statistics indicate that the level of bulk-billing by general practitioners in the Wyong area was significantly above the national average. I thought the national average for bulk-billing was 70 per cent, as opposed to the situation on the Central Coast where 63 per cent of doctors do not bulk-bill and nine per cent fully bulk-bill. I find this a matter of great concern. The fact that doctors are not bulk-billing is creating real problems for families. I strongly support the opposition's amendment. If the government's proposed changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme were to be successful, health care would be outside the affordability of families and those people who are more disadvantaged in our community— the pensioners, the elderly and the unemployed.Last week I spoke to a family in a shopping centre. The mother and two of her children had been sick so they went to the doctor. After seeing the doctor, they had to buy prescriptions at a cost of $98. You visit a doctor that does not bulk-bill and then you have to buy prescriptions that cost $98. When my family was young, I could not have afforded it. Health care would have been outside my budget. I think it is a very sad situation when, in a country like Australia, people have to make a decision about whether or not they can afford to go to the doctor. We have in Australia an uncaring government that has no commitment to Medicare. It is creating a two-tiered health system and starving the public sector of resources. It has no commitment to Medicare. In this system if you are wealthy you can afford good quality health care, the best health care; if you are poor you must make decisions, decisions that compromise your health. Bulk-billing ensures that all Australians can access a doctor when they need one. This government needs to make a commitment to bulk-billing and take the actions that are necessary to restore it to its previous level. This government stands condemned for its inaction and for its failure to ensure that all Australians can access quality health care. 21:16:002511Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I support the government's Taxation Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2002. This legislation increases the Medicare levy low income thresholds for individuals, married couples and sole parents in line with movements in the CPI. Whilst this measure may protect low income earners from paying a Medicare levy it is very sad that, as far as health care is concerned, this bill represents the maximum commitment low and middle income Australians can expect from the Howard government. We hear every day in this House that the health policies of the Howard government are hurting Australian families and older Australians who rely on and deserve a decent public health system.The government's mismanagement has led to decreasing rates of bulk-billing by Medicare doctors, increasing premiums and excess costs for private health insurance and increasing copayments for medicines. It is for that reason that, whilst supporting the bill here this evening, I strongly support the amendment moved by the member for Perth, who made a very erudite contribution to the debate prior to the dinner adjournment. The amendment reads:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“the House, recognising that the provisions of this equitable measure will appropriately exempt some individuals, couples and sole parents from the levy and surcharge in line with movements in the consumer price index, supports the bill but:(1) notes that the Government's overall approach to Medicare has seen the regrettable position where General Practitioner bulk billing usage has declined to only 74%;(2) notes that the average extra cost to a patient for a non bulk billing GP visit is now $12;(3) notes that those who can afford private health insurance have been subject recently to substantial increases in premiums, on average $150 extra per year;(4) notes that pensioners and concession card holders and those families under financial pressures will suffer further as a result of the Government's latest budget measures, in particular the proposed 30% increase in payments for essential medicines; and(5) calls on the Government to recognise the Australian community's belief in and support of bulk billing and Medicare and to accept that the Government must match that community commitment in its health policies”. The government's failure to respond to the deteriorating crisis over medical indemnity insurance—the subject of today's, unfortunately aborted, matter of public importance debate—is only one-half of the health emergency facing Australia. The other half, as you know, is the alarming decline in bulk-billing by both general practitioners and specialists. Since the election of the Howard government, the number of GP services bulk-billed has declined by five million a year. When you consider that the average cost of a visit to a GP who does not bulk-bill is $12, it means that Australians are paying $60 million more each year for doctor visits. This is on top of the $500 million extra that Australians are paying for increases in health insurance premiums and in addition to the $300 million that Australians will pay if the Treasurer's proposal for increased PBS copayments goes through the Senate. Who will pay for all this? We know that it will be those who can least afford it—the most vulnerable members of our community: the frail, the aged, the sick and the elderly. Bulk-billing is fundamental to our Medicare system. As more and more doctors stop bulk-billing, health care becomes expensive and out of reach for low and middle income families. This moves Australia closer to a USA-style health system where your credit card will replace your Medicare card when you need treatment, and health care will become the reserve of the wealthy and the privileged. There is little doubt that the government's ideological opposition to Medicare—well hidden when they came to office in 1996—is now obvious as Medicare is left to deteriorate. The President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Kerryn Phelps, was correct in her rebuke of the government when she said:Medicare is coming apart at the seams and the government is doing nothing about it. The decline in bulk-billing is a result of a lack of commitment to public health in Australia. When the Howard government came to office in 1996 the rate of GP bulk-billing was over 80 per cent. Bulk-billing rates are now the lowest in a decade and the health minister's response is, in effect, to say, `So what?' If that is her attitude, the minister needs to explain just how long the government is willing to allow the system to decline before paying appropriate attention to it. The victims of the government's arrogance are the dedicated medical professionals—who will be left with the impossible choice of undercharging for their services in an environment of skyrocketing medical indemnity insurance fees—and their patients, who will be forced to continually pay more or, as it is increasingly the case, will be put in the terrible situation of not being able to find the specialist they need at a price they can afford.Doctors who subsidise Medicare by continuing to bulk-bill receive their Medicare Benefits Schedule—MBS—rate of $24.45, when the AMA recommendation is that they charge between $48 and $50 for a standard consultation. In not recognising the inadequacy of the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the government is forcing doctors to stop bulk-billing. The problem for doctors and all Australians can only get worse when you consider the additional crisis in medical indemnity insurance caused by the collapse of United Medical Protection. This is summarised in a report in today's Australian newspaper by specialist medical practitioner, Michael Gliksman, who writes:Just work out how many deliveries an obstetrician must carry out to cover the monthly indemnity insurance fee of $10,000 for 2002...... ... ...Is it any wonder almost no specialist and an ever-dwindling number of GPs charge the Medicare rebate? The viability of Medicare is being destroyed by a thousand cuts. And John Howard assures us he doesn't know how the crisis in medical practice came about.... ... ...When medical treatment has never been safer, practice costs have never been higher. Medicare benefits in real terms have never been lower.Last week, an endocrine specialist, who lives in my electorate, spoke to me about the difficulty he is having during the current crisis. He has written me a letter today, fortuitously; I received it only this evening. In part, it states:Thank you for spending the time to look over some of my concerns, brought into focus with the failure of United Medical Protection. I hope I don't leave you with the impression that I am a whinger. For most of my working life I have just got on with my job, which I love. I am doing the work that I always wanted to do and go home every day knowing that I have made a difference in many people's lives and done an honest day's labour. It's just the non-clinical matters that impinge on my work that are becoming so intrusive into what is the best job in the world. I'm sorry that what follows does not read like a few simple sound bites, but that is more because of the complexity of the problem. That is something that I think you need to understand, but not allocate to the too hard basket. I would be very disappointed if the current opportunity for radical reform in the area of medical indemnity is wasted on petty partisan ambitions and I know it will only be fixed with a bipartisan combined state and federal approach. I emphasise that this specialist made it quite clear to me that there has to be a bipartisan approach to this. He works extremely hard in his practice, and the overheads—with the long hours that he works as an endocrine surgeon—are such that his taxable income is $120,000. For someone in such a specialised area, that is not a lot of money for the overheads that he has to bear. He is quite concerned because, at the moment, he is being sued and it looks like he might have to bear costs in the order of $60,000, $80,000 or possibly even $100,000. Like most of us, he has a mortgage, a wife and children to support. It is a very serious issue. He is just one of the innocent victims of the government's failure to keep watch on the insurance industry.In relation to insurance in this country, I accept that it will require a bipartisan approach if we are to resolve the problems. There are a lot of very nervous people out there at the moment, particularly specialists like the endocrine surgeon that I am talking about tonight, because they are not sure that they can actually stay in practice. I had a call from another doctor who, fortuitously for him, is turning 65 years of age in the near future. He has indicated to me that he will turn it up because he cannot afford to pay the $35,000 premium, with the concomitant risks, because he does not know what will happen after 1 July. That is pretty disturbing. For all of us here, the two things that concern people, when you talk to them before you get elected to the House of Representatives, is that they want a good health system and a good education system; they certainly do not want to feel that they will not be covered. In the case of doctors, they are being crippled by this uncertainty over the collapse of UMP.One of the many constructive suggestions my constituent makes is that indemnity costs should be shared across medical professionals. He says:I feel that the cost of indemnity should be contained, whilst maintaining provision for the needs of injured patients. Such compensation must be centrally scrutinised. The funds must be raised across the broadest cross-section of the whole community, which benefits from the provision of medical services. Whilst not popular with GPs, I feel that the insurance rates should be equal across all medical practitioners if that is the way governments elect to raise this money. High risk specialities should not be subject to distortions of the practice economics simply because by referral to a GP has passed the risk on, and similarly the passing of risk (by referral) from a non-proceduralist to a proceduralist should not distort the economics. In any case the risk should be borne across the widest number of patients (who ultimately pay) rather than concentrate the cost borne by those who are most ill.I don't believe cosmetic surgery should be covered in general medical indemnity and that area should carry its own insurance relevant to that practice and allow appropriate fees to cover that risk. This could be achieved by limiting normal indemnity only to those procedures and consultations covered by the Medical Benefits Schedule.Indemnity could alternatively be covered by a portion of the Medicare levy, and require that all indemnity cases be centrally registered so that some clearer data is available for study.That is just part of the letter that that specialist has written to me this evening.In the case of my constituent, the government needs to provide a written assurance of indemnity for his previously indemnified case, including continuity with the current subcontracted solicitor. He needs United Medical Protection or other substantial organisations to continue seamless cover in New South Wales. Finally, he needs certainty and quality of support with a Treasury managed fund, not just lip-service to risk management programs. That is just one example. While the Howard government seems intent on undermining the fundamental and equitable nature of Medicare and while it continues to have no constructive response to the medical indemnity crisis, many more doctors and patients will suffer the consequences. That is why I come back to the very erudite contribution that the shadow minister for health made when he moved his amendment prior to the suspension of the sitting. As the member for Perth mentioned, the legislation ensures that the threshold levels at which people are required to pay the Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge are increased in line with the CPI but elsewhere the health policies of the government are slugging Australian families. He talked about decreasing rates of bulk-billing by Medicare doctors when the government has been responsible for increasing premiums and excess costs for private health insurance and increasing copayments and safety nets for medicines.In short, as the member for Perth, Mr Stephen Smith, pointed out in relation to his amendment on bulk-billing, bulk-billing rates are now the lowest in a decade. When the government came to office, the rate of bulk-billing was over 80 per cent; it has now fallen to 75 per cent. There are over 100 million GP services a year. That means that on the Prime Minister's watch the number of GP services bulk-billed has declined by five million per year, and the average cost of a visit to a GP who does not bulk-bill is a scandalous $12. That means that Australian families are paying $60 million more each year for doctor visits. That is on top of the half a billion dollars extra that Australians are paying for increases in private health insurance premiums and it is additional to the $300 million that Australian families will pay if the Howard government's proposals for increased PBS copayments go through the Senate, as I mentioned earlier. Moreover, the heaviest hits are taken by those who can least afford them—the most vulnerable members of the community. During the election campaign the Prime Minister promised that his government policies would `lead to reduced premiums for health insurance'. Ha-ha! He also claimed that the coalition would make private health insurance more affordable and attractive to consumers. We know that that has fallen down like a pack of cards. As the member for Perth said, given the outcomes of those promises in an area this government supports, we can only wonder where we are headed with its paltry support for the Medicare program.For us on this side of the House, bulk-billing is an essential part of Medicare and we will be the last people standing—I will be standing right behind the shadow minister for health, the member for Perth, Stephen Smith—if the government attempts to crucify or remove bulk-billing. We introduced the relative values study to help resolve doctors' grievances about Medicare rebates, and the government has chosen not to go down that route. It seems intent on undermining the fundamental and equitable nature of Medicare. We will fight this to the last gasp. Medicare is here to stay. Labor were responsible for introducing it and the government seems to be doing what the Prime Minister indicated in 1987 he would do— that is, tear it apart. As I recall the member for Perth saying before the suspension of the sitting, we will defend Medicare and we will preserve bulk-billing. I commend to the House the amendment moved by the member for Perth and I hope that the government accepts it.21:34:002514Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—in reply—I would like to express my gratitude to honourable members who have contributed to the debate on this very important topic, the Taxation Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2002. The member for Lowe said that the Australian Labor Party supported Medicare and bulk-billing. The facts are on the record: the Howard government have supported Medicare, and we as a coalition are committed to a viable and universal publicly funded health system, which we all know as Medicare. The coalition believe that all Australians should have access to a high-quality health care system. If one had listened to the speeches by honourable members opposite, one would have thought that the government are not so committed. The government have delivered a balanced health system, and we will continue to improve Australia's health system by reforming Commonwealth-state relations and by emphasising quality care and preventive treatment. The coalition will continue to provide Australians with a choice of private care combined with a quality public hospital system. That means that Australia will have an affordable high-quality and world-class health system for the 21st century. I suspect that anybody who stops for a moment and contemplates the quality of health care provided in Australia will have to admit that this country is particularly fortunate to have the world-class system to which many other countries can only aspire. This bill reflects in a small way the government's commitment to keeping health care affordable. As honourable members who have been here for a while will understand, every year the threshold over which taxpayers are required to pay the Medicare levy is raised in line with the annual increase in the consumer price index. The phasing-in threshold is also raised for people who pay a partial levy, and there is an increase in the per child component of the low income threshold. The measure applies for the 2001-02 and later financial years.With the increases, low-income taxpayers can receive more income and still be exempt from the Medicare levy or pay a reduced amount of levy. Honourable members will be pleased to understand that these measures are entirely beneficial. This bill ensures that where pensioners below age pension age do not have an income tax liability they will not have a Medicare levy liability. The increase in thresholds also affects liability for the Medicare levy surcharge. The increase in the low-income threshold also flows through to the individual low-income members of a couple.People listening to this parliamentary broadcast will no doubt have shared the offence I experienced when I heard Labor members suggesting that this government does not support Medicare. I reiterate that this government is indeed committed to a viable and universal publicly funded health care system—Medicare—and the fact that we have given some incentives for private health insurance does not mean that the government does not support Medicare. As a government, we have no intention of allowing Australians to opt out of Medicare. Medicare will remain a universal system available to all Australians. All that is happening is that the government is restoring the balance between the public and private systems to what it was when Medicare was introduced. The government rejects the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Perth. It is full of Labor propaganda and anyone reading it would understand that the Labor Party is clearly some distance from understanding the facts in relation to our health care system. One only has to draw the attention of the House to paragraph (3) of the second reading amendment where the Labor Party asks the House to note:... that those who can afford private health insurance have been subject recently to substantial increases in premiums, on average $150 extra per year;It is true that premiums have gone up but, if it had not been for the government's 30 per cent rebate, private health insurance would have continued to collapse, it would have been unsustainable and the public health system would not have been able to cope with the additional numbers of people who would have been forced to use it. The Labor Party ought to recognise this and give credit where it is due, and the government is of course particularly proud of the fact that we have brought in this rebate. It has made and kept private health insurance viable, and it gives people very real choice. We will all recall that the Hon. Graham Richardson was Minister for Health in a former Labor government. He said:Medicare was always intended to coexist with the private health system, not replace it.However, if one ponders the utterances of Labor members, one would think that private health insurance is evil, that somehow it is inappropriate and that we ought not have it. Graham Richardson was a much more realistic representative of the Labor Party when he was the health minister and he pointed out that Medicare was always intended to coexist with private health insurance and not replace it. The very fact that we are debating this bill tonight is evidence of the government's ongoing support for the Medicare system. The bill has the effect of exempting more people from the Medicare levy without in any way limiting the access of those people to health services. Under the coalition, Medicare has received its highest level of funding ever.There has been some discussion in this debate about securing the future of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. There has been criticism of the very necessary measures included in the budget which were required to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The Intergenerational Report, included as part of the budget for the first time, looked at where Australia would be in 40 years time. We recognise in the budget the need to maintain the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and our actions in the budget ought not be looked upon—as the Labor Party would have people accept—as an attack on the PBS, rather they are underpinning the long-term sustainability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The measures were quite moderate and it was necessary to take steps now to make sure that, as we go on with a declining birthrate and an ageing population, Australia as a nation is able to continue to afford this very important underpinning of the health needs of Australians.The copayment for prescriptions was increased, restoring the balance between what the government pays and the contribution patients make to the cost of their medicines. From 1 August 2002, concessional cardholders will pay an additional $1 per script, up from $3.60 to $4.60. General patients will pay up to an additional $6.20 per script, an increase from $22.40 to $28.60. People have suggested that this means that the minimum cost for scripts will be $28.60 for general patients and $4.60 for concessional cardholders. The fact is that if the cost of a script is less than the $28.60 or, for that matter, the $4.60, only the lower price will be paid. It is quite misleading to suggest that the cost of all scripts is going up to $28.60. Many cost less than that and those that do will remain costing less. Concession cardholders will pay a maximum extra of $52 per year, which is $1 per script and, in effect, over a whole year would be no more than $1 per week. So I have to say that I very much regret the scare campaign which members of the Australian Labor Party are maintaining in the Australian community. They are trying to turn the Australian community against the very forward thinking and necessary measures contained in the budget, which is being debated in the chamber over the coming weeks. There were very many other benefits in the 2002 health budget—in relation to cancer treatment; arthritis; Visudyne therapy; palliative care; and $11.4 million towards the acquiring and stockpiling of a range of medicines, antidotes and vaccines to ensure a rapid and effective response to any acts of bioterrorism.Something near and dear to my heart is the delivery of services to Australians in rural, regional and outer metropolitan Australia. The government is committed to creating a more equitable distribution of medical services across Australia. Programs from the 2000-01 budget's $562 million regional health strategy are currently ongoing. In addition, the 2002 budget provides a further $80 million to increase the number of doctors working in designated outer metropolitan areas by 150 and provides $9 million to continue access to Medicare claiming facilities through local pharmacies. Honourable members would also have been pleased to see the increase in funding to fight the scourge of drug abuse.As I have said, Labor Party members have come in here and have endeavoured to mount a scare campaign against this government's commitment to make health care affordable for all Australians, to give all Australians access to health care services with priority according to clinical need and to provide a high quality of care. The government also emphasise the importance of Medicare and our very strong support for it, and we reject any suggestion by those opposite that we are in any way lacking in commitment to this important underpinning of our health care system. A policy of the government is to ensure that Medicare provides a universal and equitable health insurance system for all Australians regardless of age, income or disability. Those listening would be interested to know that the government is committed to maintaining Medicare in its entirety, including these principles of universality and equity. There has also been a steady growth in expenditure on medical services and benefits, including rebates for general practitioner and specialist attendance. It ought to be noted that in the year 2002-03 these rebates are expected to be $8.3 billion, and this is in addition to the $7.1 billion to the states and territories under the Australian health care agreements. The current agreements focus on increasing public patient access and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery.The member for Shortland in her speech referred to public hospital waiting lists. The states run these hospitals and, with the states receiving the benefit of the GST, it is about time the states appreciated that they do have an obligation to fund health. The Commonwealth is happy to continue to make its contribution, but it certainly is a disgusting cop-out to hear the state Labor governments simply allowing these long waiting lists for treatment to continue when, at the end of the day, the states do have an obligation to deliver health care in addition to the commitment which we as a government continue to give.So the coalition will continue to improve Australia's health system by reforming Commonwealth-state relations and emphasising quality care and preventative treatment. We are not going to apologise for continuing to provide Australians with the choice of private health care combined with a quality public hospital system, and this means that we will continue as a nation to have an affordable, high-quality and world-class health system as we proceed through the 21st century. The government does thank honourable members for their support of the bill. We do reject the second reading amendment moved by the member for Perth.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Smith's amendment) stand part of the question.21:54:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Barresi) 76Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.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.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.Ruddock, P.M.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.58Adams, 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.McLeay, L.B.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.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.Question agreed to.Original question agreed to.Bill read a second time.2518Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (10.02 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—I remind the Minister for Education, Science and Training and the member for Kingston that they do not have on the proper attire for the chamber.Bills2518R15402518Debate resumed from 16 May, on motion by Mr Costello:That this bill be now read a second time.22:03:002518Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I am very proud to rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03 and the seventh Howard government budget brought down by Treasurer, Peter Costello. Treasurer Costello has surely proven that his fiscal management credentials are second to none. Australia's economy is the strongest in the world, and this did not come about by accident. When the Howard government were elected in a landslide in 1996, I remember the first party meeting in the parliament. The Prime Minister put it to all coalition members that as a new government we had a choice. One option was to do what was popular: spend money that we did not have—as the Labor Party had done between 1990 and 1995—and try to buy ourselves back into government in three years time. The other option we faced was to be a responsible government: to do what we in our heart of hearts knew was the right thing to do. Real leaders do not talk about the need to take tough or hard decisions; real leaders talk about taking the right decisions. The reaction of all the coalition members and senators in the room that day was unanimous: everybody elected that the government should do what they believed to be the right thing to do for the nation. Many unpopular things had to be done. There were members present who were sitting on majorities of a few hundred votes who knew that, if they did the right thing, in all probability they would not be re-elected.In 1996 the then current budget was in deficit to the tune of about $11 billion. Mr Keating and Mr Beazley had told the people that the budget was in surplus. A succession of Labor deficits had amassed a cumulative debt of $80 billion. When governments have to borrow—like Labor governments always do—they become major players in the money market. Interest is the price of money. When governments are big borrowers, money becomes scarce and its price goes up. That is why big-borrowing Labor governments always end up with high interest rates.The Treasurer is fully aware of the correlation between government borrowings and high interest rates. It also follows that, when a government pays off debt, the pressure on interest rates is downward pressure and interest rates fall. To pay off government debt, the government needs to produce surplus budgets and use the surplus to redeem debt. That also reduces interest payments by government, allowing that money to be used for other things such as health, defence and security or further debt reduction.The other big item in debt reduction is asset sales. You can ask why anybody would sell an income producing asset, which is really what a government business enterprise is. Whether a business or a government, an income producing asset could be sold for a number of reasons. It could be sold to retire debt. It could be sold to release capital needed to buy another income producing asset. We did both: we paid off debt and invested in infrastructure. No-one in their right mind could sell an income producing asset and blow that money, but you know who did that: the Labor Party in government. They sold the Commonwealth Bank. They sold Qantas. They sold CSL. They sold other GBEs. Did they retire debt? No, they did not. They sold assets and at the same time racked up further debt. Labor blew the money that was the result of asset sales. Labor sold these great icons and blew the money. They have no gain to show for that pain. The series of Treasurer Costello's budgets are in stark contrast to those of Labor treasurers such as Keating, Dawkins, Kerin and Willis.All budgets consist of revenue and expenditure measures. To go from a position of massive deficit to a position of surplus, the Treasurer has no option but to cut government expenditure or to raise government taxes. The government commissioned, as one of its first acts in 1996, the Commission of Audit to examine every portfolio to identify potential savings. The process was painful. Only Defence was quarantined from expenditure cuts. Each of the Costello budgets produced a surplus. The surpluses were used to pay off Labor's debt. Every program in every department except that of Defence was given the strongest scrutiny to identify cuts in expenditure. Treasurer Costello used cuts in government expenditure and asset sales— and here I refer mainly to the partial privatisation of Telstra—to produce surpluses and debt reduction. In seven budgets the government has reduced Labor's $80 billion debt by a total of $61 billion.This fiscal discipline over seven budgets has allowed the government not only to pay off debt but to introduce far-reaching major reforms in the fields of taxation, industrial relations, telecommunications, environment—through the Natural Heritage Trust— and services to rural and regional electorates, such as my electorate of Fairfax. Selling an asset to buy another asset is what the government did. The Coastcare, Rivercare and salinity programs would never have been able to be carried out without the sale of Telstra. Again, the contrast with Labor is stark. You can see where every cent of the accumulated surpluses has gone under Peter Costello. You can see where the proceeds of privatisation have gone.It is time for the Labor Party to wake up and realise who won the election and the one before that and the one before that. It is time for Labor to realise that they lost these elections, and it is time they allowed us the capacity to govern. The Labor Party have opposed our fiscal measures at every turn. They say we should have surpluses and at the same time use their numbers in the Senate to vote against measures—on both the revenue side and the expenditure side—that the government needs to implement to produce those surpluses. In 1996 we survived a massive Labor budget blow-out. In 1997 and 1998 we survived the Asian economic crisis. We were even able to help our neighbouring countries, Indonesia and Thailand. In 1998 we won an election based on the introduction of a GST. Every major reform of the Howard government has been opposed by Labor. Labor voted against tax reform, the IR reforms and budget expenditure measures. Labor have to wake up, as I said, to the fact that they lost the election.The government survived the economic impact of East Timor and economic downturns in Europe, the USA, Japan, Singapore and our other trading partners. We have the highest GDP growth rates in the OECD. While the economies of Japan, the USA and Europe have contracted, Australia's GDP has continued to grow. Interest rates are low as a consequence of tight fiscal policy and continuing low inflation. This budget estimates that growth will remain strong at 3¾ per cent for 2002-03. This is higher than the forecast growth for any of the major developed G7 economies of the world and reflects Australia's sound economic management under Treasurer Costello and the Howard government. To quote the Treasurer: Business investment is expected to grow very strongly—in 2002-03—to be a key driver of overall economic growth. Household consumption is also expected to remain strong.In line with the outlook for robust economic growth, the unemployment rate is forecast to decline gradually to six per cent in the June quarter of 2003. An unemployment rate of below six per cent would be achievable over the next couple of years provided that economic growth remains strong and progress is maintained on labour market and welfare reforms. There is no reason to think that economic growth will not remain strong. Since the government came into office, over 900,000 jobs have been created in the Australian economy. We expect over one million jobs to have been created by this Christmas. With only moderate increases in wage costs and continued strong productivity growth, inflation is expected to be around 2¾ per cent in 2002-03 and 2½ per cent by the June quarter of 2003, within the medium-term inflation band. Largely reflecting the strength of the domestic economy, the current account deficit is expected to increase slightly to around four per cent of GDP, which is also below the average of the 1990s.The Leader of the Opposition delivered his reply to the budget at 7.30 p.m. on Thursday, two days after the Treasurer delivered the budget. He started with the words, `Tonight I want to do something different.' I got very excited when I heard the Leader the Opposition say that he wanted to do something different. I thought that he might for once support the government on its budget measures. The Leader of the Opposition talked about modern Labor and the need to produce a strong economy. Haven't we got a strong economy? I have already quoted from the Treasurer's budget speech, which forecasts GDP growth of 3¾ per cent, the lowest interest rates in 30 years, jobs growth, unemployment falling to below six per cent, continuing low inflation and hyperactivity.I have pointed out that Labor has in the past six coalition budgets opposed every fiscal measure designed to give us that business confidence and that strong economy. I thought Simon Crean was going to announce that Labor would support those reforms in the budget which are there to ensure the responsible fiscal position and achieve a continued strong economy. As the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply wore on, it was obvious that nothing had changed. Modern Labor is still Labor. Here we go again: the Labor Party still has not realised, as I said before, that it lost the election—the third one in a row.Labor intends to vote against three key budget measures: the pharmaceutical benefits reforms, the disability support pension reforms and measures to give effect to our election platform on the superannuation surcharge. Labor has been peddling several untruths in the week and a half since the budget. Scaring old people and pensioners is an old Labor Party sport.The Treasurer pointed out in his budget speech that the events of September 11 shocked the world and showed that terrorism can strike the most powerful nations. We cannot take our security for granted. The Treasurer announced many new measures to protect and secure our borders. The Treasurer said:The hard work of the last six years helped to shield our country and keep people in work. It gave us the capacity to respond swiftly with measures to stimulate the economy like the additional First Home Owners Grant. It allowed us to respond swiftly with a major contribution to the War Against Terrorism.The Treasurer went on to detail additional expenditure under the heading of `Strong Defence':· an Australian special forces task force group—and other personnel—participating in operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaida networks;· a naval task group of an amphibious landing ship (until mid 2002) and a frigate, and the continued presence of a guided missile frigate in the Persian Gulf to support the Multinational Maritime Interception Force; and · Air Force B707 tanker aircraft to support air-to-air refuelling operations and F/A-18 aircraft deployed to Diego Garcia—until mid-2002—to support air defence of coalition forces.The composition of the deployment is subject to strategic requirements and is continuously under review.The additional funding over the base funding and over the White Paper for this deployment in 2001-02 and 2002-03 is around $524 million.Domestic security is vital in the fight against terrorism and securing Australia's borders.The other contentious issue in the budget referred to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is blowing out and we heard the parliamentary secretary a few minutes ago in the House outlining the drastic measures that would have to be taken to save the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme if we do not bite the bullet now. I said a while ago that it is Labor Party sport to scare people. It has been said over the last week and a half that every prescription would rise by $6.40, and that is just not right. Again, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration pointed out to the House that the cost of prescriptions below that figure will not rise at all. If they were below the $28.60 before 1 August, they will be below that amount after 1 August.From 1 August the copayments for concession cardholders such as pensioners and senior health cardholders will rise by $1 to $4.60 and copayments for others will rise by $6.20 to $28.60 per prescription. While concession cardholders will only pay $4.60 for a prescription, this is only a small cost of many of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines. The Treasurer goes on to quote three examples:· Humulin NPH, widely used in the treatment of insulin dependent diabetes costs $229.13 per prescription.· Avonex, a drug used for the treatment of multiple sclerosis costs $1,090.81 per prescription.A patient on this drug would normally take 13 prescriptions per year. The Treasurer goes on:· Zyban, used for the treatment of nicotine addiction, costs $238.85 per prescription.New drugs with high costs are coming on to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme all the time.Notwithstanding the cost the copayment will only be $4.60 for concession cardholders.Safety net arrangements will continue to protect people who need a large number of medicines. Consistent with the current arrangements, once concession cardholders have paid for 52 Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescriptions in the year, they will receive further medicines free for the rest of the year. Non concession cardholders who pay $874.90 in a year for their Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines will be eligible for further medicines at the concessional rate for the rest of the year. That equates to 30 prescriptions, after which the safety net clicks in. I commend the budget to the House.22:23:002521Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00— The Treasurer says that this budget is designed to address the ageing of the Australian population, but what it does is cut the income of up to 200,000 people with a disability by up to $52 a fortnight and charges Australians 30 per cent more for their medicines—all in the name of preparing Australia for an ageing population. The ageing of the Australian society is the Howard government's favourite smokescreen. Let us look over some of the ways that that smokescreen has been used. It has been used time and again as a huge threat, a time bomb, even as a public policy crisis. In fact, of course, it is none of these things; it is just an excuse by this government for a number of very nasty policies that certainly have hurt a lot of people. Future generations of elderly Australians have become this government's favourite scapegoats. Over the past six years, the government has relied on the ageing of the population to justify a number of punitive policies. The government would rather talk about the ageing population than admit to its real agenda: to cut away at Medicare; to cut away at the PBS; to make life tougher for those Australians who are ill, disabled or disadvantaged. If we turn back to 1996 and the National Commission of Audit, the ageing of the population was used then to recommend increased charges for nursing home beds, which of course we saw come to pass. It also recommended the lowering of the age pension. We are yet to see that. That is sitting there in the drawer of the government. We may see that at some time in the future. AK6Gash, Joanna, MPMrs Gash—That is outrageous!PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—By 1998 the ageing of the population was used again, this time to justify the GST. For the member's benefit, I will quote from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said:... unless we introduced a broadbased indirect tax to fund the growing demands for public services of that aging population we would be failing to match the need of the nation as years went by.They were the Prime Minister's own words—the Prime Minister once again using the ageing of the population to justify the introduction of a very unfair tax. Now Australians are laden with the GST.But the ageing population boogieman has not yet been put to bed. It is now the Treasurer's favourite excuse yet again to cut government programs. It does not even matter that the government's own Intergenerational Report does not support the `sky is falling in' spin that the Treasurer would like to have us believe. As the Sydney Morning Herald's Ross Gittins points out, the budget's Intergenerational Report:... projects that the share of GDP going on the disability support pension and the sole parent pension will be unchanged over the next 40 years, while the share going to unemployment benefits will halve. These savings cut the overall increase in pension and benefit payments to just 0.6 points.Mr Gittins goes on to say:There are two reasons we don't have the age pension problem everyone else has—what he means is other countries around the world with ageing populations—Because our age pension is frugal, flat-rate and tightly means tested. But also because of the Labor Government's introduction of compulsory superannuation in 1992.A budget that was designed to address the ageing of the Australian population would have looked very different from the budget that the Treasurer brought down just the other week. This year's budget was a missed opportunity for securing Australia's economic base for future generations. It assumes the worst in terms of our future as a population. It paints a picture of a nation locked into dependency and low productivity. It does not have to be this way.The budget's medium-term goal should have been to create a more productive Australia through investment in education, research and development, to build the skills that will boost future economic growth and jobs to create the wealth so that we can afford to look after the elderly, the sick and the disadvantaged. These are the themes that should have been at the heart of the Intergenerational Report. These are the themes that were missing. Nowhere in the budget this year did we find any attempt to invest in our future so that we could have the wealth to be able to afford to look after our parents and grandparents. Of course, that is not what the objective of this government is: it is to frighten the public and then take away essential benefits.A budget designed to address the ageing of the population would have included more than $12 million in new measures for the entire education, science and training portfolio. This is just an adjustment of 0.1 per cent in a total budget for education and training of $12 billion. Australia needs an urgent investment in education. There are over five million students in our schools, our TAFE colleges and our universities. The new measures in this budget provide an extra $2.50 this year to each student—that is it. That is not an investment in Australia's education. It is not an investment in Australia's future.Debate interrupted.Adjournment252210000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! I will interrupt at this stage if it will suit the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is just before 10:30 p.m. but it is an appropriate time to interrupt the debate. I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order! I assume that our member will be able to continue the debate at the next opportunity. Could I have that recorded in Hansard, please? 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—It is automatic, I reassure the Chief Opposition Whip. I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition understood that and she was volunteering for that reason. I appreciate the assistance but there is no difficulty.252322:30:002523King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—I rise this evening to express my concern and anger about the undemocratic actions of teachers at Woollahra Public School, which is located in my electorate. Earlier this month, by arrangement between the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Woollahra school principal, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was to visit Woollahra Public School to present an award to one of the students. The student was receiving second prize in a statewide school art competition run by his department to promote cultural tolerance. This obviously should have been a matter of considerable pride for the school community, teachers and, most importantly, for the winning school student and their family. Approximately three days before the event, the minister's office was advised that teachers at the school had voted to black ban the visit and that he was no longer welcome. This was despite written approval for the visit being given by the state education minister, John Watkins.With some generosity of spirit, I might say, the minister's office, still keen to ensure the student's efforts were appropriately acknowledged, asked the department to see whether the school would allow me, as the local member of parliament, to present the award on his behalf. I too was black banned, as were subsequent suggestions that the award be presented by senior officers from the immigration department. Immigration staff have informed me that they were advised by the school principal that the teachers at his school were opposed to a visit by anyone who officially supported the government stance on the mandatory detention of asylum seekers and refugees.This is not an issue about the government's policies on asylum seekers and mandatory detention. It is an issue about teachers saying that they are not prepared to allow into a school anyone who has a view different from theirs, even though in this case the minister was simply visiting to present an award to a bright young student, not to present a speech on government policy.I respect the right of teachers, as individuals, to have views—indeed, strong views— about contemporary social and political issues. What I absolutely reject is the notion that teachers should take those personal views into the classroom in what should be an objective learning environment. It is clear that, inspired by the New South Wales Teachers Federation, teachers at Woollahra Public School acted like they were running some kind of ideological training centre. Our children are entitled to a broadly based education, not a rigid one-world view.The fact that teachers now believe they can also determine who steps foot in schoolgrounds is disturbing. Teachers must remember that they do not run our schools. That job, as much as the Teachers Federation may not like it, actually falls to a democratically elected government. What those teachers have done is to push their personal views ahead of the interests of one of the students who was to receive some acknowledgment of their efforts by a senior minister. They have also brought the time-honoured traditions of their profession into disrepute. I call on state government and Minister Watkins to bring those teachers to heel. The very basis of our public education system is at threat when students can be exposed to this type of ideological partisanship and unethical behaviour.252322:34:002523Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Tonight I just want to make a few comments about Jim Hanshaw—a constituent in my electorate, a bloke who would describe himself as a very ordinary Australian. But Jim has a passion. He is a passionate supporter of the game of cricket and has been long-term president of the Blacktown District Cricket Club. In the local government capital grants program under David Simmons we were able to get money allocated to the Joe McAleer Park, which is probably one of the best cricket ovals in Sydney. Jim had a dream, and he always had a vision, to see Blacktown District in first grade competition. If you know Jim, you will know that he is one of the world's worst pessimists, believing that it will never occur. I would like to give some credit to my colleague Jim Anderson, the member for Londonderry, because we are both patrons of the Blacktown District Cricket Club. During one presentation Jim really raised the whole issue of making yet another attempt to get into first grade. I am happy to report that, with the assistance of Blacktown City Council and Mayor Alan Pendleton over a period of some months, we have been eventually able to satisfy the New South Wales Cricket Board of Blacktown's worthiness to be included in the first division, and in fact we have been included in the first division.I salute Jim Hanshaw, the president, and I might say the executive and the many people who have played and supported cricket in Blacktown—but particularly Jim for his vision and his tenacity. It has taken many years to see this, and in the next cricket season we will see Blacktown perhaps not winning the competition but certainly not the cellar dwellers. Hopefully it will not be too long before we take off the grand prize.I say that as an example of cooperation because unfortunately at the moment I am having a bit of a yike with the council over the lack of provision of a roundabout not far from my office. I regret to say that the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Danny Mackin, has attacked me in the newspapers for my `junkets' as he says, to Rwanda and Uganda. I have never actually travelled to Uganda but it is true that I have travelled to Rwanda, Somalia, Bougainville and East Timor. I have always travelled on the basis that, if it is good enough to have defence personnel serving in those localities, it is good enough for some members of parliament to actually go and visit them. If these destinations constitute a junket, I might say that a few of my colleagues ought to apologise to me for all the ribbing they do when I say I am going to go. Can I apologise in advance to Councillor Danny Mackin in that he will again accuse me of going on a junket because I am very keen to get to Afghanistan and I understand the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade will be trying to make arrangements to do what I think parliamentarians should do, and that is, where we have serving troops, to go overseas and see them where they seek to serve.252422:38:002524Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Tonight I speak about a man and his book. White Butterflies is a story of one man's journey and a story that had to be told. No doubt many in the House have seen the reviews and perhaps actually read the book. Few will fail to be impressed with its underlying philosophy. But it is not my purpose to promote the book as such, rather to pay tribute to its author, Colin McPhedran, who is my friend.There is a point in most people's lives when a glimmer of hope or an opportunity is presented. If you don't take it, you spend the latter part of your life wondering, `What if?' Often at the same time there is a stranger who can act as a catalyst for change. At the time my opportunity presented itself, I was working in pubs and clubs and driving taxis to support my children after my divorce. There was an ad in the local paper for a tourism officer and I just knew it was the job for me. I desperately wanted that job but had no relevant experience or proof to back up my conviction. The bloke at the garage where I filled up my taxi listened to my dilemma and said he would help if he could. That bloke was Colin McPhedran. He encouraged me to have faith in myself and assisted with the writing of that job application. He helped me to see that in fact I did have a lot to offer the position, precisely because of my experience. All we had to do was look at it in a different way. In fact, that is Colin's real talent: he has the ability to help me see things in a different light. He can deliver the most blunt assessment of my ideas so gently that it takes a while to realise just what he has done. Little did I know he was to become my boss. During my career in tourism and even now he is my teacher. I learnt many valuable lessons from his personal philosophy, and I try to apply it in everyday life to myself and to my work. This philosophy has helped me throughout most of my life, for I have known Colin McPhedran and his family for over 50 years. In fact, I taught his daughters to play basketball. He was there for me and my two children after my divorce, which was quite a traumatic time in my life. His quiet and steadying hand helped ease the passage for me as I learned to move on. In a way, he could be described as my best friend and mentor and also my teacher. He is someone I can talk to or consult knowing that my thoughts will not be repeated. The solutions or suggestions that he offers are often ones that would not immediately come to mind. Colin offers a different point of view, often lending a guiding hand but never seeking to impose his own will. He admired his mother very much, and that comes through in his book. I think that bond lends itself to his faith in the ability of women. His mother was very prominent in his life, but this unconditional love, security and shelter were taken from him at a very early age. He was flung onto his own two feet, standing alone and brought into a world of adults while still a child. These circumstances, while tragic, have also been character building as the child struggled first to survive and then to get on with his life. We can learn and profit from these experiences he shares of us in White Butterflies. I think that in that garage, pumping fuel, he saw in me an opportunity to demonstrate his belief in women's abilities. Years later he convinced me to stand for local government and again for the position I now occupy. In a way, my life is intertwined with his. I have enormous respect for his advice. I feel that Colin has been here before. He has a certain foresight and insight that I have not seen in anyone else. It is no surprise that his deeply held personal philosophies are based in Buddhism, a style of life that preaches harmony and peace inside and out. He sees Australia as a fortunate and affluent country that should do more for the poorer countries of the world. And, while his political sympathies may differ from mine, I do respect his views about our obligations to our fellow beings. We share this world with others and no one person is greater than his neighbour. White Butterflies is a story within a story. To gain value from the book, you need to look behind the words. There is a message there but you have to be receptive to it. You have to look at it from a different perspective. And maybe it has to be your time for the opportunity to arise. For in a way it is a textbook on life written by a man I admire more than any other. His mother taught him to look upon people in the same way you would look upon someone who was your friend. That is a message from which we can all profit. Now that his story has been told, we must learn to love him with detachment and so make his return to Burma as fulfilling as possible. For he has much to give there too, and the times are achanging. Colin McPhedran, you are a man not only amongst men but for women you are always there. I am very proud of you.252522:43:002525Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—As part of the Moon Festival celebrations held in Cabramatta last September, an essay competition was held for high school students from south-western Sydney. The topic for the essay was `My Dream', and entrants were asked to write about their future plans. The competition was organised by a growing media and market research company, Vietnam Information Services of Cabramatta. The project managers, Mr Dung Ma and Dr Thuy Mai-Viet, did a great job in launching the project, bringing together an impressive judging panel and attracting more than 30 sponsors to provide prizes and other services. Local business houses deserve special thanks for backing the competition. The Fairfield and Cabramatta area has many community minded businesspeople like Mr Ma and Dr Mai-Viet, as the list of sponsors shows. Many of the sponsors are very small businesses working on the margin but with a great commitment to the community and the upcoming generation. The competition was publicised around the local high schools and on the Cabramatta net.com web site, and entries poured in from young authors. The 10-member judging panel had a tough time, but the 27 essays they selected are worth reading if you want to tune into the value system and ambitions of this between generation. Almost all of these teenagers have their roots somewhere else and many of them have not been long in Australia. They are bright and present their ideas clearly. Many talk about being picked on because they are somehow different. Many talk about the culture and generation clash between them and their parents. A feature of these essays is that they use language in a new way. Because the authors have imagination, and because many can speak another language, you get a delightful mixture of eastern and western thoughts— the odd turn-on phrase, the occasional teen expression, the images of contemporary life and remembered traumatic events. It is not surprising that what we can see in these fresh voices is concern about the bigger picture. These young people want to put things back on track and get serious about the pursuit of happiness, not just for the themselves but also for others. There are no scores to settle, no blame to sheet home. They want peace and they want to channel their talents into making improvements. But these are only the general themes. It is how the personalities behind these authors, their backgrounds and their ideas, are revealed that makes this worth reading.It is a hint of what the future holds for us: how our values might be shaped and how Australia will be a different place 10 or 20 years from now. When Mr Ma first showed me this collection, he said he thought many of the authors would be future leaders in whatever they pursue. I do not doubt that for a minute. The essays have been posted on the Vietnamese in Australia web site because these young authors are the Internet generation. The essays are also coming out in book form. It has been quite an achievement and everyone associated with the project can be justly proud of their contribution, and they will be doing it again at this year's Moon Festival in September. It could well become a tradition that continues for many years. I look forward to meeting these students and their parents at the launch of the book in Cabramatta. I will be saying to them that the `My Dream' writing competition was a very brave undertaking. I would not have been so sure that young people would want to let us into their world and expose so much of their inner thoughts and feelings, but the end result is a revealing and enjoyable insight into the lives of young people in south-western Sydney. I will congratulate the authors and everyone involved in the `My Dream' project.252622:47:002526Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6CanningLP10— I wish to speak this evening about the Clontarf Football Academy at the Aboriginal school in Wilson, Western Australia. The vision statement is that, through the medium of football and facilities and capabilities of the Clontarf Aboriginal College, young Aboriginal men develop discipline, life skills and self-esteem that is needed to participate in a meaningful society. Gerard Neesham, the former AFL coach of the Dockers, is the coach of this Clontarf Aboriginal football team. After losing his position as the coach for the Dockers and having travelled the country looking for talent, he decided that he had met many talented young Aboriginals and so he would provide an opportunity for them to play football. But this is not just football; the task of this academy—and it has many goals—is to provide football as an incentive for young Aboriginal men to continue their education. One of their main goals is for Aboriginal boys to attend school regularly.Gerard Neesham has attracted people to the Clontarf Aboriginal football academy who have a range of football skills. There is Ben Allen, who was a former Dockers coach, and there are a number of others who support him in this initiative. The academy started with something like 54 boys in 1998. Today, in 2002, there are 171 boys at that college. But it is not the number of boys that is important; it is the participation rate. When they first started, their participation rate was 22 per cent. Today, it is well over 66 per cent. The fact is that these boys not only go to that college to learn, and to play football, but also have been taken out of a system where there is continual miscreant behaviour and a lack of vision—vision that young boys, especially in Aboriginal communities, do not have. One of the sad aspects of this is that Gerard Neesham, instead of spending his time coaching Aboriginal boys, has to spend much of his time raising money. He has much support in Western Australia for this initiative, but he does not have enough because of the growing numbers that I have just spoken about. The end result is that he has gone everywhere for support. I raised this issue today with the Prime Minister and my colleagues. I have also raised this issue of funding with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Mr Ruddock, and the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson. But the shocking part about this is that ATSIC, who could quite appropriately fund this body, will not. They have approached ATSIC and they have declined to fund Gerard Neesham's program. The sad part about this is that we know that ATSIC have hundreds of millions dollars at their disposal, for many good reasons, but this is one program that has fallen through the crack. Gerard Neesham needs support in this area, and I am endeavouring to do what I can at a federal level to try to find funding for him to assist these boys in their future development and self-education so that they can gain self-esteem et cetera. They recognise, as one of their goals, that they can play a role in the reconciliation process by becoming elite footballers. For example, Dion Woods, who is the member of the academy, has become an AFL player with the Fremantle Dockers. They also have Western Australia football league players, and many other players. It is a very successful program.I recommend this program and I ask that agencies, including the state government, get behind Gerard Neesham and the support group at Clontarf and support this marvellous program so that young Aboriginal men can get into positive programs that will promote themselves and their community and give them future direction. Ultimately, I am endeavouring to take people there to see the good things about this program, and I hope that this will become an Australian model for Aboriginal development. (Time expired)252722:52:002527Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I rise tonight primarily to air a grievance about the way this government treats people with disabilities, in particular a remarkable young man who lives in my electorate. He is in year 12 at Rosny College in Hobart. Heath Mollineux is 17 years old and has athetoid quadriplegia cerebral palsy. He is confined to a wheelchair and his only means of communication is via a laptop or desktop computer. In February this year, Heath sent me an email in which he raised the cost of a new desktop computer and the amount of GST paid on its purchase. In his email, he said:I communicate through my laptop computer and a special program called EZ Keys for Windows.He continued:Why do I have to pay GST on a piece of equipment that I'm dependent on every day? I'm not disputing the GST itself, but it's a real battle getting equipment when it's so expensive. I have spoken to the tax department who have said a computer is not covered by schedule 3 in the GST act. Without my computer, I can do nothing—I can't even go to the toilet.I visited Heath and the main item he was concerned about was the large monitor that he needs to display his words so that others can read his message. At a cost of some $3,000, the GST on the monitor is approximately $300—this on an item that is an essential communication tool for Heath. Obviously, I wrote to the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, and I said:When I visited Heath, I became acutely aware of the need to make provision for his circumstances. I am certain that the GST compensation will never cover the amount of GST he has to pay to maintain his computer systems, and hence his life, over the years that he survives. Could you please advise what measures are being considered to enable Heath and others in his position to have their computers placed in schedule 3 and be spared the burden of the GST?Several months passed and I finally got an answer, and the answer was: `None.' There is no mechanism to ease the burden on Heath and people like him. One of the reasons given is the additional compliance complexity for these computer businesses. One wonders how complex it is to be in Heath's circumstances. Does that count for nothing? If the equipment cannot be exempted, why can't there be a GST exemption certificate when he buys the monitor or the computer? That is because the government thought it would be too hard to apply different GST treatments to computer equipment, depending on the status of the purchaser. How hard is it to identify Heath and give him the exemption form? Too hard for this government. So it is tough luck, Heath—this government does not care. What sort of government trades off complexities for business against complexities for people with disabilities? What is more complex than life? There is a debate about communication standards for regional Australia. What about a life-dependent communication tool for an intelligent young man who is achieving remarkable results at a senior secondary college? Nothing should impede the acquisition by Heath of the tools he needs to survive.If the Assistant Treasurer will not do anything, maybe the Minister for Education, Science and Training—a former president of the AMA and, in my mind, an honourable man—can find the heart to resolve Heath's problems. I will ask him tonight: Minister, please do something for Heath—an exceptional student living a totally exceptional life.I now move on to another example of people with disabilities who are doing it tough—people with Down syndrome. People with Down syndrome have an intellectual disability, a stable and permanent condition for which there is no cure. The proposed changes to the work test will discourage many Down syndrome people from working more than 15 hours a week. If they were to work more than 15 hours, there is a strong chance that they would fail the mutual obligation test and end up with very little benefit at all.The Down Syndrome Association of New South Wales pointed out to me today that people with Down syndrome do not find jobs easily. Jobs are found by the funded disability support agencies. Transferring people with disabilities to Newstart suggests that jobs are available on demand. I would argue that people without disabilities have trouble finding work, so what chance would those with disabilities have competing in the same market? Am I the only member who has people with disabilities in my electorate? Why are there no government members standing up on this issue? (Time expired)252822:57:002528Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00— In the moments remaining, I would like to raise an issue of burning concern in my electorate. This is the question of traffic congestion in the suburbs of Prestons and Hoxton Park. The Liverpool local government area is one of the fastest growing in New South Wales. Much of that growth is concentrated in Prestons and Hoxton Park at the northern end of my electorate. The most important issue for people moving into these suburbs is traffic congestion. This is indicative of the lifestyle issues in Sydney, where people are saying they like Sydney as a global city and the cosmopolitan lifestyle style advantages, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to turn right out of their suburb in the morning in less than half an hour and to move quickly out of their suburb on their way to work, school and other activities? Given the growth of Prestons, Hoxton Park and West Hoxton, there is an urgent need for local, state and federal government to produce an integrated transport plan—a road transport plan that eases the traffic congestion problem.The federal government, of course, needs to build the Western Sydney Orbital Road— the national highway—as quickly as possible to move all the heavy vehicles away from the suburban streets at the northern end of my electorate. The New South Wales government needs to upgrade Cowpasture Road, south of Elizabeth Drive, and also to allocate the funds that are needed desperately for the widening and upgrading of Camden Valley Way. Liverpool council, of course, in collecting section 94 contributions, has an important role to discharge. The council needs to rebuild, repair and widen Bernera Road and Kurrajong Road. I would urge all levels of government to be part of this integrated road transport plan. People in Prestons deserve easy access in and out of the suburb. The three levels of government working together can achieve a great deal of benefit for the new residentsmoving into the western part of the Liverpool local government area. It is time for action. I want to see the governments working together and providing the amenity and lifestyle that those residents deserve.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.22:52:002529House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices2529The following notices were given:GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and for related purposes.LL6Baldwin, Robert, MPMr Baldwin to move:That this House:(1) recognises the efforts of Air Force Squadrons 3 and 77, who are based at RAAF Base Williamtown, and their contribution to the coalition against terrorism through the F/A 18 deployment;(2) acknowledges the support that family and friends have provided to the defence personnel involved in the coalition against terrorism deployment;(3) congratulates RAAF Base Williamtown on its success in the 2001 Air Force Awards, with No. 26 (City of Newcastle) Squadron winning the Air Force Association Trophy for the Most Proficient Reserve Squadron and No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit winning the RAAF Maintenance Trophy for the Most Proficient Maintenance Unit; and(4) recognises the $17 million investment that will go into RAAF Base Williamtown which was announced in the 2002-2003 Budget and will include a $2 million child care centre.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr Nairn to move:That this House:(1) recognises the invaluable contribution that immigrants have made to Australia's development;(2) believes it is appropriate to recognise this through the construction of a monument in the National Capital;(3) supports the efforts of those who have established the National Monument to Immigration Fund which seeks to achieve this goal; and(4) remains informed of the progress of this project.Answers to Questions in Writing2530The following answers to questions were circulated:2530(Question No. 10)102530Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 February 2002:(1) Did he see an article by Mike Seccombe titled “The shutters are pulled down on Parliament's sideshow” on page 4 of The Sydney Morning Herald on 29 November 2001.(2) Will he make himself available for a full press conference with the Canberra media gallery on each sitting week of the 40th Parliament; if not, why not.2530Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I cannot recollect reading Mr Seccombe's article at the time.(2) Press conferences are called depending upon the issue and circumstances of the time. There has been at least one occasion since the beginning of this year, for example, when I called two major press conferences in Canberra in the same week. On average I have held one major press conference per sitting week since Parliament resumed earlier this year.2530(Question No. 58)582530Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 22 August 2001.Further to the answer to question No. 2621 (Hansard, 20 August 2001, page 29765), (a) is he the Minister charged with the responsibility for the sale of Sydney and other Sydney basin airports and (b) why was the question transferred to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services for a reply.2530Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) Yes(b) The issues raised by Mr Murphy in question No. 2621 (Hansard, 20 August 2001, page 29765) relate to provisions of the Airports Act 1996 and its administration. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services is responsible for administering the Act, and it was therefore appropriate to refer the question to him.2530(Question No. 59)592530Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 30 August 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an Australian Financial Review article, dated 25-26 August 2001 titled “Airport gears for $5bn take-off”.'(2) Is he able to say whether groups bidding for the purchase of the lease of Sydney Airport include (a) the AMP and Hastings' Gateway Group, (b) Macquarie Bank and (c) ABN Amro, either alone or as part of the Connect Consortium consisting of ABN Amro, Egis Group, Schiphol Group and Fraport.(3) Is he able to say whether (a) any of the bidders referred to in part (2) are no longer bidders, (b) any other bidders have now submitted their bids and (c) he knows of any other bids likely to be submitted before the closing date of bids.(4) What criteria will be used in assessing who will be the successful bidder.(5) Will the decision be based upon (a) price alone, (b) conformance with ecological/environmental and economic constraints or (c) ecological/environmental factors alone and the bidder who seeks to assist in the fulfilment of the Government's declared economic and social goals of a fully implemented Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) and commence construction of Sydney West Airport immediately.(6) If the decision will be based on conformance with ecological/environmental and economic constraints, will the successful bidder be one who (a) agrees to abide by the fully implemented LTOP and commence construction of Sydney West Airport at Badgerys Creek immediately and (b) declares that they will honour the promises made to the public that Sydney Airport would not be sold until a genuine environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed for a second airport at Sydney. (7) Has any bidder expressly or impliedly declared in their bid their intention whether or not to construct Sydney West Airport; if so, who is that bidder and what is their declared intention.(8) Will he announce if any bidder for the lease of Sydney Airport declares an intention to not construct Sydney West Airport within an acceptable prescribed time, or at all, based on the Pareto constraints indicated in the 1995 EIS by PPK Environment and Infrastructure, for the Second Sydney Airport Proposal, namely when passenger movements reach or exceed 20 million per year.(9) Is he able to say whether in 1999-2000, Sydney Airport had 23 million passenger movements, and has thus exceeded its Pareto optimum ecologically sustainable limit; if not, why not.(10) What ethic is driving the tender and sale process of Sydney Airport, including the primary decision to sell Sydney Airport.(11) Upon what ethical basis and what moral reasoning are Bankstown, Hoxton Park and Camden Airports being sold separately from Sydney Airport.(12) Upon what ethical basis and what moral reasoning is Sydney Airport being sold with first right of refusal in the hands of the successful bidder to construct Sydney West Airport.(13) Is Sydney Airport being sold with first right of refusal by the successful bidder to not construct Sydney West Airport in order to maximise the sale price of Sydney Airport by not encumbering the sale to the successful bidder in locking that bidder into an expensive contractual obligation to construct Sydney West Airport.(14) Is Sydney Airport being sold separately from Bankstown, Hoxton Park and Camden Airports to sterilise the sale of Sydney Airport by emphasising it as the jewel in the crown of Australia's international gateway airports and maximise the sale price alone.(15) Is the sole or substantial ethic directing the decisions made by the Government utilitarian in that it seeks to maximise utility of the greatest number of successful bidders' shareholders whilst denying both the Government's declared promises to the general public not to sell Sydney Airport until (a) Sydney Airport's aircraft noise problems have been solved and (b) a genuine environmental impact statement for the Second Sydney Airport has been undertaken.(16) How are environmental and public interest factors included in the tender process.(17) Will bidders be expected to fulfil the Government's declared social and economic goals, including (a) full implementation of the LTOP, (b) immediate commencement of construction of Sydney West Airport and (c) maintenance of Commonwealth statute law proscribing monopolistic control of global and strategic assets, including Australia's international and regional airports.(18) Is the Government's policy on this sale process driven by the principles of globalisation.(19) What policy rationale, other than maximising profit, governs the sale process of Sydney Airport to these banks, foreign consortia and globalised superannuation funds.(20) Has the tender process erred in failing to adequately protect the public interest and public morality of the sale process.(21) What will be the financial implications in terms of rent and other overheads upon the Australian taxpayer in light of the permanent loss of strategic assets such as Australia's international airports.(22) Is he familiar with the principles of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and the term `anarcho-capitalism'.(23) Will the right of first refusal to construct Sydney West Airport in the hands of the successful bidder effectively waive any hope for Sydney Airport aircraft noise-affected residents seeking relief from aircraft noise during the lease period of up to 50 years.(24) If not, how will Sydney Airport aircraft noise-affected residents have aircraft noise managed in line with the Coalition Government's declared 1996 aviation policy.(25) Is the granting of first right of refusal to the successful bidder of Sydney Airport an anarcho-capitalist policy of non-regulation by denying this and successive Commonwealth Governments the legal power to construct Sydney West Airport because the Government is contractually and legally bound to the terms of the lease and hence faces potential litigation by the successful bidder should a successive Commonwealth Government attempt to construct Sydney West Airport. (26) Is the granting of first right of refusal to the successful bidder of Sydney Airport an MAI-like philosophy of ensuring the free flow of capital across sovereign borders whilst placing no weight on pre-existing prescribed Commonwealth Government social and economic goals, including the full implementation of the LTOP, construction and completion of Sydney West Airport and fulfilment of declared Coalition aviation policy.2532Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes.(2) & (3) No. The Commonwealth does not comment on bidders as it may be disadvantageous to the Commonwealth's interests.(4) The Commonwealth will assess conforming bids against the objectives for the sale of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, which are as follows: · Optimise sale proceeds within the context of the broader Government sales and policy objectives. · Minimise the Commonwealth's exposure to residual risks and liabilities. · Ensure that the airport lessees have the necessary financial and managerial capabilities to operate and provide timely investment in environmentally appropriate aviation infrastructure at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. · Ensure the sale outcome is consistent with relevant airport legislative, regulatory and policy requirements, including environmental, foreign investment, competition, access and pricing policies. · Ensure fair and equitable treatment of employees of Sydney Airports Corporation including the preservation of accrued entitlements. · Ensure the airport lessees demonstrate a commitment to the effective development of airport services, consistent with Australia's international obligations. (5) The decision will be based on assessments made against the sale objectives outlined above. (6) See answer to Question 5.(7) The Commonwealth does not comment on bids. However Mr Murphy should note that due to the September 2001 deferral of the sale process no bids have been received, and the deadline for bid submission under the recommenced Sale Process has not yet been determined.(8) The successful purchaser will be offered a first right of refusal by the Commonwealth to build and operate any second major airport within 100 kilometres of the Sydney CBD. The Government will review Sydney's airspace needs in 2005.(9) There were more than 23 million passenger movements at Sydney Airport in 1999-2000. The Government has concluded that Sydney Airport will be able to cope air traffic demand until the end of the decade.(10) Experience from the earlier airport divestment programs clearly demonstrates that privatising Australia's airports has increased their efficiency by improving the way in which they are managed, fostering a more commercial culture and encouraging their interaction with local stakeholders. The sale of Sydney Airport will allow Australia's largest airport to similarly benefit from privatisation.(11) The Government's decision to privatise Bankstown, Hoxton Park and Camden Airport separately from Sydney Airport is intended to encourage competition between Bankstown Airport and Sydney Airport.(12) Giving the new owner of Sydney Airport the first right of refusal by the Commonwealth to build and operate any second major airport within 100 kilometres of the Sydney Central Business District is intended to provide an appropriate degree of commercial certainty to the new owner in regard to the possible future development of new airport capacity in the Sydney region. It will also facilitate future compliance with the provisions in the Airports Act 1996 dealing with the issue of common ownership of Sydney Airport and Sydney West Airport. (13) The new owner will have a first right of refusal to build and operate a second major airport in the Sydney basin. The Government has concluded that it would be premature to build a second major airport and that Sydney Airport will be able to cope with increasing air traffic until the end of the decade.(14) No.(15) No.(16) Bids will be evaluated against the sale objectives detailed in (4) above, which includes ensuring the sale outcome is consistent with relevant airport legislative, regulatory and policy requirements, including environmental, foreign investment, competition, access and pricing policies. (17) (a) Air Services Australia is responsible for the implementing LTOP. The transfer of airport ownership does not alter compliance requirements.(b) The Government has concluded that, at this time, it is premature to build a second major airport for Sydney.(c) The Airports Act has relevant ownership provisions to address cross ownership issues. Additionally the Trade Practices Act and the Prices Surveillance Act provide the means of regulating leased federal airports with respect to access and price regulation.(18) No.(19) See (10) above.(20) No.(21) Sydney Airport will be sold by way of a 100% trade sale, with the successful Bidder acquiring all the shares in Sydney Airports Corporation Limited (SACL), the company that holds the Airport Lease for Sydney Airport. The proceeds of the sale will be used to reduce Commonwealth debt, resulting in substantial savings in Public Debt Interest Payments annually. These savings are offset to some extent as a result of the Commonwealth no longer receiving the benefit of dividend payments from SACL. Also see response to question 10.(22) Yes.(23) No. The Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) which together with the jet curfew which prevents jet aircraft from arriving or departing between 11pm and 6am, and the movement cap that limits total take-off and landings at KSA to 80 per hour, enable aircraft noise to be fairly shared across Sydney. All these safeguards will remain in place following the sale of KSA.(24) The Government has addressed the aircraft noise issue by providing for a substantially more equitable sharing of noise compared with the arrangements in place prior to March 1996 and by implementing the aircraft noise insulation program.(25) The sale arrangements for Sydney Airport will not prevent the development of a second major airport for Sydney if a future Federal Government decided that such development should proceed.(26) No.2533(Question No. 60)602533Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 30 August 2001:(1) Has he seen an article by Alan Mitchell, Economics Editor, on page 55 of the Australian Financial Review, 29 August 2001, titled “Price Vacuum Sells Airport Cheap” in which Mr Mitchell reports that the Government looks like selling Sydney Airport before it makes a decision on the future of the airport's price regulation.(2) Will Sydney Airport be sold before the Government makes a decision on the future of the airport's price regulation; if so, why.2533Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes. (2) The Government announced on 24 September that it decided to defer the sale of Sydney Airport until early 2002. A decision to recommence the sale process was taken on 11 March 2002, with the detailed timetable to be determined by the Federal Government's commitment to securing the best possible outcome for australian taxpayers.The Productivity Commission delivered its final Report into Price Regulation of Airport Services in January 2002. The Government will consider the recommendations of this Report before determining the future price regulation of airport services.2534(Question No. 74)742534Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Ageing, upon notice, on 13 February 2002:Can he guarantee that payments of the $300 one-off bonus announced in the 2001 Budget to eligible residents of aged care facilities were paid directly to, and received separately by, those residents and not the management of the aged care facilities in which they reside; if not, why not.2534Andrews, Kevin, MPMr AndrewsHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The $300 one-off payment was made to people of age pension age by Centrelink in June 2001. Some of the eligible recipients were residents of Commonwealth funded aged care homes. Some pensioners arrange with Centrelink for their pension and related payments to be made directly to the aged care home where they live. Centrelink will stop this payment arrangement if the pensioner requests them to do so. 2534(Question No. 110)1102534Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 February 2002:(1) How many apprentices or trainees have been employed in each employment category by:(a) his Department;(b) Airservices Australia; (c) the Civil Aviation Safety Authority; and (d) the Australian Maritime Safety Authority for each of the past seven years.(2) Have any staff been appointed under any graduate entry programmes, if so how many.(3) Have any targeted recruitment campaigns been conducted, if so, when and what was the aim of those campaigns.(4) What sum has been spent on external recruitment agencies for recruitment to each employment category.2534Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department of Transport and Regional Services has advised the following:(1) During the past seven years:(a) the Department employed seven Public Administrative Trainee Officers in 1995.(b) Airservices Australia has employed the following trainees and apprentices: Classification19951996199719981999200020012002Grand TotalAviation Data Systems Officer (in training)N/A7962424N/A187ATC TraineeN/A745751219N/A167Apprentice Various Metal TradesN/A1N/A1Flight Data Coordinator TraineeN/A1N/A1Office TraineeN/A1N/A1Technical TraineeN/A1N/A1Grand TotalN/A1531224841219N/A433(c) The Civil Aviation Safety Authorityhas not employed any apprentices or trainees over the past seven years.(d) The Australian Maritime Safety Authorityhas not employed any apprentices or trainees over the past seven years.(2) Over the same seven year period the Department has appointed 156 officers under the Graduate Programme as follows: Year RecruitedNumber of Graduates199512199625199715199819199918200024200119200224TOTAL156Airservices Australia has also employed six staff under graduate employment programmes over this period.The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has not appointed graduates under any graduate employment programme. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has not appointed staff under a graduate entry programme over the last seven years.(3) The Department has conducted targeted recruitment campaigns continuously since 1995. The aim of the recruitment campaigns has been to attract talented and innovative individuals to DoTaRS to ensure the Department meets its business objectives, in addition to addressing succession-planning issues within the Department and the APS.Airservices Australia has conducted targeted recruitment campaigns for Air Traffic Control Trainees 1996. The aim of these recruitment campaigns has been to attract individuals to train as Air Traffic Controllers under the new Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (AAATS). Airservices Australia has also conducted two additional targeted recruitment campaigns to attract base level clerical support, and to provide individuals with the opportunity to develop specific skills. No other targeted recruitment campaigns have taken place over the period.The Civil Aviation Safety Australiahas not conducted any targeted recruitment campaigns over this period.The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has not conducted any targeted recruitment campaigns over this period.(4) The Department'srecords indicate that the Department has spent the following amount on external recruitment agencies for recruitment of apprentices/trainees and graduates: YearAmount1995Not available1996Not available1997Not available1998$ 18,0001999$ 18,0002000$ 20,5152001$ 117,74712002$ 43,7622TOTAL$ 218,0241With the disbanding of Recruitment Services Australia the Department took responsibility for managing graduate recruitment. Recruitment consultants were contracted to undertake graduate recruitment on behalf of the Department, therefore significantly increasing the costs in 2001.2The current recruitment process is still in progress, the figure above is for the period 1 January to 30 April 2002. This figure is expected to increase to an amount similar to the figure for 2001 above.Airservices Australia has not spent anything directly on external recruitment agencies as its campaigns were conducted under the Government's Skillshare programme. However, it may have engaged the services of external contractors to provide assistance with selection and assessment phases. The costs of this support are not available.The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has not incurred any costs on external recruitment agencies.Australian Maritime Safety Authority has not incurred any costs on external recruitment agencies.2536(Question No. 114)1142536Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 February 2002:(1) Which business, legal and probity advisers evaluated and oversighted the tender process for the sale of FreightCorp and the National Rail Corporation Limited, and what was paid to each adviser for their service.(2) What criteria were used in the tender evaluation process in meeting the Governments agreed objectives for the combined sale and what were the agreed objectives.(3) Who were the bidders, what were their initial bids and were there any changes in the bids during the tender process as a result of the evaluation process.2536Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Up until December 2001 the former Commonwealth Office of Asset Sales and Commercial Support (OASACS) managed the sale of National Rail Corporation (NRC) on behalf of the NRC shareholders. After that date, the Commonwealth Department of Finance and Administration conducted management of the sale. The Department of Finance and Administration advises that OASACS appointed Macquarie Bank Limited, Blake Dawson Waldron, and Sparke Helmore as business, legal, and probity advisers respectively to the sale process.The Department of Finance and Administration also advises that since the combined sale of NRC and FreightCorp (FRC) was announced on the 24 August 2001, the following amounts have been paid to the legal, business & probity advisers: ConsultantPurpose of ConsultancyAmount paid since 24 August 2001Selection MethodJustificationBlake Dawson WaldronLegal Advice$1,871,488.00Select TenderSpecialist ExpertiseMaquarie Bank LimitedBusiness Advice$3,115,390.00Select TenderSpecialist ExpertiseSparke HelmoreProbity Advisory Services$179,217.00Select TenderSpecialist ExpertiseTotal$5,166,095.00Please Note: The amounts shown do not include invoices that have not been submitted for payment at the time of answering this question.(2) The Shareholder's (Commonwealth, NSW and Victoria) objectives for the sale were:(a) to develop a commercially sustainable and competitive freight business, able to contribute to an efficient, competitive and viable domestic freight transport industry, recognising the inherent environmental benefits of rail transport;(b) to ensure quality freight services to customers in regional and rural Australia;(c) to ensure the sale process treats FreightCorp (FRC) and National Rail Corporation (NRC) employees, respectively, in a fair manner, including through the preservation of accrued entitlements; (d) to divest FRC and NRC as soon as reasonably practicable in accordance with appropriate standards of probity;(e) to terminate, to the extent possible, the continuing responsibilities of the Shareholders consistent with each government's responsibilities and minimise any post sale residual risk and liabilities; and(f) having regard to the above objectives, to maximise the net sale proceeds and achieve satisfactory financial outcomes for each Shareholder.The evaluation criteria that were applied by the evaluation committee, against the Shareholder governments' sale objectives, are set out below:Criterion 1. Bidder's demonstrated capability and commitment to operate and invest in a commercially viable national or large scale transport business, and contribute to the development of a competitive domestic freight transport industry.Criterion 2. Bidder's demonstrated capability and commitment to the development of an efficient and viable rail freight business which ensures quality freight services to customers in regional and rural Australia.Criterion 3. Bidder's demonstrated financial capability to acquire both FRC and NRC together.Criterion 4. Viability and credibility of the Bidder's business plans over a forecast period of not less than 5 years, including the extent to which the Bidder has minimised any potential for cross-subsidisation between the interstate and bulk rail freight businesses.Criterion 5. Bidders ability to complete the sale within the required timetable and to achieve a smooth transition of the business.Criterion 6. Bidder's ability to accept and comply with the conditions of the tender process, including any regulatory or other legal requirements.Criterion 7. The extent to which the Bidder's Tender has minimal conditions and minimises amendments to the sale documentation, which would have the effect of increasing risk to the Vendors.Criterion 8. The extent to which the Bidder's Tender addresses the Vendors' objective for the treatment of FRC and NRC employees, respectively, in a fair manner, including through the preservation of accrued entitlements.Criterion 9. The extent to which Bidder's Tender maximises net sale proceeds to the Vendors, adjusted for any quantifiable residual risks and liabilities which would remain with or be assumed by the Vendors.Criterion 10. The extent to which the Bidder's Tender meets the Vendors' conditions for the sale.(3) The Commonwealth Department of Finance and Administration advises that following a competitive tendering process and a comprehensive evaluation, FreightCorp and National Rail Corporation Limited were sold to National Rail Consortium Pty Ltd for a total transaction value of $1.172 billion. Two other bids were received by the evaluation committee, one from Freight Australia Consortium (an Australian rail freight operator) and Australian Railroad Group (an Australian rail freight operator jointly owned by Wesfarmers and Genesee & Wyoming). The bid from National Rail Consortium was evaluated as best meeting the governments' agreed objectives for the sale.The Department of Finance and Administration also advised that there were no changes to bids during the tender process as a result of the evaluation process.2537(Question No. 127)1272537Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 13 February 2002:(1) How many unauthorised arrivals sought access to a Protection Visa in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000, (d) 2001 and (e) 2002 to date.(2) How many of these unauthorised arrivals were on arrival, (a) adult males without accompanying family members, (b) adult males with accompanying family members, (c) adult females without accompanying family members, (d) adult females with accompanying family members, (e) children who were part of a family group and (f) unaccompanied minors. (3) How many of the (a) children with accompanying family members and (b) unaccompanied minors were (i) below the age of 5 years, (ii) aged 6 to 13 years, (iii) 13 to 15 years, and (iv) 15 to 18 years.(4) Is data available on the country of origin, ethnic background and religious affiliation if applicable of these unauthorised arrivals; if so, what are the details.(5) How many unauthorised arrivals who arrived in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000, (d) 2001 and (e) 2002 have to date been (i) granted or (ii) refused refugee status, and how many claims are still to be determined.2538Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:All data quoted in response to the questions above was current at 28 February 2002.(1) The numbers of unauthorised arrivals who sought access to Protection Visas from 1998 to 2002 are as follows:N.B.—1998 data is not available for the number of applicants who applied for Protection Visas. PV Applied YearUnauthorised Boat Arrival NumberNumber of Applicants for Protection Visas1998200-1999372321802000292240812001369044492002-15(2) Information relating to (a) adult males without accompanying family members, (b) adult males with accompanying family members, (c) adult females without accompanying family members, (d) adult females with accompanying family, (e) children who were part of a family group and (f) unaccompanied minors who sought access to Protection Visas from 1998 to 2002 is as follows:N.B.—1998 data is not available. 1999200020012002Adult males without accompanying family members562612225111Adult females without accompanying family members5656723Adult males with accompanying family members95313348-Adult females with accompanying family members933164802PV Applied YearAccompanied MinorsUnaccompanied Minors199920246200070411820011097208200240(3) The age analysis of those unauthorised arrivals 18 years of age and younger who sought access to Protection Visas from 1998 to 2002 is as follows:N.B.—1998 data is not available.Accompanied Minors: PV Application Year0-5 Years6-12 Years13-15 Years16-18 Years199983611840200025824575126200138241611218720023100Unaccompanied Minors: PV Application Year0-5 Years6-12 Years13-15 Years16-18 Years19991093620001233822001085114920020000(4) Data on the country of origin, ethnic background and religious affiliation of unauthorised arrivals for 1998 is not available. For data on the years 1999-2002, please see Table A below.(5) Outcomes for unauthorised arrivals who arrived between 1998 and 2002 are as follows:N.B.—1998 data is not available Arrival YearPrimary GrantedPrimary RefusedOtherwise ResolvedOnhand Primary199915575993202000318283235422001289298312555200205113UNAUTHORISED ARRIVALS WHO LODGED A PV APPLICATION BY LODGEMENT YEAR AND CITIZENSHIP WHERE ETHNICITY AND/OR RELIGION DETAILS WERE PROVIDED CITIZENSHIP1999200020012002ETHNICITY1999200020012002RELIGION1999200020012002Afghanistan618124720771Afghan12330Ahmadi08170Albania4220Alami1000Alevite/Alawi/Alawites0610Algeria501880African (NFD)0010Anglican0100Bahrain0200Akan0001Apostolic Church0100Bangladesh24631Albanian4350Assyrian Church of the East0170British National Overseas0010Alevi0100Atheism0110Burma1020Algerian48010Baha I World Faith0450Canada0200Angolan0100Baptist0580Cambodia2000Arab (NFD)842151514436Buddhism0341Chad1000Armenian1050Catholic(NEC)516250China (so stated)811440Ashanti (Ghana)0010Chaldean Catholic51170Colombia3000Asian1020Christian (NFD)4601821Congo1000Assyrian13491150Christian City Church0100Denmark1000Azari0210Christian Science0100Egypt, Arab Republic of2390Bahraini0100Coptic Orthodox Church0010Ethiopia0100Bangladeshi19121Druze/Druse0200Fiji2000Bedoon13500Greek Orthodox0010Frmr Yugo Rep. of Macedonia0110Bengali5600Hinduism1129493France0010Berber2310Islam924277264Fyr Macedonia2000Bravani1000Jehovahs Witnesses0020Ghana0020Burgher0010Maronite Catholic0050Greece1030Burmese1000No Religion (NFD)0010Hungary1000Chaldean1012370Not Stated/Refused167510051222India16740Chinese51240Orthodox (NEC)1210Indonesia8010Egyptian0100Other Christian (NEC)6310Iran634154060Ethnicity Nec02150Pentecostal (NEC)0010Iraq915202316387Euoropean (NFD)0100Russian Orthodox0001Israel1100Fijian1000Sabean Mandean/Sabian332212220Jordan1520Fijian/Indian1000Shia309206826993Kenya0010Fulani0100Sikhism1000Korea, Republic of 10000Han7000Sunni422013470Kuwait181010Hazara (Afghani)333105616911Yazidism0010Lebanon2350Hindu1000Zoroastrianism0200Liberia0100Hungarian1000TOTAL21844069444615Libya5000Hutu1000Luxomberg0100Igbo0500Malaysia1040Indian (NFD)10330Moldova0200Indonesian0010Morocco1700Iranian631862610Nepal3033Iraqi64131020Nigeria1920Jordanian0100Oman1000Karen (Burma)0010Pakistan1014220Kashmir0100Palestinian Authority494840Khaledenian2000Philippines2040Khmer2000Romania0100Korean4000Russian Federation4020Kosovar-Ethnic Albanian1000Rwanda2210Kurdish622421420Saudi Arabia1100Kuwaiti2500Sierra Leone2420Macedonian2110Somalia18520Madhaj1000South Africa,Republic of0001Malaysian0020Sri Lanka6842731Mano0100Stateless3245310Moldovan0200Sudan2230Moroccan0500Syria423120Nepalese0033Taiwan2000No Specific Ethnicity0230Thailand6000Not Stated/Refused606115561Tonga2010Nuba1000Tunisia0230Pakistani01190Turkey1243340Palestinian54370Turkmenistan0100Pashtun (Afghani)1037910Uganda0100Persian/Farsi0115520Ukraine0001Punjabi3370United Kingdom0100Rahanwein (Clan)1000United States of America0100Russian1021Unknown447130Rwandan1000USSR0010Romanian0100Venezuela1000Rwandan0200Vietnam3340Sabiee Mandaee0600Yemen4030Saudi Arabian0100Yugoslavia, (former)7510Shikal clan1000Zaire2200Sierra Leonean0100Total21844069444615Sikh2100Singhalese0370Somali3110Sri Lankan0200Stateless0100Sudanese0220Syrian0540Tajik331122270Tamil3739651Thai3000Tigrinya0100Tongan1010Turkish2750Turkmen29160Tutsi0010Ugandan0100Ukrainian0010Urdu speaking Muhajirs1000Uzbek14120Vietnamese0130Yellow1000Yoruba0300Yugoslav (NFD)1000Zairean1100TOTAL218440694446152544(Question No. 131)1312544Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 13 February 2002:(1) Following the deference of the 17 September 2001 deadline after the terrorist attacks in New York, what date has the Minister decided as the renewed deadline for bids for the sale of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.(2) Will the successful bidder still have first right of refusal over future development of further development at the Badgery's Creek proposed airport site.2544Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Government announced the Recommencement of the Sale Process for Sydney Kingsford-Smith Airport on 11 March 2002. The Sale Process will recommence at the preparation of the Binding Bid stage. Details of the sale timetable will be determined by the Federal Government's commitment to securing the best possible outcome for Australian taxpayers.(2) Yes.2544(Question No. 137)1372544Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 February 2002:(1) What sum did the Commonwealth Government collect in petrol excise in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98, (c) 1998-99, (d) 1999-2000 and (e) 2000-2001.(2) What sum was returned to the States.(3) What sum did the Commonwealth Government spend on (a) total road funding, (b) construction of the National Highway system and (c) maintenance of the National Highway system in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98, (iii) 1998-99, (iv) 1999-2000 and (v) 2000-2001.(4) How was the figure of $356 million arrived at as the Federal Government's contribution to the construction of the Western Sydney Orbital.(5) What options were examined to determine the funding mix for the proposed Orbital.(6) Was a shadow toll examined as a method of paying for the construction of the Orbital; if not, why not; if so, (a) what were the details of the study and (b) why was the proposal rejected.2544Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Commonwealth collects petrol revenue from locally produced and imported petrol products, via excise duty and customs duty, respectively. Petrol products comprise unleaded petrol, leaded petrol and diesel.The table below shows total Commonwealth petrol revenue and excludes revenue collected on behalf of the States (see (2) below). Amounts shown have been rounded to the nearest $10 million.Commonwealth petrol revenue ($m)1996-971997-981998-991999-002000-011051010870109601116011870(2) In August 1997, at the unanimous request of the States, the Commonwealth announced an increase in the rate of Commonwealth excise and customs duty on petrol which were passed to the States as Revenue Replacement Payments (RRPs). RRPs were abolished on 1 July 2000. The table below shows these amounts.There are no other arrangements to provide excise revenue to the States. However, excise revenue collected by the Commonwealth is used for a number of purposes, including the provision of general purpose grants to the States.Petrol Revenue Replacement Payments ($m)1996-971997-981998-991999-002000-01(a)0195125472569252(a) delayed paymentsSource: Final Budget Outcome (various)(3) The table below shows total Commonwealth road funding, construction funding for the National Highway and maintenance funding for the National Highway. 1996/971997/981998/991999/20002000/01($m)($m)($m)($m)($m)Total Commonwealth Road Funding1,596.721,614.361,688.471,653.321,431.91National Highway Construction360.31369.26401.46350.14407.94National Highway Maintenance350.17336.89350.54281.48289.32(4) and (5) The level of Commonwealth contribution was determined by negotiation with the NSW Government. This followed extensive financial modelling by the NSW of the level of contribution necessary to make the project financially viable for funding by the private sector. (6) A shadow toll option was not considered on the basis of its long term prohibitive expense to the government.2545(Question No. 167)1672545Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 20 February 2002:(1) Is the Minister aware that the cost of many drugs and medicines available in Australia is cheaper in (sic) a number of other countries, including Sweden, the UK, Spain, the US, France and Canada.(2) Is it a fact that Australia enjoys one of the best life expectancy outlooks in the world.(3) Would a reduction in the number of drugs and medicines available to Australians on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) lead to a decrease in the life expectancy of Australian citizens; if so, by how much; if not, why not. (4) Does the pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) advise the Government on what drugs and medicines are to be included or excluded from the PBS; if not, what body performs this role.(5) Will the Minister take steps to guarantee that the considerations of the PBAC, in terms of what drugs and medicines are placed, refused or deleted from the PBS, are made available to the public and not influenced by political interference; if so, how; if not, why not.(6) Will the Minister allow interested parties to appeal or seek a review of decisions by the PBAC; if so, how; if not, why not.2545Andrews, Kevin, MPMr AndrewsHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—The Minister for Health and Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Minister is aware that prices received by companies for pharmaceuticals listed on Australia's PBS are lower than in a number of other countries.(2) Yes.(3) The answer to this question depends on the specific drugs to be excluded. Without this information, the Department is not in a position to answer this question.(4) Yes.(5) The PBAC is an independent expert body of doctors, health scientists, other health professionals and a consumer representative. The functions, establishment and membership of the Committee are prescribed under the National Health Act 1953. Where assessment of an application does not result in a PBAC recommendation for a PBS listing, the full reasons for the Committee's decision is commercial-in-confidence to the manufacturer. They can be released with the manufacturer's approval.Where assessment of an application does result in a PBAC recommendation for a PBS listing, information is made publicly available via the Department's web site which can be accessed at http://www.health.gov.au/pbs/listing/pbacrec/index.htm.(6) Aggrieved persons may appeal against decisions of the PBAC under the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1977.Note:In question (1) it is assumed that what Mr Murphy meant to say was:“Is the minister aware that the cost of many drugs and medicines available in Australia is cheaper than in a number of other countries, including Sweden, the UK, Spain, the US, France and Canada.” 2546(Question No. 188)1882546Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 11 March 2002:(1) Can he say when the formal response to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services titled A `Reasonable and Secure' Retirement? will be made.(2) Has recommendation 1 of the report been examined; if so, what is the outcome; if not, why not.(3) Will Commonwealth civilian and military superannuants have their pensions indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), in the same way that Social Security pensions are indexed to the CPI or Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE); if not, why not.(4) What is the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if indexing for Commonwealth civilian and military superannuants was changed to the CPI/MTAWE, whichever is the higher.(5) What will be the additional cost to unfunded liabilities if indexing is changed to CPI/MTAWE, whichever is the higher.(6) What will be the differences when MTAWE is 1 per cent; 1.5 per cent and 2 per cent greater than the CPI.(7) What flow on effect would there be on NSW State Superannuants if indexing for Commonwealth civilian and military superannuants was changed to the CPI/MTAWE, whichever is the higher.(8) Did the Prime Minister's announced 13 point program of superannuation changes include provision for allowing spouses who are members of accumulation funds to split their superannuation contributions from 1 July 2003, thus giving access to two tax-free thresholds, two reasonable benefit limits and two lump sum benefits; if so, will these changes apply to members of defined benefit schemes; if so, when; if not, why not.2546Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:In preparing this answer, it was necessary to obtain input from the Defence and Treasury portfolios.(1) Given the Federal Election and subsequent changes that have taken place, the Government has not yet had an opportunity to provide a comprehensive response to the recommendations made by the Committee. The Government will submit its response to the Senate at the earliest possible opportunity.(2) and (3) These issues are discussed in the Committee's report, and will be taken into account when the Government develops its response.(4) The Budgetary impact will depend on the difference between CPI and the MTAWE measure used. If it is assumed that MTAWE will exceed CPI by 1 per cent, the estimated impact for the Commonwealth civilian and military schemes on the underlying cash and fiscal balance will be:Civilian schemes 2001-022002-032003-042004-05$m$m$m$mUnderlying cash0-20-45-70Fiscal balance0-345-340-355Military schemes 2001-022002-032003-042004-05$m$m$m$mUnderlying cash0-8-20-34Fiscal balance0-318-338-358(5) and (6) The estimated impact on the unfunded liability for the Commonwealth civilian and military schemes of changing the indexation of pensions to 1%, 1.5% and 2% above CPI, is outlined in the tables below.Civilian schemes 1% above CPI1.5% above CPI2% above Consumer price indexChange in Unfunded Liability $4.1 billion$6.6 billion$9.3 billionNote: These figures are based on the unfunded liability as at 30 June 1999.Military schemes 1% above CPI1.5% above CPI2% above CPIChange in Unfunded Liability $4.0 billion$5.9 billion$7.9 billionNote: These figures are based on the current projected estimate of the unfunded liability as at 30 June 2002.(7) This is a matter for the NSW State Government.(8) The Government's election commitment was to allow splitting of superannuation contributions between spouses who are members of accumulation funds. There are a number of administrative complexities in extending splitting of contributions to defined benefit funds.The Government has committed to undertake a thorough process of consultation with stakeholders and will make a further announcement on this matter once the detailed policy design has been determined.2547(Question No. 196)1962547Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 11 March 2002:(1) How many additional jobs have been created in the timber industry in East Gippsland since the introduction of the Regional Forest Agreement.(2) Where are the jobs situated and what kind of work do they involve.2547Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Details on how many jobs have been created in the timber industry in East Gippsland since the introduction of the Regional Forest Agreement will not be available until the 2001 Census data is released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The relevant data is scheduled for release in November 2002.The Victorian Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Package is still active in providing industry development assistance to promote an efficient and internationally competitive industry thereby creating jobs, especially in rural areas.(2) This information is not available.2547(Question No. 224)2242547Irwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin83ZFowlerALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 14 March 2002:(1) Under the terms of the contract of the Governor-General, what payout is the Commonwealth liable to make should the Governor-General resign before the end of the five year term of office.(2) What payout is the Commonwealth liable to make if the Governor-General is dismissed.(3) What pension or other entitlement does the Governor-General have on resignation before the end of the five year term of office.(4) What pension or other entitlement does the Governor-General have on dismissal before the end of the five year term of office.2548Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) to (4) The Governor-General is not under contract. Rather, the Governor-General is appointed by The Queen and holds office at Her Majesty's pleasure. A five year term is considered usual.Upon ceasing to hold office, a former governor-general is entitled to an allowance calculated in accordance with section 4 or 4A of the Governor-General Act 1974.Other entitlements accorded to each former governor-general are determined by the prime minister of the day. 2548(Question No. 227)2272548Irwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin83ZFowlerALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 14 March 2002:(1) How many persons under the age of 18 years are currently detained at the Villawood Detention Centre.(2) How many persons under the age of 18 at Villawood are (a) in family groups and (b) not accompanied by a parent.(3) What facilities and programs are in place at Villawood for pre-school children.(4) Are pre-school programs conducted in languages other than English; if not, why not.(5) Has his Department attempted to place pre-school children in preschools outside the Villawood Detention Centre; if not, why not.(6) What facilities and programs are in place at Villawood for primary school aged children.(7) Has his Department attempted to place primary school aged children in schools outside the Villawood Detention Centre; if not, why not.(8) Are primary school programs conducted in languages other than English; if not, why not.(9) Are English language classes available for primary school aged children; if not, why not.(10) What subjects are taught at primary school classes at Villawood.(11) For how many hours each day and for how many days each week are primary classes available.(12) Are educational programs for primary school aged children at Villawood accredited by the NSW Department of Education and Training; if not, why not.(13) What facilities and programs are available at Villawood for children above primary school age.(14) For how many hours each day and for how many days each week are secondary classes available.(15) Are secondary programs conducted in languages other than English; if not, why not. (16) Are English language classes available for secondary school aged children; if not, why not.(17) Are educational programs for secondary school aged children at Villawood accredited by the NSW Department of Education and Training; if not, why not.(18) What facilities and programs are available for persons under 18 years at the Villawood Detention Centre for post secondary or vocational training.2548Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As of 5 April 2002, there were 22 persons under the age of 18 detained at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.(2) As of 5 April 2002, there were: (a) 20 persons under the age of 18 at Villawood are in family groups; and (b) 2 persons under the age of 18 at Villawood are not accompanied by a parent.(3) The following facilities and programs are in place at Villawood for pre-school children:· Pre-school classes are conducted at the centre twice weekly;· A fully-equipped and resourced children's play room;· 2 hour play sessions, five days a week; and · Weekend movie time and special treats for all children.(4) Pre-school programs are not conducted in languages other than English. Due to the transitory nature of the detainee population at the centre and the large number of different languages spoken by detainees, pre-school education is provided in English.In addition to this, there are usually very few children in this age group. As of 5 April 2002, there were only 2 children at the centre who were of pre-school age. (5) My Department has not attempted to place children in pre-schools outside Villawood since a qualified pre-school teacher is employed to provide education to children of pre-school age at the centre.(6) The following facilities and programs are in place at Villawood for primary school aged children:· A fully resourced school room with trained and qualified teachers;· Planned excursions outside the centre twice a month;· Weekend movie time and special treats for all children; and· Activities with 2 external groups, `Youth With a Mission' and `Project Crayon'. These two groups provide special arts and crafts and a variety of recreation and leisure activities for the primary school aged children at the centre.(7) During preliminary discussions between the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA), Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) and local schools last year, the issue of funding for students who are in Australia without a valid visa was raised by the schools as a barrier to allowing the enrolment of children at schools in the community.Besides an individual case where a child was transferred to an alternative place of detention in the community and attended a public school in Sydney last year, there have been no other primary school aged children educated in schools outside Villawood.However, a qualified primary school teacher is employed at the centre and provides primary school education to children at the centre.(8) Primary school programs are conducted in English and Urdu languages although the emphasis is placed on English. This is due to the relatively small number of children at the centre and the wide variety of languages which they speak.(9) English classes are part of the daily curriculum for primary school aged children at the centre.(10) Some of the key learning areas stipulated by the NSW Department of Education are taught at Villawood. These key learning areas include English, Maths and Human Society and Its Environment, with priority given to English.(11) Primary school classes are conducted for five hours each weekday, 48 weeks a year.(12) Education programs for primary school aged children at Villawood are not accredited by the NSW Department of Education and Training but DIMIA and ACM are currently working towards accreditation being granted later this year.(13) Secondary and primary school are combined due to the low and variable numbers of children at the centre. Therefore, the facilities and programs available to secondary school aged children are:· A fully resourced school room with trained and qualified teachers;· Planned excursions outside the centre twice a month;· Weekend movie time and special treats for all children; and· Activities with 2 external groups, `Youth With a Mission' and `Project Crayon'. These two groups provide special arts and crafts and a variety of recreation and leisure activities for the primary school aged children at the centre.(14) Like primary school classes, secondary school classes are conducted for five hours each weekday, 48 weeks a year.(15) Like primary school programs, secondary school programs are conducted in English and Urdu languages although the emphasis is placed on English. This is due to the relatively small number of children at the centre and the wide variety of languages which they speak. For example, as of 5 April 2002, there were only 2 children at the centre in the secondary school age group.(16) English classes are part of the daily curriculum for secondary school aged children at the centre. (17) Education programs for secondary aged children at Villawood are not accredited by the NSW Department of Education and Training but DIMIA and ACM are currently working towards accreditation being granted later this year.(18) The following facilities are available for persons under 18 at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) for post-secondary or vocational training:There is an incentive development program involving behaviour management of all school-aged children. There are two outings for children each month and subject to satisfactory school attendance and behaviour and general centre behaviour, school-aged children are able to go on these outings; andIn addition, there is a full range of training programs available for detainees under the age of 18 years in Villawood IDC that focuses on skills that may be of use in the general community or within a detention facility, such as computer literacy and English language.2550(Question No. 233)2332550Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 14 March 2002:What sums were provided to companies in Victoria for export assistance in (a) 1998-99, (b) 1999-2000, and (c) 2000-2001 and what was the (i) expenditure on, and (ii) purpose of, each grant.2550Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) 1998-1999: $36m*(b) 1999-2000: $34.4m*(c) 2000-2001: $32.9m*(i) expenditure is for payment of Export Market Development Grants for the partial reimbursement of eligible export promotion incurred by recipients (under the EMDG Act 1997 as amended); and(ii) purpose of each grant is to encourage small to medium sized enterprises to develop export markets.* Source: Austrade Annual Reports 1998/99, 1999/00, 2000/01.2550(Question No. 239)2392550Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JenkinsHH4ScullinALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 14 March 2002:On the most recent data, how many age pension recipients reside in (a) Victoria and (b) the postcode areas of (i) 3074, (ii) 3075, (iii) 3076, (iv) 3082, (v) 3083, (vi) 3087, (vii) 3088, (viii) 3089, (ix) 3090, (x) 3091 and (xi) 3752.2550Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) There were 462,255 Age Pension recipients residing in Victoria on the 8 March 2002.(b) There were 13,492 Age Pension recipients residing in the requested postcode areas.PostcodeAge Pension Recipients(i)30742667(ii)30752571(iii)3076870(iv)30821342(v)30832444(vi)3087948(vii)30881825(viii)3089423(ix)309068(x)309175(xi)37522592551(Question No. 249)2492551McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 March 2002:(1) What matters were placed on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) at its meeting in Sydney on 7 March 2002 by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) any State and (c) either Territory.(2) What was the outcome of each item on the agenda.(3) Where and when will the next meeting of SCAG be held. 2551Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) to (2) Principle 13 of the Council of Australian Government's (COAG) General Principles for the Operation of Ministerial Councils, (`the COAG Principles') agreed to by COAG on 7 December 1992 and revised on 8 June 2001, provides that:Subject to the applicability of the relevant Commonwealth, State or Territory Freedom of Information legislation, unless Council approval is received, any discussion by, or document of the Council, or any committee, sub-committee, working party, officer or agent of the Council, shall be confidential.In addition to the COAG Principles, SCAG Procedures, agreed in November 1993, provide that the Summary of Decisions is also confidential and that the release of confidential information is subject to the consent of Ministers. Accordingly, in the interests of protecting Commonwealth-State relations, both the record of the items that constituted the SCAG agenda, and the outcome of each item, are confidential. (3) It is proposed that the next SCAG meeting be held at Cairns on 25 and 26 July 2002.2551(Question No. 253)2532551McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 20 March 2002:(1) Is the Minister aware of an article in the 14 March 2002 edition of The West Australian Newspaper entitled “Scan dilemma—sick children go abroad for treatment” which highlights that WA parents are taking their children to Third World countries for MRI scans because Perth's only children's hospital cannot provide the service.(2) Is Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) the only children's hospital in Australia without an MRI machine.(3) Is it a fact that for a child to get an MRI scan in Perth he or she needs to travel to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital for the procedure and in order to do this they have to travel with a team of paediatric experts, including an anaesthetist: if so, is this acceptable given that doctors who have to travel with the child patients are not available for procedures at PMH for periods that extend to a number of hours.(4) Is the Minister able to say whether the WA Government has agreed to buy an MRI scanner for PMH on the proviso that the Federal Government grants a Medicare licence.(5) Did the Minister reject the offer; if so, why.(6) Did the Minister's letter to the WA Health Minister state that granting of Medicare eligibility was based on priority areas of need; if so, does the Minister consider that children who are patients at PMH do not fit this category.(7) Is it acceptable for WA families to have to travel overseas or interstate to get MRI scans in a children's hospital.(8) Has WA not received a Medicare licence to run an MRI scanner in a public hospital for at least nine years.(9) Is it a fact that of the 10 MRI scanners in WA, just two are in public hospitals; if so, (a) who holds the other 8 MRI Medicare licences, (b) what are the addresses of each of the licence holders and (c) when were each of these licences granted.(10) Are there any MRI licences in regional WA, if so, where.(11) Has the Federal Government previously refused licences for PMH and Fremantle Hospital; if so, on how many occasions.2552Andrews, Kevin, MPMr AndrewsHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—The Minister for Health and Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes, I am aware of the article. Given that there are five Medicare eligible Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) units within a five kilometre radius of the Princess Margaret Hospital for children, including two at public hospitals, I am treating this claim with a high degree of scepticism.(2) No.(3) No. Children do not need to travel to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, as there are a range of options, with five Medicare eligible units within a five kilometre radius of Princess Margaret Hospital, including two at public hospitals. However, I understand that Princess Margaret Hospital has been allocated several sessions each week for dedicated paediatric MRI services at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. This is standard practice for children's hospitals, which I understand often access MRI through units at nearby adult hospitals. While Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital should have the necessary expertise, it may be desirable for paediatric experts to accompany children from the Princess Margaret Hospital in some cases, to the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital which is about three kilometres away.(4) The Western Australian Health Minister is on the public record as committing to purchase an MRI unit for Princess Margaret Hospital, conditional on the unit being guaranteed Medicare eligibility. (5) I have not accepted or rejected this offer. Additional Medicare eligible units are selected through a tender process that ensures units are located in areas of need, determined based on advice from an independent advisory committee called the MRI Monitoring and Evaluation Group (MEG). The Group considered the issues around the Princess Margaret Hospital on 20 March 2002. They advised that Medicare access to MRI for children in Western Australia is almost ten per cent higher than the national average and were unable to find any evidence of poor access to outpatient MRI services. However, they did suggest that I could consider assisting the Western Australian Government to meet its responsibilities to provide public in-patient MRI services. To encourage them to meet their responsibilities, I have offered $500,000 towards a unit for the Princess Margaret Hospital.(6) Yes, the granting of eligibility to further units is based on priority areas of need, determined based on independent expert advice from the MEG. Perth has not been identified as an area of need, reflecting the fact that it is relatively well serviced, with the second highest ratio of scans to population of all the capital cities. Similarly, Medicare data suggests that the needs of Western Australian children for outpatient MRI services are also being met. The Commonwealth does not, however, have access to reliable data on public hospital in-patient MRI services as these are funded by the States. It may be that there is a problem with access to in-patient MRI services in Western Australia, but this is outside the Commonwealth's control as provision of public in-patient services are a State responsibility. (7) Again, there is no need for Western Australian families to travel overseas or interstate so that children can receive scans on an outpatient basis. There are six units in Perth and clear evidence that Medicare access to MRI for Western Australian children is relatively high. It is difficult for me to comment on public in-patient hospital services, as these are a State responsibility, but given that such services are provided in Perth as they are in other capital cities, I would be very surprised if families are travelling overseas for these services. (8) No, over that period, two public hospitals in Western Australia have become eligible to provide MRI services under Medicare. The Commonwealth only commenced funding MRI through Medicare in September 1998, when Medicare eligibility was granted to a mix of public and private machines already operational or in the process of being installed, including two public hospitals in Western Australia, Royal Perth Hospital and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. (9) There are six Medicare eligible MRI units in Western Australia, not ten. The Commonwealth is also aware of a number of ineligible units, but as these do not receive funding, we do not have access to verifiable data on the number and location of these units.(a-b) Names and addresses of eligible providers of MRI in Western Australia are as follows:- Royal Perth Hospital, North Block, Wellington Street, Perth- Magnetic Resonance Centre, 127 Hamersley Road and Cnr Rokeby Road, Subiaco, Perth- St John of God Hospital, 175 Cambridge Street, Subiaco, Perth- Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Verdun Street, Nedlands, Perth- St John of God Hospital, 100 Murdoch Drive, Radiology Department, Murdoch, Perth- Perth Imaging, Mt Medical Centre, Mount Bay Road, Perth(c) All six providers became eligible for Medicare benefits from 1 September 1998. Following a change to regulations, Perth Imaging was deemed to be ineligible from 1 November 1999, but its eligibility was reinstated on 27 March 2001 and backdated to cover the period it had been deemed ineligible. (10) No. The highly expensive nature of this technology and the need for units to be located near key infrastructure, specialist referral bases and areas with a critical population mass means that the overwhelming majority of units are located in metropolitan areas. The MEG is continuing to monitor patient access, with a view to improving overall access and the geographical distribution of services, and will make recommendations to the Federal Government regarding the need for further Medicare eligible MRI services later this year.(11) No. To my knowledge, neither hospital has formally applied for Medicare eligibility as neither hospital has installed a unit nor been located in an identified area of need.2553(Question No. 254)2542553McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, 20 March 2002:(1) Were advertisements placed in the Stirling Times and Eastern Suburbs Reporter community newspapers during February 2002 to explain the issuing of the Family Payment debt letter.(2) Did the advertisements not have a contact phone number listed even though they asked the public to contact Centrelink if they had any questions.(3) What was the cost of these advertisements.2553Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes(2) The advertisements were run for four weeks in response to calls to Centrelink Call Centres. This demand was expected due to seasonal factors and the intent of the advertisements was to direct FAO customers to use alternative methods of contacting the Family Assistance Office other than telephoning at peak times. These included using the Internet (www.familyassist.gov.au) or in person at Centrelink Customer Service Centres, Medicare Offices or ATOaccess sites.(3) These advertisements cost a total of $1404.2553(Question No. 261)2612553Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 20 March 2002:(1) Has he received advice from the Ansett administrators regarding the amount of entitlements owed to individual former employees of Ansett Australia; if so, when was this advice received and what is the estimated total sum of entitlements owed to Ansett employees.(2) What is the total sum raised so far from the $10 levy on air tickets. (3) For how long will the $10 levy remain on air tickets.(4) What, if any, sum of Commonwealth money will he commit to paying the entitlements of former Ansett workers.(5) Will individual former Ansett employees receive 100 per cent of their accrued entitlements.2554Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. Advice on the entitlements owed to individual former employees is provided by the Ansett Administrators to SEES Pty Ltd which is administering the SEESA arrangements.(2) and (3) These are matters for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.(4) The Air Passenger Ticket Levy Collection Act provides up to $500m for Special Employee Entitlements Scheme for Ansett employees (SEESA) payments.(5) SEESA makes payments equivalent to all unpaid wages, accrued annual leave, long service leave, payment in lieu of notice of redundancy and redundancy pay up to the community standard of eight weeks. 2554(Question No. 263)2632554Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 March 2002:(1) Has he organised any forum with stakeholders, including shipping lines, to create protocols about rescues at sea of ship-wrecked people, including asylum seekers; if so, will he provide details.(2) Is the Commonwealth prepared to pay the costs of rescues at sea of ship-wrecked people, including asylum seekers, including the reported $1 million cost to the owners of MV Tampa.(3) Was the Government aware that had MV Tampa continued to sail on to Indonesia as requested by the Government it would have been without insurance cover; if so, why did the Government do this and put $90 million worth of ship and cargo at risk.2554Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) A meeting was held in Melbourne on 7 February 2002 between officers of my Department, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Shipping Australia and the Australian Shipowners Association.(2) Normal practice is for rescue vessels and the rescue co-ordinating centres to be responsible for their own costs. (3) The original decision to continue to sail to Indonesia was taken by the Master of the MV Tampa and not at the request of the Government. At no time during the incident did the Government put the ship or cargo at risk.2554(Question No. 266)2662554Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 21 March 2002:(1) Is the Minister able to say whether the Nine Network has secured the broadcasting rights for the coverage of the 2002 Soccer World Cup Finals in Japan and Korea.(2) Consistent with previous coverage of the Soccer World Cup Finals, will the Nine Network undertake to broadcast the majority of matches live and uninterrupted; if not, how many matches and under what conditions will the Nine Network's broadcast take place.(3) In the event that the Nine Network proceeds with a limited broadcast, is there any undertaking on the Nine Network to allow other broadcasters, whether free-to-air or subscriber, to pick up the remaining broadcast.2554McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) I understand that the Nine Network has secured the broadcasting rights to 16 of the 64 matches in the 2002 FIFA World Cup soccer tournament, and that the rights to the remaining matches have been acquired by SBS. (2) The Nine Network has not announced its programming schedule for the tournament. SBS has released its schedule which indicates that most of the 48 matches it has acquired the rights to will be shown live and in full in all Australian states. Where matches are being played simultaneously SBS has indicated that it will provide back to back coverage. (3) The 2002 and 2006 FIFA World Cup soccer tournaments are designated events under the anti-hoarding provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA). These provisions encourage maximum live, free-to-air coverage of designated events. Commercial broadcasters with live broadcast rights to such an event are required to offer any rights they do not propose to use (ie by televising those events live themselves) to the ABC and/or SBS for a nominal payment. Where one national broadcaster does not intend to fully televise a designated event live, the offer of excess rights must be made to the other national broadcaster.2555(Question No. 272)2722555Beazley, Kim, MPMr BeazleyPE4BrandALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 2002:What would be the cost for (a) 2002-2003, (b) 2003-2004 and (c) 2004-2005, of extending the Gold Card to those over the age of 70 to Australian residents who served in the armed forces of (i) Great Britain and (ii) Australia's World War II allies other than those of Great Britain.2555Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The estimated net cost to the Commonwealth of such an extension of the Gold Card is:(i)(ii)(a)2002-2003$54.9m$12.3m(b)2003-2004$64.2m$13.9m(c)2004-2005$73.2m$15.9mThese costs are for veterans of 70 years of age and over who served in armed forces of (i) Great Britain and (ii) Australia's World War II Allies other than those of Great Britain, who have at least 10 years of Australian residency.2555(Question No. 286)2862555Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek83MSydneyALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 2002:(1) How many personnel currently work at the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap.(2) How many Joint Defence Facility personnel are (a) Australian Government employees, (b) US Government employees, (c) employees of Australian contractors or (d) US contractors.(3) Are any of the personnel employed at the Joint Defence Facility members of the Australian Defence Force or the US armed services; if so, how many and to which service, namely Army, Navy, or Air Force, do they belong.(4) Which US Department of Defense agencies are involved in the operation of the Joint Defence Facility.(5) Which Australian and US private contractors provide personnel at the Joint Defence Facility.(6) How many personnel are employed as security staff at the Joint Defence Facility.(7) What is the current annual cost to the Australian Government of running the Joint Defence Facility.(8) Since March 1996, have Federal and State Members of Parliament (a) visited the Joint Defence Facility or (b) received classified briefings on the functions of the Facility; if so, (c) which Members and (d) when did these visits or briefings take place.(9) Since March 1996, have Members of the US Congress or congressional staff visitedthe Joint Defence Facility; if so, which Members and staff and when did those visits take place. (10) Who is the current (a) Chief of the Joint Defence Facility and (b) senior Australian officer at the Joint Defence Facility.(11) Who were the successive (a) Chiefs of the Joint Defence Facility and (b) senior Australian officers stationed at Pine Gap since the Facility commenced operations and over what periods did they serve in that capacity.(12) How many radomes and satellite antennas are now located at the Joint Defence Facility.(13) How many radomes and antenna located at the Joint Defence Facility are associated with the Satellite Relay Ground Station which relays data received from the US Defense Support Program satellites.(14) Can his Department provide the Parliament with up-to-date photographs showing the current array of radomes and antennas at the Joint Defence Facility.2556Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) As at 1 March 2002 there were 876 people working at the Joint Defence Facility.(2) Of the total 876 people employed at the Facility as at 1 March 2002, 428 were US citizens and 448 were Australian citizens. A more detailed breakdown of the workforce structure is classified.(3) All arms of the Australian Defence Force and US Armed Services have personnel integrated into the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap workforce. A more detailed breakdown of the workforce structure is classified.(4) As noted in the Pine Gap Treaty (Australian Treaty Series 1966 No. 17, amended by Australian Treaty Series 1988 No. 36), the cooperating partners at the Joint Defence Facility are the Australian Department of Defence and the US Department of Defense. Details of the specific agencies involved are classified.(5) The contractor companies at the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap are: Compaq, Australia (Australian registered, wholly-owned subsidiary of Compaq US), Raytheon (US), TRW (US), and Boeing Constructors Inc (US).(6) Details of the security measures and personnel at the Joint Defence Facility are operationally sensitive and will not be released.(7) The cost to the Australian Government of running the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap in Financial Year 2001/02 is $8,402,000.(8) Since March 1996 the following Members of Parliament have visited the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap and/or received classified briefings on its functions:(a) MPs who have visited the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap (JDFPG)(i) Federal MPs who visited the JDFPG and received classified briefings included:Hon Ian McLachlan MP 1996Hon Tim Fischer MP 1997Senator Bronwyn Bishop 1997Hon John Moore MP 1998, 2001Hon Alexander Downer MP 1999Hon Peter Reith MP 2001Hon Bruce Scott MP 2001Hon Daryl Williams MP 2001(ii) Federal MPs who are recorded as having visited the JDFPG and did not receive classified briefings included:Hon Peter Nugent MP 1997Hon Eion Cameron MP 1997Hon Peter Lindsay MP 1997Hon Warren Snowden MP 1999, 2000 (iii) Northern Territory politicians who are recorded as having visited the JDFPG and did not receive classified briefings included:Hon Shane Stone, MLA 1996Hon Mike Reid, MLA 1996Hon Nick Dondas MP 1997Hon Eric Poole, MLA 1996, 1997Hon Denis Burke MLA 2000Hon John Elferink MLA 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000Hon Richard Lim MLA 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000Hon Lorraine Braham MLA 1998, 1999(Note: No State MPs have visited the Joint Defence Facility and/or received classified briefings. No Territory MPs have received classified briefings on the functions of the Joint Defence Facility.)(b) MPs who have received classified briefings on the functions of the Facility. All members of the National Security Committee of Cabinet are briefed on appointment to the Committee. The Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs are normally briefed on the approval of the Prime Minister.(9) Since March 1996, 11 Congressional staff have visited the Joint Defence Facility. In the same period, the following US Congressmen have visited the Joint Defence Facility:Rep Norman Dicks February 1997Rep Tillie Fowler August 1997Rep Lindsey Graham August 1997Rep Howard McKeon August 1997Rep Soloman Ortiz August 1997Rep Floyd Spence August 1997Senator Richard Shelby August 1999, August 2001Rep J. Dennis Hastert December 1999Rep Sherwood Boefflert December 1999, January 2000Rep Porter J. Goss January 2000Rep Sanford Bishop January 2000Rep Michael Castle January 2000Rep Ray LaHood January 2000Rep Jim Gibbons January 2000Senator Ernest Hollings August 2001Rep William Duhnke August 2001(10) (a) The Chief of Facility is Mrs Barbara Ely.(b) The senior Australian officer at the Joint Defence Facility is the Deputy Chief of Facility, Mr John McCarthy.(11) The successive Chiefs of Facility and senior Australian officers at the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap have been:(a) Chiefs of Facility:Harry Fitzwater 1968-73Lou Bonham 1974-76Harrison Markham 1976-79Richard Kruegar 1979-81William Reller 1981-85Glenn Kerr 1985-89 Donald Kingsley 1989-92James Mathews 1992-95Stephen Provines 1995-98Barbara Ely 1999—current(b) Australian Defence Representatives:Lindsay Smooker 1969-78Wallace Caplehom 1979-80Ivo Parker 1980-84Bert Forsyth 1984-87Michael Busch 1987-88John McCarthy 1988-92; 1999—currentJanet Tyler 1992-95Brian Ely 1995-99(12) There are 26 satellite antennas located at the Joint Defence Facility, 14 of which have environmental covers.(13) There are 4 satellite antennas located at the Joint Defence Facility associated with the Defence Support Program Relay Ground Station, 2 of which have environmental covers.(14) A panoramic view of the Joint Defence Facility, taken in 1999, has been forwarded separately to your office. Three new satellite antennas have been installed since that time.2558(Question No. 293)2932558Hall, Jill, MPMs Hall83NShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 14 May 2002:(1) Since its inception, how many orange cards have been issued to British and allied ex-servicemen.2558Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 21,710 (as at 14 May 2002).