2002-06-034012REPS289102002-06-03—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Private Members' Business2891289112:31:002891George, Jennie, MPMs GEORGEJH5ThrosbyALP00—I 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.I take this opportunity to speak in support of the motion standing in my name on behalf of the many thousands of workers and their families in my electorate of Throsby whose wellbeing depends very much on the ongoing viability of our domestic steel making capacity. The Port Kembla steelworks is the largest employer in my electorate with an estimated 10,000 direct and indirect jobs relying on it. The steelworks inject about $1.4 billion into our own regional economy annually and much of the product that is produced at Port Kembla has been finding its way into international markets. Following a lot of heart wrenching, pain and agony in the 1980s and 1990s, and after a downturn of full-time employment opportunities and the loss of probably up to 20,000 jobs at the steelworks, I am pleased to say that we now have a committed work force, together with an enterprising management that saw the need to invest capital in the plant. We now have a steelworks in my electorate which is one of the most efficient and productive steelworks in the whole world. I think the families and the workers who I represent in that electorate are mightily proud of their achievement and their efforts. In that context, the families and work force in my electorate—having gone through a lot of pain in the 1980s and 1990s—were absolutely shocked when word first came out that the United States administration was considering the imposition of tariffs and quotas on steel that was exported from our steelworks and found entry into the US markets. They were shocked because they believed that the changes that had seen the transformation of the steel industry locally meant that we would be competing as efficient and productive producers on a level playing field. Little did they expect that the country that leads the rhetoric in terms of free trade was going to turn around and reinstitute trade barriers, making it so much more difficult for efficient and productive producers like our own steel industry to get a foothold in that market. The workers and their families believe that the United States decision is hypocritical, and it flies in the face of the constant appeals that we have heard from the United States about the benefits of free trade. It seems that they extol the virtues of free trade except when it impinges on their domestic industries, as we have seen over the years in terms of the agricultural subsidies and more recently in terms of what we consider to be a wrong decision in principle. This is a wrong decision because it impacts negatively on steelworks like the Port Kembla steelworks that have gone through a massive reorganisation and transformation to come out at the other end as efficient and productive steel producers. Naturally, the local people were very concerned about the decision which mooted that quotas and tariffs would be imposed on Australian steel imports. We were very worried locally because currently about 800,000 tonnes of steel is exported from Port Kembla, worth in the vicinity of $400 million to $450 million in exports to the United States, predominantly to west coast mills. So you can understand the concerns of the local community because the steelworks is so much the heart and soul of the economic viability of the Illawarra region and of my electorate in particular. The government did take some credit in that, following negotiations, exemptions were procured for our slab product but then later on—and after a bit more arm wrenching and arm twisting—the local people were relieved to learn that the hot rolled coil predominantly used by Steelscape, a former BHP subsidiary, was also to be exempt from the quota and tariff regime. So while we are pleased that 85 per cent of export volumes appear at this stage to be exempt, around $100 million in export sales in our judgment are still very much under threat. While not professing to be an expert in trade matters—Dr Martin will no doubt speak about those implications in seconding this motion—we are still not in a situation where all our product, produced efficiently, competitively and productively, is exempt from the trade restrictions being imposed by the United States administration.The motion I am proposing condemns the United States decision, firstly, because it makes a mockery of their adherence to free trade; secondly, because it is punitive and punishes, in particular, efficient and productive producers of steel; and, thirdly, because, even though we might say that 85 per cent of our export volumes appear to be exempt, it will of necessity have a negative impact on the Australian domestic steel industry. It will have a negative impact in two ways. I do not think anyone is in a position as yet to quantify the direct negative impact on employment within the steel industry but, beyond that, it can well lead to a very marked negative impact on our iron ore and coal sectors. Because of the glut of steel in the world market, it may be that decisions to wind back production in certain countries will have a multiplier effect on employment levels domestically in our coal and iron ore sectors. Beyond that, I think we need to bear in mind that the Australian steel industry, in terms of employment levels, has been hit very hard. An estimated 30 per cent of steel industry jobs were lost in the 1990s and almost 90,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1997, so it is not the time for the government to sit back and merely react to the decisions made by the US administration.We know that increased volumes of surplus steel are likely to be dumped in Australia and we know from previous arguments in this chamber—arguments led by my colleague the member for Lyons about the inadequacy of current dumping procedures— that it will not be too far down the track before efficient and productive domestic producers will be facing the impact of steel being dumped at dumped prices here in Australia. A summit was called by the government but, much to the shame of the government, they wanted to play petty politics and excluded from that summit the shadow ministers for trade and industry and the elected representatives of the steel making towns of Throsby, Newcastle and Wollongong.In winding up my comments, my plea is for this government to be far more proactive in terms of our domestic steel industry, not to sit back and react when the US and other countries decide to do what they perceive is in their domestic interest but to actually have a proactive, supportive industry framework that understands the implications of this current decision and the likely negative consequences. In that regard, I draw to the attention of the chamber the fact that one of my local employers, Onesteel—which is currently wishing to tender for the SEA Gas project, producing pipes for the Victoria to South Australia gas pipeline—is very concerned that external bidders might be bidding on the basis of dumping cheap product here in Australia. The government needs to get its act together, needs to tighten up the monitoring of imported steel, needs to make sure that dumping processes can be accessed and prosecuted expeditiously and, lastly and most importantly, needs a framework of positive industry support for our vital and critical domestic steel industry.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.12:41:002892Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—It gives me great pleasure to address the issues raised in the motion and to agree with the vast bulk of them and, in particular, with the terms of the motion. I represent the electorate of Flinders. The Westernport steelworks, which is soon to be spun off as part of the creation of BHP Steel, is in this electorate. Westernport generates over 1,400 jobs; it employs steelworkers from throughout the electorate; it contributes over $30 million in wages alone to people on the Mornington Peninsula; and it contributes over $20 million in expenditure on the Mornington Peninsula. It is the largest employer, it is a key contributor to the community and it is an important element in the life and times of the Mornington Peninsula.In that context, I wish to make three points about the United States decision and about this motion in particular. The first is that the US decision was clearly wrong. It was a betrayal of the US obligations under its World Trade Organisation responsibilities and it was a betrayal of its obligations to Australia as a genuine and committed free trader. Second, I wish to make the point that, despite this decision, the Australian government achieved a remarkably strong outcome— stronger than almost any other country in the world and one which protected and enhanced the position of Australian steelworkers—but there is still more to be done. Third, I wish to add to the points made by the member for Throsby: arguably the greatest threat to Australian steelworkers, who have already achieved through themselves and through management an almost unparalleled level of efficiency in global steel markets, is the actions of certain members of union leadership. I will set out some of the evidence for that.The first point is that the US decision of 6 March to restrict steel imports through quotas and tariffs of up to 30 per cent flies squarely in the face of the US World Trade Organisation obligations. The implications are threefold. Firstly, the tariffs and quotas are unfairly restrictive and impact on the unsubsidised Australian product. It attacks the very people whom the US is trying to encourage—and that is an industry of over $A450 million in annual steel exports to the United States. The second problem with the US decision is that it destabilises the world market for steel, potentially causing large volumes of low-priced steel to circulate on international markets. That is why—and I will come back to this—anyone who would potentially support this US decision is in fact threatening Australian jobs. We will ask ourselves: who supported the US decision? The third problem is with the US decision is that it sends a signal that the United States is less than fully committed to advancing more open international trade, and that is accompanied by the US decision on the farm bill, which also has an implication for Australian farmers and agricultural producers. For all those reasons, it was simply a bad decision and a wrong decision.More importantly, what has the Australian government done to both anticipate and respond to the decision? Firstly, the coalition government worked very hard prior to any US decision because it was understood that under section 201 the US government was looking at actions on steel. The government worked with Australian exporters to achieve a 50 per cent exclusion of Australia's total steel exports—Australian slab steel exports—which were not affected by the initial import restrictions. That was a good outcome, but there was still a lot more to be done, and that was prior to the US decision. Subsequent to the US decision, after President Bush's 6 March announcement, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and Australia's Ambassador to the United States, Michael Thawley, along with others, worked extraordinarily hard to achieve a second wave of concessions for Australian steel. A further 35 per cent of our exports to the United States, being hot rolled coil, as mentioned in the motion moved by the member for Throsby, was excluded from the 30 per cent tariff ceiling. The result was that 85 per cent of Australian steel was excluded. That was a good outcome, but there is more to be done. Until 100 per cent is excluded we are not going to rest.The interesting thing is that there is also the risk, as was set out by the previous speaker, that there might be the problem of dumping on the Australian steel market. That is a real problem. What is the government doing on that front? The Minister for Trade, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and the Minister for Justice and Customs have established a task force and working group on dumping. They have representatives of not only Australian steel exporters but also the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Workers Union. The whole industry—workers and management—are involved in working to protect Australia from dumping as a flow-on. But here is where the real twist comes in: you would imagine that if there were a threat to jobs, the union leadership would have been opposed to it. I bring to the attention of the House an article in the Hastings Independent—a good local newspaper, if I may say so—of 12 March 2002. The headline was `Steelworkers back US tariffs'. The article begins:The Western Port Steel workers are getting the word not to blame the United States for its steel tariffs. `Good on you, Yanks' is more like it according to Australian Workers Union State President Mick Eagles.That is the message from the Australian Workers Union State President, Mick Eagles. Will the member for Throsby and the member for Cunningham support or denounce that position? The article goes on to quote Mr Eagles as saying:We congratulate them on these tariffs.It gets worse: the union not only welcomed the US decision but also actively worked towards it. The article continues:Geoff Cooney, union organiser at the BHP plant, was at the International Metals Federation meeting of steelmakers in Washington 2000.`It was resolved to stop dumping of the cheap steel in members markets,' Mr Cooney said.Mick Eagles said:The American steel workers have now struck the first blow.The union not only endorsed the decision of the United States to introduce steel tariffs at the expense of Australian workers but also actively worked towards it. That is an extraordinary decision which puts at risk jobs in Cunningham, Throsby, Flinders and Paterson. In all those areas there is a risk from the very action which the union leaders have taken. But why would they do that? What is the mentality behind it? I continue with the article entitled `Steelworkers back US tariffs' in the Hastings Independent of 12 March 2002, six days after the US decision was announced:He—Mick Eagles—said a ... decline in Port Kembla steel sales to the United States was not the main risk. `The danger is dumping. Makers of cheap steel, like Turkey, Russia and China, losing their American markets, would then try and dump on Australia.'But here is the flaw in the logic: they prevent the export of steel to the United States by arguing for the US to impose steel tariffs, which in turn creates the risk of dumping, which in turn creates the problem for the Australian market, and then they complain that there might be a risk of dumping on Australian markets. It is extraordinary! They create the very risk of dumping and then they complain about it. Finally, there is the sheer hubris of the AWU position as set out by Mr Eagles himself, who goes on to say:All it's about, this globalisation, is making the greatest profits at the cheapest cost centres.The problem for Mr Eagles is that Australian steel makers are already some of the cheapest cost centres and most efficient producers in the world. Had it not been for the work of the government and its officials, perhaps 100 per cent of Australian steel would be exposed. Instead, it is now down to 15 per cent, which is still too high. That is why we aggressively fought for Australian steel jobs, and we did it without the help of the AWU's Victorian leadership, which actively fought to impose tariffs on US steel, which in turn imposed tariffs on Australian workers and put at risk the very jobs which all of us in this House would seek to protect and encourage. I am happy to ally myself with the motion and endorse its terms but it is critical that we look to the fact that—(Time expired)12:51:002894Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I support the motion moved by my friend and colleague the member for Throsby and I support the comments that she and the member for Flinders have made. When looking at the decision taken by the United States and the effect that it has had on Australia, what has been said so far has been dead right: it is a betrayal of the basic tenets of the World Trade Organisation's principles and it makes a mockery of the United States rhetoric about their commitment to free trade. When the Prime Minister gets to Washington next week, he has said that he is going to lecture the Congress and the Senate about how dreadful some of the things are that the US government is imposing and which are bringing into question their commitment to free trade. I hope he does not concentrate on agriculture. I hope—and I hope that the member for Flinders will take this message to his Prime Minister—that he reruns this question about steel tariffs.However, I cannot agree with the member for Flinders when he said that the government has achieved a strong outcome. As the member for Throsby so rightly said in her contribution, there is an 85 per cent exemption. That is true and, on the face of it, you would think that $400 million per year in value of exports into the United States by Australian steel producers with an 85 per cent outcome was reasonable, but it is not because the tariffs that are still imposed by the United States are at the high value end of the production. It is going to cost $100 million in terms of Australian steel producers' exports. That is one-quarter of an annual export earning capability of BHP and others from Australia into the United States which is now in danger. Is that a good outcome? I think not.While the honourable member for Flinders is patting himself and his government on the back, I suggest that he ask the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that, if they saw this coming so long ago, how come that outcome came about? If they were out there lobbying on behalf of Australian manufacturing industry, how did this outcome come about? We see a lot of commitment and talk from the Minister for Trade when he is talking about agricultural subsidies, but then again he has a National Party constituency that he has to suck up to. However, the deal gets done. As a great friend of the United States, we put our hand up and we were the first over there in Afghanistan beside them, but when we want some economic benefit to come from our great ally, what do we get? Absolutely nothing. What we get out of it is a kick in the behind. We have seen it in steel and we have seen it in the US farm subsidies bill.What else do we see as a result of this decision? We now see the portents of a trade war. The European Union and Japan are already taking decisions through the WTO to take the United States to the WTO with an action to get these decisions on steel overturned. And well they might do that. Are we doing anything about that? Is the Australian government saying, `We'll join the European Union and Japan to protect Australian jobs because this decision by the United States is an absolute dud. It's against the WTO and against the interests of steel makers in this country.' Are we seeing the Australian government doing that? Is the Prime Minister even talking about doing that when he is over in Washington next week? The answer, sadly, is no. My constituents in Wollongong, the constituents of the member for Throsby and the constituents of the member for Flinders down at Western Port will be scratching their heads. They will be saying, `Hang on. How come our Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade aren't saying that? Why aren't they trying to prevent a trade war? Why aren't they saying through the WTO processes that we want to protect Australian jobs?'The honourable member and the member for Throsby are dead right in respect of the real issue of dumping, and we have to look at that. Any measures the government takes to amend that level of concern have to be supported. However, at the end of the day, there is no doubt that employment questions are still going to be raised. There are questions about contributions by different people to the level of support. The honourable member for Flinders asked whether I would support the comments made by the Victorian division of the AWU on this. I would say no—unequivocally no because I think they got it wrong. However, they did not get it half as wrong as US President Bush and the United States administration in signing up to this dud proposition to protect the steel industry in the United States.Their industry needs total reform. We did it here in 1983 under the Hawke government's steel industry plan and we have gone through a lot of pain in Newcastle, Wollongong and around Australia. It is about time the United States, the great defenders of this great concept of free trade, were out there practising what they preach. They should review this and the Prime Minister should get that review next week. (Time expired)12:56:002896Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10— Given the history of steel in the Hunter, I was particularly concerned when I saw the decision by the Bush administration on 6 March to restrict steel imports through quotas and tariffs of up to 30 per cent. In Australia, and particularly in the Hunter, we feel slighted by this US decision because we are a competitive producer of steel products and our industry has undergone the hard yards of restructuring. Through this restructuring, we have evolved into one of the most competitive producers of steel products in the world, and most importantly today, without any government subsidies.I am concerned that this tariff and quota protection implied by the Americans will affect $450 million in annual steel exports to the US and that this decision has destabilised the world market. What will this do to world steel prices? You might say that now that BHP has largely gone from the Hunter and as we basically only have a few steel rolling mills left, what effect would this have in the Hunter?Quite simply, and it is no secret, three consortiums are looking at putting steelworks into the Hunter. They are the Austeel proposal, which is to be located at Tomago; Hunter Specialty steel, which is to be located at Lidell Power station; and Protech Steel, which is to go into Kooragang Island. All these decisions and the threat of a glut of cheap steel on the market affect the viability and the opportunity of these projects coming to my electorate to provide work for the thousands of people who have left the steel industry. As I said, BHP has been good to the Hunter over the years, but not in recent times. We need encouragement to invest.I congratulate the Prime Minister and Minister Vaile on effectively getting an 85 per cent exemption. On 12 March, the Prime Minister said in this House:If you go back over all the difficult trade decisions that have been taken, adverse to the interests of this country, by the United States over the last 15 or 20 years, I cannot offhand recall one where, as a result of representations made by the government in power, the roll-back by the United States has been as great as it has been on this occasion. This government cares and is committed to free trade. However, let us have a look at the decisions and announcements by the Labor Party. Where has Simon Crean and the Creanites been on this? Today is relatively the first vocal decision we have seen except by members of the trade union movement, remembering that the trade union movement has a 60 per cent control over the Labor Party and therefore influences their decisions. The Victorian member of the Australian Workers Union, Mr Eagles, congratulated the US on its decision to impose tariffs. The US steelworkers union intervened to save US jobs, but what he does not understand is that this has the great potential to impact on Australian jobs.Where are the Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the Creanites in supporting Australian jobs? We have heard today, for the first time, the member for Cunningham denouncing the announcement by Mr Eagles in Westernport; he does not agree with it. The reality is that this is a member of the union—an official of the union movement— who is a part of the Labor Party and who supports US introduction of tariffs to protect their jobs.What we see from the Labor Party is a deep-seated desire to return to the days of protectionism, when we have achieved so much by opening up trade negotiations and decisions between countries that we deal with. As I said, my interest is to make sure that there are opportunities for companies like Hunter Specialty Steels, Protech and Austeel to set up here, to invest billions of dollars and to create the thousands of jobs which will bring money back into the Hunter. We do not want to see protectionism at any level because protectionism ultimately costs jobs.We are a very competitive nation. I agree with what both the member for Throsby and the member for Cunningham have said; the Australian steel industry has done the hard yards and has paid the price and the penalties for taking these tough decisions. It is time we were given a competitive environment in which to put our products onto the world market. The steps taken by the Bush administration will effect that ability to a large extent.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Paterson will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.289713:01:002897McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I 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.I am delighted to move the motion in the House today because this issue has been a major community issue throughout Australia. Members of this place and other state parliaments are now recognising this problem. Fundamentally, community groups are concerned about the outrageous and massive increases in public liability premiums. Community groups are approaching members of parliament on both sides expressing their concern that they cannot continue operating their particular local groups.What is really the problem—as I have identified—is the number of claims, which have jumped from 55,000 in 1998 to 88,000 in 2000, a 60 per cent increase. The not-for-profit community groups cannot afford the insurance; tourism groups and other small businesses are having great difficulty handling the increased insurance premiums. I mention the local cricket clubs, country shows and progress associations in the electorate of Corangamite, such as the Bannockburn Golf Club, the Portarlington Development Association, the Maude Recreation Reserve, the Freshwater Creek Tennis Club, the Queenscliff Ozone Hotel View Grand, Gellibrand Hall, United Way and the Boorcan Cricket Club. These small commercial groups are run by volunteers and are having great difficulty paying their suggested premiums.We need to identify what the causes are. Obviously one of the first causes is the litigious culture that has been developed by a number of the plaintiff lawyers. They have put up the proposition `no win, no fee' and that has encouraged a number of people to make claims. The advertising that has taken place has encouraged individual citizens to make claims that they otherwise would not have made.In the time available, I would like to draw on a very interesting article and report by Mr Geoff Burrowes, producer of TheMan From Snowy River and Mansfield resident, which is in the heartland of the electorate of McEwen. I see that the parliamentary secretary is at the table. I will quote extensively from this article in the WeeklyTimes of 22 March 2002 because I think it will draw to the attention of the House and the community a very intelligent assessment of the problem. He states in this article:We've caused the problem, ripping off the system and going for the payout, looking for the main chance. We've laughed at the huge payouts and the ridiculous claims of fault. We've been disgusted by the pompous self promotion of lawyers, the demeaning of the law and the detachment of judges from the reality of life.That was his opening statement. I think many people in Mansfield and at the particular rally would agree with that. He goes on:It is the large number of small insurance claims that are the real problem—94 per cent of claims are for minor injuries and make up 77 per cent of the claims payouts.He goes on to say:For years we've smirked at the US as the world's most litigious society. But we've gone the same way, some would say we've even surpassed the US as a litigious nation.He goes on:This rise in public liability insurance is an assault on small business, community groups, providers of adventure and experience.He goes on to talk about the people of Mansfield—the parliamentary secretary is a very vigorous advocate of the people of Mansfield—and states:We are a people of the bush, the ocean, our rivers and mountains. Though most of us to live in the cities, we treasure our links to the outdoors, it's part of our self, or who we are. If we're cut off from the outdoors we cease to be Australians.We all need to look at whether we're members of a community or individuals after a pot of gold. We first need a generational shift in values, that people take greater responsibilities for their actions and lives.I think that is the key element of what he is saying: we need to be responsible for those many difficult tasks out there and not immediately seek the support of a lawyer. He goes on to say:The Mansfield proposal (using legislation to eliminate claims for minor injury while maintaining the victim's right to sue for damages in cases of serious injury involving negligence) can work.Basically, what Mr Burrowes is saying is that people have become greedy. They have seen the pot of gold. The whole public liability area has got out of control. Members of this parliament understand that and I am sure other members will support this very important proposal before the parliament.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Is the motion seconded?8H4Hawker, David, MPMr Hawker—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:07:002898Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I notice that my notice of motion, which was on the Notice Paper before this one, was not chosen for consideration. I am having a few problems getting my questions up as well as getting my notices of motions debated. But I congratulate the member for Corangamite on having his motion on the Notice Paper for us to discuss.Certainly, the federal government does not seem to be giving us much leadership at all in this area. The problem has been around for three years-plus. I picked it up about three years ago when a community group came to me about the local government asking them to cover themselves for public liability insurance for up to $10 million or they would have to leave the hall which they were using. I think I raised that on a previous occasion. In this case, 10 women in an embroidery group met every week and paid a dollar to help cover the cost of the lighting of the hall. They were then basically told that they would have to raise $450 a year to cover the insurance—a ridiculous situation for those women, who had never had a claim. A small market at Epping in my electorate, which a lot of people would be familiar with, had enormous problems in raising a level of money for public liability insurance. That small market was started by a group of people that came together and decided to have a small market to raise money for the hall. These are difficult circumstances for many small groups in our communities right across Australia. The problem is also the result of bad business practices—by one insurance company for sure—and the business community taking fright from the large payouts from September 11. This is now taking its toll on our small communities, most of which have paid insurance for years and years and never had a claim of any sort, and we heard about some of those in the House last week. There is always the question of why the less advantaged in our community always end up paying the bill for those who are less scrupulous.Really, the insurance industry stand condemned in Australia. They have let us get to this stage. Their industry has collapsed in this area. We know that the Liberal Party and the insurance industry are very close, and I think that might have had something to do with it. The minister might have failed the test as well. Members on the other side of the House laugh about this sort of thing, but it is that sort of complication that sometimes holds back reform, and it is well past time for reform of the insurance industry. This is a federal government problem. It is a constitutional matter for the federal government, and they should be acting and showing leadership. They have to fix it. The insurance industry needs an enormous shake-up. It needs to get away from the business of speculation and get on with dealing with risk assessment and covering the actual needs of activities.All of the money from the Bothwell races, which I think the member for Braddon mentioned last week, went into the community. That is another event that has been cancelled because of this very problem. Last year I put out a brochure based on information that we had gathered, trying to help groups to find insurance to minimise risk and look for umbrella groups so that they could get a quote. Some of them have been able to achieve that. It seems odd that there is not much publicity about last week's meeting down in Melbourne.We really have to get back to fixing the harm. The person that has been injured should be fixed. Fixing the harm is what insurance is about. Let us get back to some basic principles about what insurance is and make some risk assessments about the activities that are going on. The insurance industry should be helping with that, and I do not see them doing that. I see this Liberal Party-insurance industry nexus which is failing the people of Australia. We need to act in a way which will help reunite those small communities and those events. (Time expired)13:12:002899Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I am delighted to second this motion and support my good friend and colleague the member for Corangamite. This is a very timely motion, and the points that he made were very worthwhile. As he put in the motion, there is `concern about the escalating cost of public liability insurance, especially for smaller non-profit community groups', there are `a number of sporting and community groups' that are going to have to `curtail or end their activities' if insurance premiums keep rising and there is a need for the Commonwealth and state governments to get involved.This is a very timely debate, given that the Commonwealth and state governments have got involved and are certainly moving. But there is no room for easing up on this. There is still an awful lot to be done. It is very disappointing to hear the member for Lyons come in here and try to oversimplify this debate and just try and blame it on the insurance companies. If he had taken half an interest in what has really been going on in the growth in litigation, the way some greedy lawyers have tried to exploit people's accidents—and what better example could we have had than that one at Bondi a few weeks ago?—he would have realised that it is not just insurance companies; there are a whole range of things that have to be addressed here. It is important that we get right behind the work that the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Coonan, has been doing, supported by a number of state governments which have recognised equally that there is a real problem.Maybe the member for Lyons could just look around himself a little and see that there are even judges who are now admitting the problems that are involved with the courts. A good example is that two months ago in his retirement speech Justice James Thomas from the Queensland Supreme Court stated:We have allowed the tests for negligence to degenerate to such a trivial level that people can be successfully sued for ordinary human activity.Those are the sorts of points that have really got to be brought home. Former Chief Justice of the High Court Sir Harry Gibbs in an address about three weeks ago to a symposium of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering really hit the nail on the head with a number of comments that he made. I will pick out a few. In his introductory remarks, he pointed out:If the risk of injury or death had not been taken no one would have been able to travel in a railway train, a motor car or a jet aircraft, or to have an organ transplant or a cardiac pacemaker. Indeed, if risks of that kind had not been taken, Australia as we know it would not exist ... the voyage of discovery of Captain Cook and that of the First Fleet entailed great risk.One wonders how the lawyers would have lined up on that one. Sir Harry Gibbs made some other points that I think are very relevant. He said:The culture of litigation has been fostered by some lawyers who, whenever a mishap occurs, advertise for potential claimants and encourage them to sue or to join in a class action. These activities would once have been regarded as unprofessional but the former professional rules have been relaxed in the mistaken belief that it was more important to encourage competition than to maintain long established ethical standards. Some restrictions on advertising by lawyers have been reimposed. It would, however, be too much to hope that any ban on advertising or touting for work by lawyers would change the culture of blame which is now well established in society. The lawyers jumped on the bandwagon.He made many other comments, which I might come back to if I have time. I will read a letter that was sent to me in my electorate. It sums up the real problems that we are facing in local communities, particularly in the country. It says:To whom it may concern.The Members of the Coleraine Youth Club wish to express their strong objection to the rise in Public Liability Insurance on Non Profit Organizations throughout the Country.Our Club has supplied a low cost venue to Children of low income families for over 50 years and we feel that if there is any substantial increase in insurance etc. our fees will have to increase, therefore putting it out of reach of these families and the only solution will be too close our hall and put the children on the streets.I could go on and on about things that are happening at pony clubs and at all sorts of local community groups which are run by volunteers and provide part of the core of our local communities. This has become the No. 1 issue that we really have to face at both the community level and at the federal and state government level. I have great delight in supporting this motion of the member for Corangamite and I think it is very timely. (Time expired)13:17:002900Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Whilst congratulating the member for Corangamite on his motion, I note that it is somewhat ironic that the member for Corangamite should move a motion that calls on the government of which he is a member to act to resolve the crisis in public liability insurance. And why? The opposition has been calling on the government to do the very same thing for some time, but on each occasion we have been criticised for doing so.The Commonwealth government has been inept in its handling of this very serious issue. It has been clear for some time that the trend of public liability insurance was taking business and community organisations towards crisis. Spiralling insurance premiums or the absence of insurance coverage has threatened the viability of a growing number of businesses and community groups. Individuals have been hesitant to volunteer their participation in activities in their communities for fear of being sued in the event of an accident. Such a situation should be the responsibility of the Commonwealth government. The Commonwealth government should have recognised the severity of this situation and acted decisively to coordinate its resolution.When RSL clubs were having to consider cancelling Anzac Day services, surely the Commonwealth government should have recognised that it was time to get serious. Instead, we saw confusion and inaction from the Commonwealth government. Treasurer Costello and Minister Coonan were saying one thing; minister Hockey was saying another. The sum total of his response was to suggest that state governments should get back into running insurance companies. Small business operators around Australia should be justifiably alarmed at the extent to which Minister Hockey takes an interest in dealing with issues that affect them.It took state Labor governments to lead the way and propose measures to respond to this crisis. We should congratulate Premiers Gallop, Carr and Bracks for their leadership in bringing about reforms which may resolve the situation. The tort law reforms proposed at last week's national public liability summit are a sensible mechanism for ensuring small businesses and community organisations can remain in operation and access public liability insurance. They are part of a range of practical measures to deal with this issue.One area where the Commonwealth did not go far enough was its failure to give the ACCC price exploitation powers over insurance in the same way as was done when the GST was introduced. Last week's summit provided the ACCC with the ability only to monitor market developments and premium prices, with a review of the ACCC's involvement in the future. The Commonwealth government should not wait and see if the insurance industry adjusts its premiums to take account of likely cost savings. It should take steps immediately to give the ACCC sufficient powers to deal with any insurance companies who are profiteering. After all, if it was necessary to protect consumers when the GST was introduced, why not small business and community organisations now?The second area in which the Commonwealth government's response is lacking is in providing guarantees that state Liberal oppositions will support measures implemented by state Labor governments. This is not the time for state Liberal oppositions to be scoring cheap political points by holding up legislative reforms. It is the time to support the passage of legislative reforms so that this crisis becomes no worse. The Commonwealth government should give a commitment that it will fight to ensure state oppositions do not impede the reform process or hold it up purely for political gain.Small business is the backbone of our economy. Community groups, sporting bodies and non-profit organisations make an enormous contribution to the fabric of our society. We have an obligation to act to ensure their ongoing viability is not compromised. We have heard that numerous businesses, clubs and organisations are faced with ruin through this particular problem. I would like to refer to one example in my electorate. It is a small family based company that has been around for many years. All they do is hire out camping equipment so that people can go away with their families for the weekend. They have been in business for something like 20 years, and in 12 years they have never made the slightest claim. Their premiums have gone up by about 300 or 400 per cent. They have told me that they will have to close their doors because they just cannot afford it. When this sort of situation is happening, it is clear that the government need to act. They have to do something decisively, and we need to deal with it as soon as possible.13:22:002901Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—It seems that almost every day the newspapers have a tale to tell about another organisation facing the wall over billowing insurance costs. My first real indication of the growing crisis was the annual Blessing of the Fleet Festival in Ulladulla. The prospects seemed insurmountable at first but luckily, with everyone becoming involved, the matter was overcome, though at a greatly inflated cost. One of the issues that surfaced was the effect of statutory requirements adding to the costs for the association—that is, the need to ensure that certain things have been done to `cotton-wool' people against risk. If the organisation were to ignore any part of this minefield of bureaucracy, they would most likely void their insurance cover. This just means extra costs. In this case, it revolved around the need to appoint qualified traffic marshals.When the insurance issue broke following the collapse of HIH, I sent out a survey to all sporting and community groups in the Shoalhaven. I needed to gauge the effect and its impact on these groups and to see whether there was anything that could be done to assist. The response was overwhelming. Almost a 70 per cent response rate showed that all were experiencing a degree of difficulty, ranging from a slight inconvenience to absolute disaster.What I also found surprising was the number of groups—small groups—that had no insurance cover at all. This was despite the fact that legislation in New South Wales requires all such groups to be formed into incorporated associations to protect their members. That some were unaware of the legislation, or chose to ignore it, is particularly worrying in this climate of litigation and damages. Many of these groups were at the crossroads of deciding whether they could afford the cover being asked, which had jumped by between 50 and 500 per cent in many cases. In fact, some groups have already shut down because they could not pay the premiums.Many residents of my electorate are members of such groups. They are members because the groups or associations offer them a means of social expression and enjoyment in something they like. Many are volunteers, because that is the Australian way. I refer of course to organisations like Meals on Wheels, St Vincent de Paul, the Red Cross Society, the Smith Family, volunteer bushfire brigades, the emergency services and many other charitable groups that help out in our community. If they were to withdraw their services because they could not afford the premiums, where would that leave not only the government but, most of all, the community they serve?At the same time as the media stories started emerging of non-profit groups facing the shock of their insurance costs, there were also stories of huge court payouts for damages. To the man in the street, some of these are beyond belief and even people who are reasonably informed are questioning whether the courts are in touch with reality. In preparing my paper, I came across an article in the Daily Telegraph of 21 May questioning a payout of $3.75 million for a neck injury suffered in the surf. It is beyond comprehension how the decision can be justified, and that is just one. As an ordinary person, I have a notion of what I consider right and wrong, fair and equitable—natural justice, if you like. I also know that someone has to pay for it. From my perspective, what is developing here is neither fair nor equitable nor indeed even reasonable.The other element that people are talking about is how much responsibility an individual should assume for their own actions and lack of care. It seems that governments today are relieving individuals of some of their obligations and foisting them onto the taxpayer. Maybe it is time that the principles underpinning common law were revisited. It is clear that public opinion sees the courts as out of step with community standards. I am heartened by the response of the state governments, at least in New South Wales, in legislating to contain these costs but I will wait until I have seen the detail. The ball is, after all, in their court, as state governments require organisations to be incorporated and to maintain adequate insurance coverage for their members. Perhaps it is time we started to accept individual responsibility for our own actions as opposed to the increasing inclination of looking out for No. 1.Whatever steps we take now, it will take some time to filter through in any meaningful way. The federal government has a role to play in ensuring that some sort of uniformity applies across the board. The response has to be nationwide, for the insurers are not contained by state borders or international borders. Therein lies the problem. If premiums were based purely on claims experience, I am sure the premiums afforded these non-profit organisations would be minimal. However, the insurance industry requires the risk to be spread throughout their client base and so, inadvertently, innocent bystanders are paying the price for the mistakes of others. Why should I as a hockey player, a tennis player or a volunteer with Meals on Wheels be compelled to pay a premium that does not reflect the risk that I am exposed to? Even from the perspective of the Surf Life Saving Association, why do they have to pay just because they were on voluntary duty? The people of Australia do not want to know whose fault it is; they want it fixed. (Time expired)13:27:002902Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—The lack of availability and the high cost of public liability insurance are issues that are threatening to cripple communities around this country and throughout my electorate. Volunteers will be restrained from coming forward to share their skills, and communities will fail for lack of members prepared to shoulder the burden of public liability insurance. Everyone in this debate has spoken of the massive increases in premiums, ranging from 100 per cent to 500 per cent, yet hardly anyone talks of the massive increases in excesses being levied by insurance companies. If an organisation scrapes the money together for the premium, they may have to pay the first $25,000 of a claim. I ask: how many organisations have a spare $25,000 to keep aside for a potential claim, and who is sued next for the excess if the organisation does not have the money? Committee members or board members, that is who.Additionally, within many of the groups there are coaches and specialists who need professional indemnity insurance. It is not just doctors who have a problem in this area. Professional indemnity and public liability have to be linked in any discussion of the problem. More importantly, we need to discuss the behaviour of the insurance industry, certainly in more detail than proposed by the meeting of state and federal governments last Thursday. At the meeting there were resolutions; but there will be no tort reform, just a review of market pricing every six months for the next two years. I would argue that we need a detailed inquiry now; we need action now; we need insurance cover now for the communities and the community organisations.It is clear that insurance companies are planning to make money out of the low-risk organisations by increasing their premiums by, as I said, between 100 and 500 per cent. The high-risk organisations are being told that they will not be covered or are being quoted premiums so high that they cannot afford to pay. This creaming is destroying the community spirit of this country.It has been put to me that the remaining public liability insurers—post the HIH collapse—meet to divide the market and agree on premiums. There seems to be too great a similarity between insurance companies as to the areas that get coverage and those that do not. This collusion must be investigated and stopped immediately. Is it true that underwriters are warning companies to stay away from the United States, Canada and New South Wales, in particular in this country, because of the litigious nature of these jurisdictions? This is a warning to us all that something has to change. Litigation and large payouts are reducing or eliminating the insurance cover available in some jurisdictions.Tasmania is also behind the eight ball in that it is affected by insurance companies making decisions in Melbourne or Sydney without knowledge of Tasmanian organisations or the environment in which they operate. I would like to quote from an article in today's Mercury entitled `Liability, the horse that bolted', which states the example of Luiz Menezes of Kingston, in my electorate, who runs a commercial riding school. He has public liability insurance which five years ago through TGIO cost him $250. The article states:When TGIO withdrew, he had to switch to a mainland broker and the following year his premium rose to $3000. Now he pays $7000 a year.He had recently received an invitation to `reinsure through Lloyds of London when his insurance expires in December'. The article continues:But the premium was to be $14,000. He said getting public liability insurance was becoming extremely difficult.“A lot of people will not get an invitation to reinsure,” Mr Menezes said.He believed public liability insurance would be unavailable in Australia soon, forcing people to look overseas.“What do you do, fly by the seat of your pants [uninsured], or pay the huge premiums?” Mr Menezes said.“I haven't a clue which way to go.“It's taken me 27 years to set my business up.“I have been a coach for 35 years—what am I going to do?”I was also appalled to hear that the Police and Citizens Youth Club on Bruny Island has ceased operations. Other PCYCs have ceased their martial arts and football programs, reverting to eight ball and other benign activities. The fabric of the good that these clubs are doing is being torn apart. We stand to transfer our youth from these activities to less acceptable activities if we do not fix this problem. It gives me great pleasure to support this motion and to repeat my call for an urgent inquiry into insurance company collusion in the setting of premiums and the allocation of market share.13:32:002903Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I applaud the member for Corangamite for his motion today because this issue is of grave concern to all of us, as we have all heard. The related issues are that volunteer and small, not-for-profit groups cannot pay premiums; small business in all its forms cannot pay premiums; providers of essential services in areas such as the health sector cannot pay the premiums; and local government, the deliverer of many services, cannot pay premiums. But in all cases the brunt of this problem is probably being borne most significantly in country areas. Although the metropolitan areas are affected admittedly to a degree, this is a classic country problem because of where we are and the way in which our various community structures operate, in that they are generally volunteer organisations and small businesses. Many organisations in many of our electorates have closed their doors and many more are threatening to close.This issue threatens the social fabric of country Australia. We have the problem for a variety of reasons, some of which are known and have been espoused: the HIH collapse, September 11 in 2001 and reinsurance cost increases. However, the real reason that has become obvious is that Australians are no longer taking responsibility for their own actions. The member for Gilmore referred to this problem during her speech this afternoon. It also encompasses increasing litigation, law firms advertising and touting for business, a widening interpretation of the principles of negligence, erosion of the concept of personal accountability, and growth in the culture of blame. These are all reasons for the problems that we are currently experiencing. There are various prospective solutions, all to be found around the following principles: that it is a state issue, that the Commonwealth has a limited role in the sense of acting as catalyst to bring the states together, and that the Commonwealth can also prospectively assist through the activities of APRA and the ACCC. In essence, though, the answers appear to all be at state level. Ideally we would have all state jurisdictions adopt a series of principles which would provide the basis of a common approach across all jurisdictions.In the National Party working group that worked on public liability earlier this year, we identified specific legislative options that the states and territories could now introduce, all of which should apply to claims for personal injuries. Firstly, there would be an exemption from liability for the acts of volunteers and smaller community organisations. I am pleased to see that some of the states are already considering those processes. Next would be the introduction of a threshold, the introduction of a cap and the use of structured settlements to incorporate lump-sum payments and annuity benefits. Various measures to reduce the awards of damages would include the introduction of a discount rate that would be applicable to claims for future loss, the abolition of interest on damages, and a deduction from damages awards reflecting non-refundable gains such as personal insurance policies, superannuation benefits and the like to thereby avoid double-dipping.The abolition of no-win, no-pay advertising by legal practitioners is an essential to proceed with. Currently we have law firms touting for business through hospital emergency sections—and what has anyone got to lose? The ethos of Australians making their own way has been replaced by Australians needing to make a fast buck whether or not they deserve to make a fast buck. Nobody is trying to eliminate the possibility of those people with real, long-term damages being able to access benefits. However, many of the people who get benefits are certainly not really entitled to them. As I said, we would like to see a deduction from damages awards reflecting non-refundable gains, to avoid that double-dipping. Again, the abolition of advertising needs to be entrenched in law in order for us to prevent such things as no-win, no-pay arrangements. We need improvements in pre-trial processes to maximise opportunities for settlements, with these to include exchange of expert reports, exchange of summaries of evidence to be called from experts and a compulsory mediation process. All in all, there is much work to be done to ensure that the social fabric of Australian society continues with volunteer organisations being able to deliver much needed services. (Time expired)13:37:002904Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00— In talking today about public liability insurance and the crisis in this area, I first want to say that there are a number of community groups and volunteer organisations in my electorate that are suffering very seriously from the increases in premiums that all of the honourable members have spoken about. The Daily Telegraph had a series called `The death of fun' that covered some of the sporting events, the community events, the fetes and so on that have been cancelled because of premium increases. There is no simple resolution to this problem, and I think that it is dishonest to pretend that there is. But there are some things that we can and must do as a nation. We must ensure, first of all, that the Commonwealth takes some responsibility for the crisis in this area and works cooperatively with the states instead of the duckshoving that has been going on up till now. In relation to this area, the Commonwealth reminds me a little bit of Bart Simpson when he says, `I didn't do it. I wasn't there and you can't prove I was anyway.'The Commonwealth needs to have a look at the proposals made by the states at last week's national summit on public liability insurance. Some of the tort law reform that is going on in the states must be supported, and consideration should be given to the development of a national uniform approach in that area. We also have to think about taking away the right of people who are engaged in criminal activity being able to sue if they are injured during the course of that criminal activity. It seems like commonsense, really, doesn't it? We need to ensure that the courts begin to take account of the influence of excessive drug and alcohol use on people who then go on to do stupid things and are injured in the course of doing those things. I am pleased that the ACCC is going to be monitoring the insurance industry. When we are talking about the sorts of measures I am proposing, we must ensure that they are not just one more way of the insurance companies making super profits. It is already obvious that the business of insurance companies is picking up, and it will continue to pick up. Even if we do make the changes that are being proposed by the states, we need to ensure that those changes are actually passed on in reduced premiums and not just held on to by the insurance companies. On the other hand, however, the system cannot work effectively if the trend that we seem to be pursuing now continues. Not long ago in Australia we used to laugh at examples from America where people were sued—for example, where a doctor may have been sued because he or she stopped to give aid at a car accident that he or she drove past. We thought it was ridiculous that, if someone walked on your front lawn and tripped over your hose, they could sue you. What seems to be happening in Australia now is that there is an increase in the litigiousness of our community, and these sorts of examples certainly do not seem as far-fetched as they once did. I heard an example last week of a fellow who had been sitting in the backseat of a taxi. He was very, very drunk and climbed out of the window of the taxi and was surfing on the roof of the taxi. The taxi driver turned around, saw that no-one was in the cab and stopped suddenly, wondering what happened to his passenger. The passenger fell off the roof, landed in front of the taxi and was quite seriously injured. This was settled out of court. This did not even go to court, because the taxi company did not think that they could win a case against this claim for negligence. I think we have come to an absurd situation in this country. There is also the example of the man who, after a night of drinking and taking ecstasy, dived into a sandbank at Bondi. Now Waverley Council is wondering whether it can afford to provide lifesaving on its beaches. They cannot prevent idiots who have been out drinking all night doing stupid things at the beach. I do not think anyone could claim that any level of government could protect itself from those sorts of claims if that is what we come to.I also think the size of some of these claims by people who have acted foolishly under the influence of drugs or alcohol are a real insult to the victims of crime who are able to receive a maximum of $50,000. I think it is an affront that we have these inequities in the system, especially when one takes into account the difference between someone who is sexually assaulted and the impact on her life forever and someone who has fallen off the roof of a taxi because they are too drunk to behave sensibly. We need the Commonwealth to take a leadership role that ensures that genuine victims are not disadvantaged but that brakes are put on greedy insurance companies and unscrupulous ambulance-chasing lawyers, like the ones from the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association who appear in today's Herald, using injured people to push their case with the state government. (Time expired)13:42:002906Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I commend the member for Corangamite on his motion with regard to public liability insurance, but I use this opportunity to add a further dimension to the debate on insurance generally in the country. I listened with interest to the previous speaker, the member for Sydney. She drew attention to the stupid actions which surely need reviewing in terms of payouts. But the fact remains that, at some point, the costs involved with such stupid actions have to be picked up somewhere along the line by either insurance payouts or the taxpayer.I am today submitting a motion to the Clerk. I have drafted this motion in some detail with the help of the parliamentary advisory system. The motion is seconded by the member for Kennedy and is supported by my Independent colleague from New England. It calls on the Commonwealth to use the power available to it under the Constitution with regard to insurance and to order an inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission into the best way to handle this situation. The current ad hoc approach to the crisis cannot continue. As the Prime Minister has said, the taxpayer cannot be expected to write a blank cheque for insurance, be it for doctors or public liability. But, from what I have seen so far, the measures that have been suggested may stem the flow but, in large degree, appear to be bandaid measures only.In this motion I am proposing that the parliament ask the government to request the Australian Law Reform Commission to examine the viability of a national claims act, providing a uniform national insurance claims standard with clear and particular reference to the viability of lump sum payment caps, specific criteria to assess disability, standardised damages claims under all types of insurance, the regulation of medical defence organisations as insurance companies, and changes in insurance claims from lump sum payments to income streams, annuities or structured settlements.The Australian Law Commission, directed by the Commonwealth, should be the first step in providing a concrete solution to the crisis situation that we currently face. I commend this notice of motion to honourable members for serious examination, receiving as I have today, an email from the Burraga sheep show and Oberon horse trial organisers to say that these events look like hitting the wall—and the Oberon horse trials have produced gold medal performances at the last three Olympics.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Calare will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members2906290613:45:002906Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I would like today to congratulate the Lions Club of Canberra—Kambah on the event of their 25th anniversary. I had the pleasure of attending their 25th anniversary dinner on Saturday just gone. This club was chartered on 30 April 1977 with 24 original charter members. They then came from the developing suburbs of Kambah and Wanniassa in the Tuggeranong Valley, an area which today houses over 90,000 people. In that first year the club raised $5,760 and donated to charities including the Kambah Scouts, the Lions Save-Sight Foundation and the New South Wales Muscular Dystrophy Association. They even donated blankets for distribution to needy families in the valley.The club's view of life is that for most of its members and their families the Kambah Lions Club is not just a club. It goes beyond that—the bonds of friendship are very strong. They continue to exist and the members today are doing as their past members did: raising moneys for the community in which they live. In fact they have also produced a 25-year history of their club, and Rhoda Parker needs to be congratulated for that wonderful edition that she has put together. I am enjoying reading it because there is much local history in it outside and beyond the Lions Club. I just want to take the opportunity to congratulate all past and present members of the Lions Club at Kambah and say good on them. And to all clubs similar to theirs, all success for the future. (Time expired)290713:47:002907Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10— The Bracks government happily takes and spends federal money while arrogantly disregarding its obligations to properly outline when it intends to complete the Scoresby Freeway. Federal funding for the Scoresby Freeway is the largest single expenditure item in the 2002-03 federal roads budget— the cash is already flowing. We know the project will deliver major economic benefits and support much of the work to attract investment and employment opportunities and improve living standards for the community that I represent. Honourable members interjecting—1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—The state government cannot even tell us when the southern section of the freeway connecting the Frankston Freeway to the Monash Freeway is to be completed. The section produces the greatest benefits to the community and outperforms all other sections of the freeway, and—including my hecklers here on my side of the House—we cannot even find out when that is due to be completed. While the state Labor government continues to behave as reluctant converts to be Integrated Scoresby Transport Corridor Project, I am hopeful that the Victorian government will take its responsibilities seriously and let our community know when this important section of the freeway will be completed.I might also add it is nonsense to claim, as the Bracks government does, that the much needed on-ramp at Rutherford Road to connect the industrial and commercial areas north of Frankston to the Frankston Freeway is being delayed because of the Scoresby Freeway project. It is nonsense to suggest they are connected. They are stand-alone projects, both deserving of support. We need to get that on-ramp in place and available to take full benefit of what will flow from the Scoresby transport corridor project. (Time expired)290713:48:002907Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I object to the trial by media to which the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Dr George Pell, is being subjected concerning paedophilia in the church. No mention has been made of the fact that when Dr Pell was appointed Archbishop of Melbourne he appointed an independent commission to investigate allegations of sexual abuse in the diocese. He created a compensation panel and he set up a counselling and support service for victims of sexual abuse.It is a national scandal that people placed in a position of trust of young people betray this trust in the form of sexual abuse. Society, as well as churches, must continue to work to stamp out this disease in our society. People who are paedophiles must be subject to the full force of civil law. But, more importantly, victims of paedophilia must be granted every assistance to recover from their horrendous experience.290713:49:002907Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I would like to take this opportunity to commend the heroic actions of one of my constituents Mr Joe Amodeo from my electorate of Makin. On Thursday, 30 May 2002 a Cessna 150 Aerobat aircraft crash landed into a light pole at the front of Joe's home in Pooraka. The aircraft had been stolen from Parafield Gardens airport.Although Joe did not expect to find any survivors, he rushed over to the aircraft and immobilised it by switching off the electronics and turning off the fuel. According to a newspaper report in the Adelaide Advertiser, Joe, a recreational pilot for more than 25 years, dragged the pilot from the crashed aircraft onto grass about 30 metres from the scene:He [the pilot] was drifting in and out of consciousness,' he said. `I just kept talking to him and asking him what had happened. He said he was learning to fly and he took it for a joy ride.' Mr Amodeo and a neighbour then covered the pilot, who was soaked in petrol, with a jacket and waited for paramedics to arrive at the scene.What Joe and his neighbours in Pooraka did was an unselfish and heroic act for the safety of the community without thinking of their own safety. I am very proud of them and commend them on their actions for the safety of our community.290813:50:002908Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—The other day as I drove along Cabramatta Road, Cabramatta, past the Free Serbian Orthodox church, I noticed a funeral was taking place. The flower draped hearse and mourning cars were surrounded by family and friends attending the funeral of a loved one. What also caught my eye was a bus stop advertisement directly outside the church. The ad showed the exposed outstretched leg of a woman with a caption `die smiling'. The ad was deliberately suggestive and, I would think, any reasonable person would consider it inappropriate in that location.Further along Cabramatta Road I came to the Chinese Buddhist temple, a place where the ashes of deceased members of the community are interred. A similar bus stop ad showed a buxom young woman in a lace bra—again, I would think an inappropriate location for such an ad. It struck me that, had these advertisements been placed outside St Andrews Cathedral in Sydney last Friday, there would have been an immediate outcry. But it seems that advertisers are not as sensitive when it comes to the sacred sites and places of worship of people from other cultures.290813:52:002908Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I rise to express my concern about last night's 60 Minutes program entitled `Loss of faith'. The program referred to child sex abuse and the inference that the Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, was involved in a cover-up. As MPs, we are justly criticised if we abuse the forms of the House to lay down unsubstantiated allegations. The use of the media to air allegations without sound evidence is equally offensive to those who believe that the essence of our democratic freedoms must be protected, in contrast to perpetuating the growing number of cases of trial by media insinuation or speculation. There is a propensity in the media these days to allow it to be used by individuals or fringe groups looking to smear public figures. Often this is done under the guise of newsworthiness, public interest or being a messenger of the news. Whatever the reason, all of us who can command the airwaves have a common public responsibility for truth and justice. The use of innuendo through selective questioning, editing and production can be designed to discredit individuals or at least cast doubt on their credibility. This morning Archbishop Pell laid out the events and his account of what took place. I look forward to the media's frenzy being tempered with an eye on judicial fair play— not for the sake of the archbishop alone, nor the Catholic Church, but, importantly, for the sake of the victims and their families, who have had to suffer and deal with the effects of such abuse for many years. The allegations and subsequent charges against the perpetrators of these heinous crimes are indeed serious, and those guilty deserve the full weight of the law to come down upon them. Yet that is a matter for our legal system. (Time expired)290813:54:002908Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—On the weekend I had the opportunity to attend the 90th anniversary celebrations of the Jewish cultural centre, Kadimah. Kadimah was formed in 1911, first in Bourke Street, just down the road from the Victorian parliament. Its founders were predominantly recently arrived immigrants from Poland, Eastern Europe and Russia. English and Hebrew were initially the preferred languages of the majority of members and Yiddish was looked down on by some of the members of the organisation at that time. Ten years later, in 1921, one of the major international figures of the Yiddish literary renaissance, Perets Hirshbayn, arrived in Australia. It will surprise the Speaker and this parliament to know that he was greeted like a movie star. This proved to be the harbinger of things to come for that organisation. They had many other very famous people arrive throughout the decades, including the poet Melekh Ravich and the pedagogue Yosef Giligich. The first Yiddish book was published by this organisation in Australia. It was Der Oystralisher Almanach, the Australian Almanac. The Kadimah also organised the first commemoration of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising on 19 April 1945 at war's end. The organisation expanded dramatically in the postwar period when many new Australians came. They were called `Der Grine' by the existing members of the Kadimah. Arthur Calwell, the then minister for immigration, was said to have told Mr Leo Fink, one of the benefactors of the organisation, that members of the organisation had a lot of cousins in Poland. (Time expired)290913:55:002909Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10— The participation rate of women in the work force is at one of its highest levels, and to maintain this level in the current strong economic climate we need to develop workplace practices that encourage women's participation in the work force while creating no penalty against them for their decision to manage both family and a career. Job sharing provides opportunities for working mothers to coordinate their career and family time. It also provides an opportunity to increase the participation of more mature part-time workers in the work force. Not only would there be an exchange of skills between the two, there could also be an exchange of life knowledge. It would help to reposition mature age employees in the work force and provide for growth in the labour market area.Job sharing is not about solving the paid maternity leave issue but about finding measures that enable women to combine work and family and about enhancing the skill base of Australia. It is a win-win situation. It encourages opportunity for a range of workers rather than for a subset. Workplace policy needs to accommodate changes in our work force culture. There is also need to increase our birthrate, while the average age of our population means that more mature age people will remain in the work force for much longer. Rather than advocating paid maternity leave as the standard, we need to consider making changes that will benefit all players in the workplace environment.290913:57:002909Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—Today marks the 10th anniversary of the High Court's landmark Mabo decision, which recognised the native title rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and overturned the idea of terra nullius. The Mabo decision paved the way for the introduction by the Labor government of the Native Title Act, which set our nation on track to rectify the dispossession of all Aboriginal people from their lands. However, this government chose to weaken, attack and destroy the process of consultation and informed consent rather than committing to constructive courses and strengthening policy in its 1997 Native Title Amendment Bill, which was shamefully passed by this parliament.But we must not let the government's attempts to dismantle native title rights of indigenous Australians overshadow this most significant decision of the High Court. Before this decision, the law considered that Australia was uninhabited before the arrival of white settlers. Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were thrown off their land and denied fundamental property rights. We cannot underestimate the enormous impact this has had on indigenous Australians and its influence on the very dispossession that so many suffer. We must look at today's anniversary as a celebration of fixing a gross injustice, but we must not lose sight of the enormous work ahead in rectifying the very real problems many indigenous Australians continue to face. Eddie Mabo died before the decision of the High Court was handed down. It is a shame he never saw the fruits of his campaign. I salute his work and congratulate those who continue his fight for the recognition of indigenous people's claim for their land.290913:58:002909Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise today to highlight the excellent work of the Central Coast Environment Network under the stewardship of John Asquith, the chairman, Diane Warman, the project coordinator, Michael Ward, assistant coordinator, and Terry Southwell, also assistant coordinator. They, along with the other people who work for the Central Coast Environment Network and the many hundreds of volunteers who are coordinated through that network, are out there tirelessly working to protect and enhance the Central Coast environment. Some of the initiatives which we have recently been able to fund under the Natural Heritage Trust are $110,000 for the extension of the wildlife corridors, a very important project on the Central Coast; $117,000 for the Waterwatch program; and $35,000 for Landcare support. Under the federal government's extended $2.5 billion Natural Heritage Trust, there are many new initiatives coming on stream. The Australian government Envirofund has recently been announced, and applications close on 5 June. This is an excellent project. None of this would have been possible if it had not been for the partial sale of Telstra, and that money is being used to protect and enhance the environment on the Central Coast and elsewhere throughout Australia. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Ministerial Arrangements291014:00:002910Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister will be absent from question time today, Tuesday and Wednesday. He is representing the government at Samoa's 40th anniversary of independence celebrations. The Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government will answer questions on his behalf. I also the inform the House that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. He is attending the fourth preparatory committee meeting to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Indonesia. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice2910291014:01:002910Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer agree with the Minister for Finance and Administration that paid maternity leave is middle-class welfare and therefore should be opposed, or does he support paid maternity leave? 2910Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have been asked for my view on maternity leave in the past and I will restate it, which is that I think those employers who are able to pay for maternity leave give a very valuable service to employees. It is available in big business, it is available in the public sector, and it is of great advantage to those that are able to benefit from it. My concern is, and always has been, for small business. If a small business running close to the line on profitability were in a position where it was obliged to pay two wages for one position it would find that a very significant cost. At the end of the day, it would affect profitability and it would affect employment. That is why the government and big business have been able to do it, because they have the resources, and it is why you do not find it prevalent in small business.291014:02:002910Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. As today is the 10th anniversary of the High Court's historic Mabo decision, would the minister inform the House of the progress being made by the government in relation to indigenous land issues? Will the minister also inform the House of the progress being made on reducing indigenous disadvantage through practical reconciliation measures?2910Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question on this 10th anniversary of the High Court's historic decision in Mabo and note the member's interest in these matters, knowing that he represents Kurnell in Sydney and has been associated with many significant events that acknowledge the importance of the indigenous involvement with that part of Sydney. Of course, like the 1967 referendum, the Mabo decision was a turning point in relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. It rewrote our property law, it recognised indigenous rights to land as part of our common law, but, without a statutory reinforcement in the form of native title, the potential for Mabo could have been quite quickly eroded. Parliament enacted the Native Title Act in response to that decision, and in 1998 significant amendments to that original legislation were enacted to reflect developments in the law, particularly as a result of the Wik decision. In 1998, those amendments paved the way for greater certainty and improved workability of the native title process. The steps that we took then are now bearing fruit. As at 29 May, there have been 41 determinations of native title across Australia. In addition, there have been 48 indigenous land use agreements that have been registered with a further 24, as I understand it, in the pipeline at this time. As well, we have seen some 2,700 agreements with developers and native title parties relating to future development activity. Prior to 1998, progress was painstakingly slow. There had only been three determinations in a period of four years. So we have shifted the focus away from litigation to negotiation and agreement, which would not have been possible without those 1998 amendments. And, of course, combined with land purchases and the various statutory rights schemes, over 15 per cent of Australia and almost half of the Northern Territory is now owned or controlled by indigenous people. A further involvement has been with the Indigenous Land Corporation, which receives some $50 million per year for land acquisition and management. Of course the more important question which all of us ought to focus on is why, as a result of all these significant changes, we have not seen, in relation to those who have acquired interest in land, significant changes in their situation and circumstances. I think, as a number of leading articles have said over the weekend, there is a need for an effort to ensure that landownership adds to the social and economic wellbeing of indigenous people. I can assure you that the Commonwealth is committed to reviewing particularly the 1977 Northern Territory land rights act which has been successful in returning land. That has been primarily useful in relation to spiritual and cultural issues in protecting sacred sites and has been far less successful in providing any other form of benefits. I hope that there will be ready cooperation in relation to securing negotiated outcomes that can be helpful. But the more important aspect has been the government's approach to obtaining better social and economic outcomes from indigenous land as well as our generous and general policies for indigenous affairs. We are committed to improving health, employment, education and housing, as well as infrastructure, and we have provided very significant additional funds—some $327 million—to tackle welfare dependency, as well as improving housing, health and resources to streamline the native title system. An increase of $67 million for indigenous affairs in the last budget, which was announced previously, brings something of the order of $2.5 billion worth of expenditure for indigenous specific programs and services. We are taking an innovative approach to these issues and that has been acknowledged. I note particularly some comments of Noel Pearson, where he said the so-called `rights agenda' had, I think, little to offer in comparison to new policy directions. He noted that Labor had not evidenced a willingness to change in relation to those matters. He said:... a much more important starting point for any national government is to recognise that substance abuse epidemics are today not merely symptoms of Aboriginal disadvantage ... but self-perpetuating disasters in their own right ...He called for a focus on improving indigenous health and tackling passive welfare, and he acknowledged that this government has taken the first steps in this direction. I noted particularly his complimentary comments of the Leader of the House for committing in his portfolio funds for family income management, particularly in Cape York. He gives far more credit, I think, to the coalition in these matters than he does to my opponent, who has been writing recently.291214:08:002912Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, do you recall opposing paid maternity leave at a recent retail employers conference in Queensland, saying that it would be a discriminatory measure? Minister, given that 70 per cent of women in childbearing years are working, why will you not join Labor to support mothers and their children with paid maternity leave?2912Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I am all in favour of a fair deal for families with children and that is precisely what this government has provided: a very fair deal for families with children. In our first budget, we massively boosted benefits to families with children and, in the Treasurer's outstanding budget just a couple of weeks ago, we implemented the baby bonus, which means that women leaving the work force to have children can receive up to $2,500 a year courtesy of this government's policy. This government is doing the right thing by families with children; it is doing the right thing by the working parents of this country.291214:10:002912Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House what steps the government has taken to expand share ownership in the Australian community. Is the Treasurer aware of any policy proposals that threaten existing shareholders?2912Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. I can inform him that the government has put in place a number of steps to encourage share ownership amongst the Australian public. The first thing we did was cut capital gains tax for individuals so that people that buy shares are only taxed at their marginal rate on half of the capital gained. In addition to that, we abolished stamp duty on share transfers, we introduced scrip for scrip rollover relief and, probably the thing that has done more than anything else to encourage Australians to take out shares, we offered Australians the opportunity to take shares in one of Australia's great corporations, the Telstra Corporation.According to the Australian Stock Exchange, around 41 per cent of Australians now have direct share ownership compared to 32 per cent in the United States and 31 per cent in New Zealand. Australia has the highest per capita share ownership in the world. We can say that the one group that has brought that about more than anything else is the first time share investors in Telstra Corporation. In Telstra 1, 560,000 Australians came into the sharemarket for the first time, and the second tranche introduced more than 300,000 first time investors—nearly one million new investors, none of whom would have had the opportunity to own shares for the first time if the Labor Party had been successful. I think there is a general recognition in this House that the current ownership situation with Telstra is untenable.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Melbourne certainly shares that view.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Where's John Anderson? You're only saying that because he's not here. Where is he? Where's the National Party?CT4Mr COSTELLO—He interjects loudly, no doubt to reinforce his view, as he said on 23 May—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—You've got no guts at all.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne does not need me to remind him of his obligations.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for Melbourne!CT4Mr COSTELLO—He always shouts loudest when he knows what is coming. On 23 May 2002, the member for Melbourne said:There is no question that the current situation is seriously inadequate and that we have to address those problems.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Not about ownership.CT4Mr COSTELLO—`Not about ownership,' he says.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—And what about competition?CT4Mr COSTELLO—One of the propositions the member for Melbourne puts forward is to strip everything that is valuable out of Telstra and return, with nationalisation, the unprofitable parts to government ownership. In other words, the whole service provision will be privatised and what is left will be given back to government ownership. As Bob Mansfield, the chairman of Telstra, said, as quoted in the Weekend Australian on the weekend:Telstra is not now a business with telegraph poles running wire. It's now a wholly integrated jigsaw puzzle of IT capability. How the hell do you split it and still maintain the scale factor, not only scale factor in Australia, the scale factor to compete globally?The Labor Party, which has apparently discovered economic ownership, now even has a spokesman who is in charge of promoting economic ownership. The first thing that he commits himself to, as part of his spread of economic ownership, is nationalisation in relation to Telstra. That is the first thing he does. He does not have the courage to stand up and take Labor Party policy on in relation to this. So we have the Labor Party on the one hand committing itself to nationalisation and, on the other hand, to asset stripping Telstra as a consequence. All of this is designed to make it acceptable to the people of Parramatta.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Why didn't you talk about Telstra when Anderson was here? You have no guts at all!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne must be well aware that I have exercised a great deal of tolerance in his persistent interjections on the Treasurer. He will desist.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Labor Party's policy on Telstra is closer to Pyongyang than it is to Parramatta. It is one of the last political parties in the world that believes in the nationalisation of telephone companies. In order to maintain the facade that, on the one hand, it wants a nationalised company but, on the other hand, it is forward- and modern-thinking, it has proposed an asset strip in relation to Telstra that would have made Alan Bond proud. We agree with the member for Melbourne and those other speakers on the weekend who said that it is necessary to resolve the ownership in relation to Telstra, but I would recommend to those so-called modern thinkers on the front bench of the Labor Party that they take some of the advice from Mr Mansfield: Telstra is not now a business with telegraph poles running wire; it is now a wholly integrated jigsaw puzzle of IT capability. The sooner the Labor Party recognises that, the better.291314:16:002913Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that since December 1999 foreign minister Downer has been stating that Australia would move rapidly to ratify the Rome statute establishing the International Criminal Court? Prime Minister, are you aware of comments made this morning by the member for Mackellar, Bronwyn Bishop, that ratifying the statute would undermine Australian sovereignty? Is the Prime Minister also aware of statements by Julie Bishop, Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, that Australia should ratify the Rome statute as soon as possible? Prime Minister, which of the two Bishops do you support?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Before I recognise the Prime Minister, I remind the member for Griffith of his obligation to refer to members by their electoral seats.2913Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I support the government's policy.291314:17:002913Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Grey will resume his seat.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Grey was asked to resume his seat solely because of the intervention of the member for Swan.HV5Mr WAKELIN—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of discussions held last week in Canberra with the Prime Minister of Thailand on the joint activities both countries are undertaking to tackle the issue of people-smuggling? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?2914Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the member for Grey for his question. I recognise the stalwart work that he does in support of the government's policies on people-smuggling. The member for Grey has been unequivocal in his support of protecting Australia's borders. Thailand is one of Australia's closest regional partners, and that applies in the fight against people-smuggling as well as in many other activities. The visit of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin to Australia last week was not only a very great success but it provided an opportunity for the government to discuss people-smuggling issues with Prime Minister Thaksin, as we had done the previous week in Bangkok.Thailand is leading the development of the practical work program agreed at the Bali regional conference, including in areas like information and intelligence sharing, law enforcement, border management and return operations. We particularly congratulate the Thais on the work they are doing as chair of one of the two working groups that were established in Bali. One manifest example of Thailand's cooperation with Australia on people-smuggling is the arrest of the notorious people-smuggler, Hasan Ayoub, with the case for his extradition to Australia currently before the Thai courts. We very much appreciate the assistance that Thailand has been providing. That is in addition to assistance from countries like Indonesia and Malaysia as well. The honourable member for Grey asked whether there are any alternative approaches, and that makes one reflect on the Labor Party, because the Labor Party apparently has an alternative approach. I noticed at the weekend that the Queensland Labor Party state conference passed a motion that supports an end to the current system of detention. I also note that the Leader of the Opposition, who had been booed at the conference the previous day, scurried away and did not stand and defend the case that he apparently argued, that he somehow supports the policy of detention. The situation now is that the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party and the Queensland branch of the Labor Party are both against the policy of detention. The Queensland and New South Wales branches of the Labor Party say that people who come illegally to Australia should be allowed out into the community. The Leader of the Opposition's authority on this issue has twice been overturned by major state conferences. I remind the House that on 6 February, on the Sunrise program, the Leader of the Opposition said:No one that I have heard has argued for the abolition of mandatory detention.Have you heard of anyone now, Mr Speaker, who the Leader of the Opposition himself may have heard arguing for the abolition of mandatory detention? Here is a party deeply divided. I have noticed, though, that the member for Lalor, who I think is the spokesperson on immigration, after the Queensland Labor Party conference said:We—that is, the Labor Party—like to do our politics in style and that is the style of state conferences.She then went on to say disingenuously, if ever there were a disingenuous comment:The debate was one about terminology.The same sort of theme came from the member for Rankin, who apparently is the Leader of the Opposition's closest adviser and confidant. I read in the newspapers that some people back there are not very happy about that. However, what the member for Rankin said after the Labor Party rolled the Leader of the Opposition was:What I am encouraged about is the degree of common ground—on this issue. The member for Griffith, who is always a laugh a minute, said:There's a lot of agreement in that room.It is hardly surprising that, sitting quietly up the back there, hardly saying a word other than the occasional point of order, is the member for Brand, just waiting to swoop.291414:23:002914Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister confirm reports that the former Liberal Premier of South Australia, John Olsen, has been appointed to a quarter of a million dollar-plus diplomatic post as the next consul general in Los Angeles? Minister, is this the same Mr Olsen who was forced to resign from politics last year because he provided misleading, inaccurate and dishonest evidence to the South Australian Motorola inquiry? Minister, is it also a fact that you have now employed on your own staff Mr Olsen's former senior adviser, Mr Chris Kenny?2915Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—This is the same Mr Olsen who the Premier of South Australia, Mr Rann, said the other day he would welcome to a diplomatic appointment of this kind. What do you have to say to that? This is not the same Mr Olsen who would get a quarter of a million dollar a year salary. This is the Mr Olsen who will get an annual salary at SES band 2 of the Public Service which, off the top of my head—and I had a look not long ago—is about $126,000 a year. This is the same government that, when it has made political appointments to diplomatic posts, pays people at the rate that public servants would be paid if they were in those jobs. You were members of a government which, when you appointed politicians to diplomatic posts, paid them at the level of secretaries. We changed that policy. Mr Olsen will be paid at an SES band 2.2 level whereas—under Labor—you paid your political appointees at the level of secretary. My last point is that that was a pretty cheap question because Mr Olsen did an enormous amount to contribute to the recovery of the South Australian economy after the devastation of the Bannon years. After the Bannon government put the state into hock, Mr Olsen, along with his predecessor Mr Brown, helped to restore credibility to the South Australian economy and to bring investment and growth to the state. He has done South Australia proud and he will do Australia proud.291514:26:002915Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister inform the House whether the government intends maintaining its policy on the mandatory detention of unlawful arrivals? As part of a wider government strategy, has this policy been successful in achieving its objectives of maintaining the integrity of Australia's borders? Is the minister aware of any obstacles that could prevent this policy from being maintained?2915Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Parkes for his question because it gives me an opportunity to assure the House that the government is firmly committed to maintaining the integrity of our borders. Of course, up until now, an important aspect of being able to maintain the integrity of our borders has been to ensure that if people arrive in Australia without authority, they are detained until such time as we are able to deal with a number of matters, particularly their health, character and any potential security risk that may be associated with their presence, to ensure that people are available for processing and to ensure that, if they have no lawful basis to remain in Australia, they are available for removal.That very important public policy has had very strong support in this parliament over a long period and there are very good reasons for that. First, the strategy that we have used has worked. When we see the strategy, it is not just about detention and mandatory detention; it is about working with other countries of first asylum to deal with burden sharing issues. It is about working with transit countries to ensure that people only travel properly documented and with authority, and Operation Relex has also been a very important part of the strategy for dealing with these issues. I can assure the member that there have been very important advances in relation to that. The policy is working. There have been no boat arrivals on the Australian mainland since August last year. There have been none to our territories since November. That is a very significant and beneficial position to be in.I cannot say that is not going to change. I noticed New Zealand is embarking on an overseas information campaign at the moment to draw to the attention of people the dangers of these sorts of voyages, which can be life taking. These are not matters that are only of concern to us; they have been of concern to others. The reasons are very clear: other countries that have not been able to take the same action that we have been able to take are in a very much more disadvantaged position than we have been in. Our position has been essentially manageable and it has been manageable because of the policies that we have put in place.I notice that there are some who argue that we ought to adopt the failed policies that have been used in Europe. The United Kingdom had 88,000 asylum seekers last year— twice what they had five years ago. They have lost track of more than 270,000 failed asylum seekers. France received 47,000 claims last year—up from something of the order of 21,000 five years ago. More than 90 per cent of people who are rejected asylum seekers in France cannot be located when people look for them to send them home.Mandatory detention has been a very important part of the program that was introduced by governments to deal with these issues. It was introduced first by a Labor government faced with fewer numbers of arrivals than we have seen in recent times. I am surprised that members of the Labor Party seem to have difficulty in being able to defend this policy in their own councils. Let me just say that, if they need some help in marshalling the arguments to be able to put these matters properly and forcefully, I would be willing to assist.The most compelling argument that you should be putting to the members of your own councils when they take to moving motions on this important area of public policy is that nobody ought to be encouraging policies or approaches that would encourage the people smugglers, those who trade in people's lives—and they do: 350 people lost their lives being trafficked into Australia—in their insidious trade. The fact is that they watch very closely for any suggestion that there are likely to be changes in public policy here in Australia. You only have to look back over some of the closely fought elections in the past to see the way in which the boat numbers ebbed and flowed when people thought there might be a change in public policy in Australia.Let me make it very clear: if the Labor Party want to keep on encouraging unlawful movement into Australia and to undermine the policies that are working, they should engage in this sort of insidious debate, which will hold out to the smugglers that there is some prospect of change if there were ever to be a change of government in Australia.291614:33:002916McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer remember boasting to this House on the occasion of an interest rate fall, and I quote:Today this government delivers again.Treasurer, if you claimed the credit for delivering interest rate cuts, will you also accept the responsibility for delivering the interest rate increases being forecast by many—including the Prime Minister—which will cost families already under significant financial pressure an extra $200 a month?2916Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—We are fascinated by the Labor Party asking questions about interest rates because this government will put its record on the question of interest rates up against the Labor Party on any occasion. When this government was elected, the home mortgage variable interest rate was 10½ per cent. Today, it is 6¼ per cent—4¼ per cent below. But that was the low point for the Australian Labor Party. Let us remind the Labor Party of its real achievement in relation to interest rates, because I do not think there has been an achievement in modern Australia that compares to it.The Australian Labor Party had interest rates at 17 per cent in 1990—17 per cent. In relation to the business overdraft rate, it was 21 per cent and 22 per cent. Even at today's rates of 6¼ per cent, these are the lowest interest rates in 30 years. It was not as if the economy was not growing when Labor was presiding over 10½ per cent back in 1994 or 1995. It was not as if we had actually been through a global recession in 1994 and 1995. It was not as if Asia had been through a financial downturn in 1994 and 1995. It was not as if we had been through a terrorist attack. No, Asia was booming, the world was booming, the Australian economy was growing and the lowest that the Australian Labor Party managed to get interest rates was 10½ per cent. People actually forget—83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—You just led on from Keating's reforms.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The shadow minister for foreign affairs says that the reason why things are all so good is that it is all Mr Keating's good work. The member for Fraser says things are going bad and it is all the government; you say it is all going well and it is Mr Keating's responsibility. They have you coming and going, these fellows over there.Back in 1991, shortly after the Labor Party had taken Australian interest rates to 17 per cent and given Australia the recession which it had to have, the member for Fraser came back from a meeting of the IMF to pontificate about Australia's economy. He said:Last week, I had the opportunity to represent Australia at meetings of the IMF and the World Bank in Washington. Such occasions tend to put domestic concerns into perspective. Three things struck me during the course of these meetings: first, we should never forget our relatively favourable situation. As I have said before in these articles, when compared to the problems of Mali, Peru or Bangladesh, all Australians should rejoice in our good fortune.Back in 1991, the Australian Labor Party used to compare Australia with Mali, Peru and Bangladesh. I do not think you would ever hear a coalition minister walk to the dispatch box and say, `Things are going well compared to Mali or Bangladesh.' These days we do tend to compare ourselves with developed economies, rather than with Mali, Peru and Bangladesh. Even in relation to developed economies, Australia is doing pretty well. We will be the fastest growing economy amongst the advanced industrial economies in the next year. We no longer have to compare ourselves to Mali, Peru and Bangladesh.Australia is growing strongly. Our unemployment rate is low. Our interest rates are at a 30-year low at the current position. We did not have interest rates with a six or a seven in front of them when the government was elected; it was 10½ per cent under the Australian Labor Party. We have paid back $62 billion of the Labor Party's debt. We have come through the global slowdown of the US economy. We stood out during the Asian financial crisis. At every step of the way the Australian Labor Party fought this coalition in relation to good economic policy. We will not stand by and let the Australian Labor Party try and defeat good measures in the future. We intend to fight for the outcome of our budget, fight for Australia's future and look after Australian families.291714:38:002917Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Has the government examined whether registered organisations under the Workplace Relations Act should have explicit representation inside government? Is the government likely to change its position? Minister, have there been any recent developments and is there any alternative policy in this area?2917Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Hume for his question, and I note that he is a member of the Meat Workers Union in the days when unions were much better at representing ordinary Australians than they are now. It must be a real relief for the Leader of the Opposition that it is parliament today, because he is scared of the booing and jeering that he now gets every time he fronts a Labor Party conference. Last weekend he was mugged backstage at the Sydney Town Hall. This weekend the Queensland Labor conference resembled a S11 rally, except that the hate figure was not George Bush; it was Simon Crean. We even have the member for Brand—`Comeback Kim'—stalking the corridors of this building, talking up the 60-40 rule in opposition to the Leader of the Opposition. These days, the only people who give the Leader of the Opposition a polite hearing are coalition MPs, because that is the kind of people we are.According to the logic of the Leader of the Opposition, if the government were to give BHP and other big companies a 60 per cent shareholding in the coalition parties that would be a disaster, but if we were to reduce BHP to 50 per cent that would somehow make us a modern political party. Let me state for the record that this government will never, ever give any outside group any influence whatsoever in the councils of the coalition parties.The Leader of the Opposition set up for himself a leadership test which he is now comprehensively flunking. He is flunking his own test. He goes along to the Labor conference and talks about a 50-50 rule. Then he has a secret meeting in a Gold Coast penthouse with the union heavies from Queensland and he talks about giving unions even more representation inside the Labor Party. On this issue, the Leader of the Opposition is now telling more stories than Enid Blyton.Let us get it very clear: 13 per cent of the Australian population are union members, but 100 per cent of members opposite are union members. If you look at the Leader of the Opposition's own frontbench, you will see that he has got 11 former union officials, he has got seven former party officials, he has got seven former political staffers, and that leaves just four former public sector employees to represent the real people of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition's campaign to reduce union representation is a fake; it is as phoney as his attempt to deepen his voice. It is not fooling anyone except a few union dinosaurs with tiny brains.291814:43:002918McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that last Thursday the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board found that Mr John Star, the administrator of National Textiles, a company chaired by the Prime Minister's brother `failed to adequately investigate and report on the property, affairs and financial circumstances' of the company as required by the Corporations Act? Given that the taxpayers of Australia paid millions of dollars to satisfy debts owed by the company, aren't they entitled to know why the letter of the law has not been applied in the administration of the company's affairs? Prime Minister, will you order an independent inquiry to discover why creditors were not properly informed of their options to recover their money from National Textiles directors, including your brother, Mr Stanley Howard?2918Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware of the finding of the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board. I am also aware, as I am sure the member for Barton is aware, that an independent ASIC investigation was carried out into National Textiles in August 2000. This was an independent investigation—the very thing that you have contemplated. It found that the evidence did not warrant action against former or existing directors and that any attempt to set aside the deed of company arrangement would not be in the public interest.I remind the member for Barton and others interested in this that the financial assistance that was extended to that company went entirely towards meeting the employee entitlements. I also remind him that your former leader, the member for Brand, went to a meeting of the employees of that company and exhorted the government to do the very thing it ended up doing. The money that we contributed to help the workers, not the directors, was matched dollar for dollar by the Labor Party.I happened to be in the Hunter at the weekend attending a number of functions in Newcastle and Charlestown. The people of that district, as they always do, afforded me a very courteous welcome indeed. As I gazed out at the audience, I saw a number of members of the opposition and also a larger number of members from my side of politics there, which indicates the changing political face of the Hunter Valley. As I launched a community partnership between that wonderful organisation Lifeline and Lend Lease at the Charlestown shopping centre, one of the faces I saw was that of Mr Richard Face, the Minister for Gaming and Racing and minister assisting the Premier of New South Wales in matters relating to the affairs and interests of the people of the Hunter Valley. The reason why I fixed my eyes on Mr Face, as I looked around that audience, is that I remembered that, at the height of the difficulties being suffered by the workers of National Textiles, he wrote me a very passionate letter urging the government to provide financial help to meet the workers' entitlements. I am proud of the fact that we helped the workers of that company, as we helped the workers of Ansett. They are policies designed to help the interests of Australian workers, and I am proud of what we did.291914:47:002919Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House what last week's agreement between Thailand and Australia to begin negotiations for a closer economic relations agreement could mean for employment in the Australian automotive industry? Is there any impediment to these employment opportunities?2919Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the member Boothby for his question. Obviously, that part of South Australia that he represents has an interest in the benefits of international trade as far as the auto industry is concerned. I, too, have a company in my electorate that exports automotive components all around the world. This particular negotiation will deliver significant benefits and opportunities to the auto sector.This historic announcement last Thursday between Prime Minister Howard and Prime Minister Thaskin that we are going to begin negotiating a closer economic relationship agreement between Thailand and Australia adds to the already comprehensive nature of our government's engagement with the East Asian region. It should be noted that, along with the negotiations for a free trade agreement that we are currently undertaking with Singapore and along with our negotiations and discussions with China, Japan and Korea, in September this year in Brunei we will be signing a framework agreement for a CEP—closer economic partnership—with the ASEAN countries. That is something that they have not done with any other nation or group of nations before. The 10 South-East Asian countries will be signing this accord with Australia and New Zealand.The CER agreement that we are going to embark upon negotiating with Thailand is quite significant in that, as our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Thaskin described last week—and I know the previous week when I met with Prime Minister Thaskin in Bangkok that he was talking in language like an FTA-plus—they want to negotiate something that is broader and deeper than just the issue of market access.The honourable member's question was about the issue of market access for the automotive sector and, of course, there are significant elements of gain to be had. Thailand is a significant automotive manufacturer, as is Australia. They are both complementary industries in that Australia's industry focuses on manufacturing large cars; the Thai industry focuses on manufacturing small cars and light commercial vehicles. So they are quite complementary. On the Thai side, they have tariffs of around 60 to 80 per cent, which we need to negotiate down over time to give our automotive exporters and particularly our component exporters, about which the member for Boothby has a particular interest, better access into that market. We will do that during the course of the negotiations with the Thais.This, along with a whole range of other indications that we have insofar as what we are going to be doing and what we are doing in the region with Singapore, Thailand, China, Japan and Korea, is a clear indication of our commitment to the integration of our economy in the East Asian region and the benefits that can accrue, particularly in the auto sector. In fact, a couple of our major automotive manufacturers commented very quickly and quite positively about the announcement of the negotiations of a closer economic relationship between Australia and Thailand. The President of Toyota Australia, Mr Ken Asano, said:I am delighted that the Australian government is playing such an active role in working to secure access for the Australian industry in the Asia-Pacific region.Holden Australia is a very successful part of the GM organisation world wide. Holden Executive Director of Corporate Affairs, Alison Terry, said:Access to the Thailand market would be beneficial for the Australian automotive industry. Ms Terry said:The two markets could be complementary, as Australian manufacturers specialised in large passenger vehicles while Thailand primarily produced small vehicles and light trucks.There is broad industry support and there is broad support across the community.It is interesting that in this process, leading up to the announcement last week, there has been a broad basis of bipartisan support in Thailand for this. There was an announcement at the start of this negotiation when the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I were engaged with our respective counterparts in the previous government, Minister Supachai and Minister Surin Pitsuwan, in which we suggested that this would be good for both our economies. That has flowed through to the new government in Thailand. Prime Minister Thaksin, my counterpart and Minister Surakiart, the foreign minister, have all agreed that this is a good thing.Unfortunately, that does not happen in Australia. We have seen in recent times another backflip by the Australian Labor Party in their support for international engagement bilaterally through free trade agreements. Under the Labor Party in the last parliament, led by the member for Brand, there was bipartisan support for free trade agreements, but that has now completely diminished and has almost disappeared. It is something that the Australian people should be sad about.We know the reason why there has been a significant move within the Labor Party away from broad engagement in this way with our major trading partners, and it is because of the influence of the union movement in the Labor Party, because the Leader of the Opposition cannot break down the unions' 60 per cent control of the Labor Party. We all know where Doug Cameron stands on these issues. We are going ahead; we are taking Australia forward. We are engaging economically within our region and strengthening those linkages. The Australian Labor Party cannot do it because they are hamstrung by the union movement. They are controlled by the union movement. The Leader of the Opposition has failed in his one objective as the new Leader of the Australian Labor Party to reform the party: to get any balance in the management of the political branch of the Labor Party. We know where policy is formulated; it is formulated in the corridors of power in the Australian union movement. You have had two out of two losses in two appearances: once in Sydney and once in Brisbane. With the national conference to come, are you going to be able to sustain the debate on trade the way that Peter Cook and others did at the last national conference? Will you be able to beat Doug Cameron in that debate? It will be interesting to see the outcome.292014:54:002920Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Treasurer, on the question of public liability insurance. Treasurer, will you guarantee that, as part of the Commonwealth's contribution to solving the crisis in public liability insurance, you will consider additional special powers for the ACCC? Will you give the ACCC power to ensure that all the savings from tort law reform are passed on to the community organisations, the sporting groups, the consumers and the small businesses hit by surging insurance premiums, rather than merely boosting insurance company profits?2920Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I do not think that anybody on the government's side in this debate has been interested in boosting insurance company profits. Of course there is no basis on which that allegation should be put or can be put, other than the honourable member's imagination. This government has responded to a situation which has a combination of factors: firstly, the fallout from September 11, which has made reinsurance around the world more expensive; secondly, an increased tendency towards litigation by individuals—BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—Your mates.CT4Mr COSTELLO—My mates, are they?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Treasurer, ignore the interjection. CT4Mr COSTELLO—A juvenile interjection from the member for Lyons—thirdly, a tendency for larger verdicts to be awarded; and of course contributing factors in relation to the way in which these claims are handled in the courts. As a result of that, the Commonwealth has gathered together two forums. I believe that they have been very positive. They certainly have been welcomed by the states, and I pay tribute to the work that Senator Coonan has done in relation to that. She has achieved agreement I think from most of the Labor states about the importance of putting hurdles in the way of liability and indeed discussing the question of capping damages. That will be a long-term solution.In the short term, there has been discussion as to pooling, and I pay tribute to some of the work that some of the states have done. I think the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, who has been actively involved in this, has already informed the House of the way in which the Victorian government has offered public liability insurance which gives a pooling in relation to voluntary groups, and I think that that will be of enormous benefit.I am aware that there has been a request for an amendment to the Trade Practices Act which prohibits people who are organising adventure-type holidays from ducking liability according to contractual clauses. That has been put forward, and I think Senator Coonan has indicated that she is quite amenable to such an amendment and will be looking very carefully at it. I cannot recall whether or not she has announced it as a matter of policy.In addition to that, from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's point of view, if there are provisions which are required in relation to this matter which would otherwise be in breach of competition, it is possible for those to be looked at and either an authorisation to be given or an amendment to the statute to be made. That is a matter which is coming out of the discussions between the Commonwealth and the states which the government is advancing, and I believe that they have been very positive discussions.292114:58:002921Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister please update the House on progress made by the government in securing a free trade agreement with the United States? Is the minister aware of any alternative proposals?2921Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the member for Mallee for his question. I know that the member is very interested in the progress the government is making in our ambition to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States, particularly given that the good working relationship between our coalition government and the Bush administration has delivered extra market access—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—Dismantle the farm bill, will you?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for Corio!SU5Mr VAILE—for citrus grown in the member's electorate into those wealthier markets of the west coast. WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—Lower the steel tariffs, will you?SU5Mr VAILE—And the member for Riverina has access into those markets of the west coast of the States. The relationship that exists between our government and that of the US administration is significantly positive at the moment. I can report that on the basis of discussions I had in the margins of the APEC ministerial meeting last week with US TR Bob Zoellick. There are some very positive signs ahead in terms of the opportunities that will present themselves if we can get agreement to go ahead and negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—What? More money for the farm bill!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Corio!SU5Mr VAILE—Observers would recognise that the trade promotion authority bill has now passed through the House and the Senate and it is moving on to the conference stage of the processes in the United States. Indications are that they will produce a bill and a trade promotion authority for the administration in the coming months, which will allow them to go ahead not only to negotiate cleanly in the multilateral circumstance in the WTO but also to embark upon a range of bilateral negotiations, and we would hopefully expect one with Australia.It is important to note that the studies that have been undertaken as far as the benefits that would accrue from a free trade agreement with the United States are quite compelling. An FTA with the US would deliver up to $4 billion per annum to Australian farmers, manufacturers, tourism operators and other businesses. This is too important a policy objective to ignore, but of course again we have seen from the Labor Party the flip-flop that we have been used to over the last six or seven years in terms of policy positions. Last year when we first put to the United States, to the Bush administration, our ambitions about negotiating a free trade agreement, I was asked whether there was bipartisan support. Of course, at that time there was, because I had a meeting with the then shadow minister, Peter Cook, who provided that.This year I had further discussions with the United States, and prior to that I was asked a question by a journalist. The journalist said, `Minister, the United States—or the Bush administration—last year were very interested in whether there was bipartisan support and whether they could commit to a negotiation. It doesn't seem like you have that.' We now know we do not because the Crean-led Labor Party have moved away from that position. I said to the journalist, `That was last year. That was the middle of last year and the Bush administration were keen to see there was bipartisan support. A very important event has taken place since, and it happened on 10 November, and we won. We're now the government, and we can negotiate that.' I retold that story to Bob Zoellick, and Bob Zoellick indicated that he was a bit concerned that the Labor Party had moved away from their position of traditional in-principle policy in areas of trade— and they have, and it has actually been all over the shop.I will give you some quotes. We have seen headline after headline of Labor walking away from a commitment to free trade agreements with the United States. The member for Cunningham, in his media releases and in his personal explanations in this House, has been saying Labor really does support one, yet on 4 February he said free trade agreements with our major trading partners were `crucial' for Australian industry. He was right; he was absolutely right, and that is the position that our government takes. Then on 13 February the member for Cunningham said:The coded language in the Governor-General's address to the opening of parliament yesterday indicated that the Howard Government has no real commitment to ... a free trade agreement with the United States because it is too `difficult'.He could not be further from the truth there: we are absolutely committed because of the economic benefits that it will deliver to our economy. On 7 March he said:If Mr Howard follows the US down the road of exclusive, one-on-one trade deals, he abandons Australia's proud reputation as a global free-trader ...I can tell the member for Cunningham we are leading the way in driving the agenda in the multilateral scene in the WTO; we are driving that agenda ahead. Then in a media release on 10 May he said:A bilateral FTA with the US will do nothing for Australia's long-term trade interests.In the House on 14 May he said it was not true that he had rejected the proposed FTA with the United States. Then the Leader of the Opposition, in a media release on 23 May this year, said the FTA:... should be off the table as along as the Farm Bill is on the statute books.The Leader of the Opposition may or may not realise that the farm bill has been on the statute books since the 1930s.DT4Crean, Simon, MPSU5Mr VAILE—If he is just going to depart from the field and not put up a fight to reduce the structured mechanisms—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition!SU5Mr VAILE—that are in place that the Australian Labor Party signed off on—they signed off on them coming out of the Uruguay Round—Opposition members interjecting—SU5Mr VAILE—That is what we are up against. We are going to argue against those in a free trade agreement negotiation. We are going to argue against those in the multilateral system in the WTO. The Labor Party wants to leave the field and become isolationist and not engage with the rest of the world. But one of the other more interesting aspects of the debate about the free trade agreement with the US is that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition and we have heard from the member for Cunningham, but we have not heard from the member for Griffith on his position, because I suspect he may still support the old Peter Cook-Kim Beazley line that we should be engaging more with the United States of America.292315:05:002923Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—My question is to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, representing the Minister for Family and Community Services. Minister, will you confirm that the government will withdraw $100 million from disability services if the parliament rejects your attempt to cut the pensions of 200,000 Australians with a disability by $52 a fortnight?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Greenway will come to his question.MK6Mr MOSSFIELD—Minister, isn't it the case that, even if funding were maintained, disability services in New South Wales will close because you refuse to meet the costs of the New South Wales social and community services award?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Greenway is aware that this question is advancing more argument than is normally tolerated. He will come to his question.MK6Mr MOSSFIELD—Minister, do you support the leader of your party in New South Wales, George Souris, who called this morning for wage justice for social and community service award workers?2923Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I would like to thank the member for Greenway for his question. It certainly gives me an opportunity to outline what the government is doing in the area of disability support. The first point I would like to emphasise is that we are not altering the rate of the DSP payment to those who are eligible for it. What we are doing, though, is ensuring that those people who receive a disability support pension, particularly future people who may enter the scheme, are given every opportunity through training and rehabilitation to properly access the labour market, instead of leaving them to languish like you did in your 13-year stewardship.I would like to quote some figures. In 1992 we saw the biggest increase in disability support pensions—13.26 per cent. Wasn't that coincidental? That was just before the election in 1993. We also saw huge increases of 7.4 per cent in 1993, 6.49 per cent and on it goes. There is an absolute need, which the Australian community recognises, to ensure that we prudently provide assistance to those people on the disability support pension, rather than leaving them to languish on this type of payment, which is what you have wanted to do. You have given no assistance to these people and given them no opportunity, particularly when it comes to retraining for the labour force.I notice that recently there have been a number of comments made about the SACS Award. The Commonwealth government is absolutely committed when it comes to employment assistance. In the proposal which went through this parliament last week—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Are they getting the money?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley, the minister has the call.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—As far as the disability support pension and welfare reform are concerned, the key elements are to get the next Commonwealth disability support agreement through the Senate. With the employment assistance bill, we are going from $1.3 billion to over $2 billion for employment assistance programs. As far as the SACS Award is concerned, we hope that the New South Wales government, for which we have given, through our previous agreements, indexation arrangements—83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPXJ6Mr ANTHONY—As far as other work is concerned, I understand that Senator Amanda Vanstone and other members are having further discussions on that matter.292315:09:002923Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Can the minister please outline to the House proposals to increase the government's strong support for reservists and the reserve service?2924Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question and I thank him for his longstanding commitment and support of our defence forces and our reservists. The 2000 defence white paper articulated a new role for reservists. No longer will the reservists be used for domestic mobilisation of our forces in times of conflict; reservists will now have a new integrated role within the Australian Defence Force. Already many reservists have been integrated into regular ADF units—210 reservists actually served with 6RAR in East Timor. A company manned largely by reservists will be deployed at the next Australian rotation in East Timor at the end of this year. This will be the first time since World War II that a formed combat arms unit of Army reservist soldiers will actually be deployed on operations. Reservists have been deployed in significant numbers in INTERFET and UNTAET operations in East Timor since 1999. They have consistently proved that they can do the job, and they have done so admirably.Last year the government introduced legislation to modernise the Australian Defence Force Reserves so that reservists can be called upon for a broader range of operations and individuals and units can actually be held at high levels of readiness. This government will provide employment, education and financial liability protection measures for reservists and their dependants through the Office of Reserve Service Protection. Since the introduction of the government's employer support payments scheme in June 2001, $5.6 million has been paid to the employers of reservists to offset costs associated with the absence of reservists from their workplace. The weekend before last I launched a new advertising campaign focusing on the benefits of joining the Army Reserve. This follows a successful testimonial style advertising campaign that contributed to a major turnaround in ADF recruitment. In fact, in 2000-01 there was a 34 per cent increase in ADF recruitment over the previous year. This is a positive trend, and it has continued this year. The most recently available figures indicate that, to date, we have 750 more recruits than at the same time last year. This government is committed to the support of reservists and their families, while making reserve services more attractive, enhancing the overall capability of the ADF and delivering on the government's commitment to the 2000 white paper. The Leader of the Opposition may be interested to know that there was never such a great time to be a reservist.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—Mr Speaker, can I ask that the minister table the document from which she was quoting?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Was the minister quoting from a confidential document?VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs Vale—It was confidential.292415:13:002924Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—My question is to the Attorney-General. Attorney, given the humiliating sight of the government withdrawing its own terrorism legislation during the last week of the Senate sitting, when will the government finalise its position on its own bills? Now, more than eight months after the September 11 attacks, when does the Attorney expect to cobble together an approach on these important issues which will be acceptable to his backbench committee and to the party room?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—By any measure, the member for Blaxland's question was poorly constructed. I will allow it to stand, but he must know that it was bordering on being outside any interpretation of standing order 144.2924Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Blaxland for his question. I am very pleased that the opposition is taking the antiterrorism package of legislation seriously. This is an unusual package of legislation that is designed to meet very unusual circumstances. It requires very careful consideration, which it has been getting, and we are looking forward to further cooperation in the finalisation of the legislation from members opposite and in particular from Senator Faulkner and the member for Banks. We have indicated we will take into account any reasonable comments that will improve the legislation without defeating the objectives. We are in the process of doing that and we propose to further discuss it with Senator Faulkner in the near future.292515:15:002925Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Employment Services. Can the minister inform the House of any recent developments in the Howard government's Work for the Dole program? What is the level of the government's commitment to the scheme? Are you aware of any alternative propositions?2925Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Paterson. He is one of the truly representative members in here who gets out to the Work for the Dole projects, understands the real people, deals with them and tries to inspire unemployed people, and I congratulate him for it. There are 87 Work for the Dole projects with about 840-odd placements in the electorate of Paterson and throughout the Hunter Valley. I recall some time ago the member for Hunter complaining that there were not any Work for the Dole programs, or that there was only one in his electorate, and I am sure that has been well and truly rectified since the days of the pilot.Today I announced a further 1,310 of Australia's unemployed will be working in their local communities on worthwhile Work for the Dole projects, providing them with real work opportunities in 137 different projects and providing some real benefits to their local communities. One thing is unequivocal: this government is totally committed to Work for the Dole. There have been some 8,900 Work for the Dole projects and over 176,000 places in Work for the Dole. That is since the days when the member for Brand, when asked on 2UE by Alan Jones what he thought of Work for the Dole said, `I think it has been a failure and I will tell you why. Firstly, there have not been enough places.' I can assure the member for Brand that we have delivered more places, and in the last budget there will be another 8,500 new places in Work for the Dole as well.I am also asked about alternative policy. There is obviously great confusion on this issue as well as many others—as the Minister for Foreign Affairs has raised today. The member for Grayndler has said that Work for the Dole schemes are only designed to punish. The member for Brand said that Work for the Dole was devised as social punishment. The Chief Opposition Whip said that Work for the Dole is nothing more than an expensive PR exercise. Senator Faulkner said that Work for the Dole was designed to blame the victims. The member for Chifley said that this government has put in place a horrific Work for the Dole scheme. ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—It is hard to believe, isn't it?2K6Mr BROUGH—It is hard to believe I know, Prime Minister. You would think on the back of that that there is no way that the opposition would have taken Work for the Dole to the people at the last election. I can inform the House that under real results from Work for the Dole, a policy statement released by Cheryl Kernot—now there is a name from the past—the then Opposition Leader on 3 November said:Labor is committed to retaining work for the dole.We all know that since then the Labor Party has wiped the slate clean. They no longer have any policies. I guess we are now waiting on—other than Cheryl Kernot's book— Dougie Cameron to have another stop-work meeting. He is going to call the brothers together, they are going to have a bit of policy discussion and they are going to come forward to you, the Leader of the Opposition, to tell you what you should be thinking and what you should be telling the Australian public—because Queensland and New South Wales have both told you what you should think.292515:19:002925Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyIND00—I have a question without notice for the Minister for Regional Services and Local Government. Is the minister aware that the Senate select committee reports on superannuation assert that of the $5,000 million in superannuation funds coming out of rural Australia every year only one per cent—$50 million a year— is returning? Is the minister aware of a development trust fund proposal being floated by the Midwest Shire Councils of North Queensland which, on the basis of state and federal government reports, should create some $100 million a year of revenue earnings? From the four projects which they seek to finance—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Kennedy must know he is advancing an argument and is obliged to come to his question.HX4Mr KATTER—Could the minister, assuming a program of fiscal and fiduciary responsibility similar to the red-lining legislation of the United States, agree to meet with representatives of these councils and consider their proposals?2926Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The answer to the penultimate section of the member for Kennedy's question is of course yes. It is a practice that I follow with all members of the House. I would like to say, if the member for Corio were present as my shadow minister, that if he were to bring Mayor Soorley down here to talk further about my proposals for an inquiry into cost shifting between state and local governments—or maybe the member for Griffith—then of course I would certainly welcome him bringing the mayor around. He could enlighten me further on the motions carried at the recent Queensland Labor Party conference, into which I believe he had some input. There is a serious problem at all times for people residing in electorates like mine, and of course Kennedy. I was present recently at Boulia, in the western segment of Queensland, at a local government conference and I was able to bring to their attention the proposals of the inquiry I have mentioned in this House before. Since then I have been to Muttaburra near Longreach, in probably the only electorate we do not hold in Queensland, and I noted that, notwithstanding the very important Year of the Outback occasion for those people and the people of Longreach, I did not bump into the member for Capricornia. That person was not there to explain to me any of the difficulties arising in those regions, where drought, amongst other things, is very threatening. I would give all support possible in the forums of our party in making representations, be they brought by the member for Kennedy or any member of this House, were they brought forward in a positive way, on means whereby the government could assist. When I was at Boulia I did not have those representations made to me. My office is open and I will have someone contact the member for Kennedy to ensure that a meeting is arranged at their convenience. May I repeat that, instead of getting up in this place and bagging your constituents and identifying them as unemployed, bring them to the appropriate minister, Labor Party, because we will always do our best.292615:23:002926Pearce, Christopher, MPMr PEARCEA8WAstonLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Would the minister inform the House of recent developments in the car industry and the actions the government is taking to promote the continued success of this important industry? Furthermore, is the minister aware of any threats to the future expansion of the car industry?2926Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—I thank the member for Aston for his question. I know from visiting his electorate what a keen advocate he is of industry in his electorate. He and members on both sides, I would hope, would be interested to know that today I opened one of Toyota's most innovative advances in their plant in Altona in Victoria. We opened, as part of the $321 million expansion, a new stamping plant. Had it not been for industrial action it would have been the first of its type in the world, but, thanks to industrial action, we have been relegated to third place.It pleases me to see this investment by Toyota, which comes at the same time as Holden's $400 million expansion with the V6 motor plant—83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Ryan!WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—and Ford's $500 million commitment to the introduction of a new model. The member for Boothby is very aware of the $700 million expansion by Mitsubishi. At a time when the car industry worldwide is making some very hard decisions and in fact Ford are closing seven plants, retrenching some 35,000 employees, it pleases me greatly that the Australian industry is not included in any of those redundancies and in fact is moving ahead. We have also seen very significant expansion in exports and the car industry in Australia is now exporting some $5 billion worth of motor vehicles. The car industry is producing an extraordinary world-class product, and the product that I saw this morning behind the curtains at the Toyota plant will certainly give other Australian producers something of a run for their money—83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—I saw it six weeks ago.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Ryan!WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—I am sure that, with the release of the new Camry, which sets a new standard in automotive production in Australia with this new stamping plant which produces one body piece on the side in one stamp, Australia's other manufacturers will continue to rise to the challenges of producing world-class motor vehicles. The member for Aston asked me what threats there were to the car industry. There are none from the member for Rankin because they do not have a policy, but, were they to have a policy, under the 60-40 rule it would be written for them by Dougie Cameron. What is Dougie Cameron's policy for the car industry? 83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Rankin!WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—Dougie Cameron said that the car industry can expect more disputes. Here we have an industry in Australia that is moving to be internationally competitive, a world competitive producer of motor vehicles, and what is the union leadership doing? It is doing everything it can to stop that progress, to practise industrial vandalism which brings the car industry to its knees. I cannot understand why. It threatens the jobs of Australian workers.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Before I recognise the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I owe an apology for the member for Ryan, who had in fact been sitting quietly in his seat.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—Throw him out.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will deal with the member for Rankin! I apologise to the member for Ryan for having mentioned him inadvertently and in error.Questions Without Notice2927292715:28:002927Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—I wonder if I could add to an answer I gave in question time in response to a question from the member for Bonython in relation to Mr John Olsen's salary as the Consul-General in Los Angeles. I confirm to the House that, as I have said, Mr Olsen will be paid at the SES band 2.2 level—that is, $126,835.Personal Explanations292715:28:002927Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I seek to make a personal explanation, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the member for Brand claimed to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I have indeed been misrepresented.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Brand may proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The Leader of the House said in the course of his remarks in question time that I had gone around the gallery disputing the Leader of the Opposition's view on reform of the party structure. I have done no such thing.Questions to the Speaker2927292715:29:002927Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, this relates to a matter that I took up with you last Thursday in the House. I quote from page 2557 of Hansard:... I ask you to read closely the Hansard and the text of the minister's remarks because he specifically named me in his remarks. If you find that to be the case, will you ask him to withdraw? Mr Speaker, if you look at page 2556, you will see clearly that the Minister for Employment Services made an offensive reference towards me—and he specifically named me. You ruled:The Manager of Opposition Business is well aware that whether I like it or not is not the point; the minister did not refer to any individual person.Except, Mr Speaker, Hansard shows very specifically that the Minister for Employment Services claimed that I referred to unemployed people as `scum'. So will you now ask him to withdraw?2928SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I reassure the Manager of Opposition Business that I did look up the matter as I had indicated to him. And as I stressed on Thursday afternoon—and I now repeat to him—it is not a matter of me thinking it is a particularly appropriate label to place on anyone, but the reference to `scum' was made to unemployed people, not to the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Lilley. It was for that reason that I said to the member for Lilley that the appropriate facility of the House was for him to indicate that he had been misrepresented, as indeed I allowed him to do. For that reason, I felt the matter had in fact been concluded because he had been misrepresented and he had an opportunity to indicate where he had been misrepresented. There was no reference to the member for Lilley as `scum'—an inappropriate term to use for anybody.2928Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I would like to follow up on that. The Hansard says very particularly: I will be happy to closely read the Hansard and I am sure the member for Lilley will as well. I hope that my Hansard memory today is as good as it fortunately was yesterday. Clearly it was not, Mr Speaker, and the term was used. I do find it offensive, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw it.2928SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Lilley must be aware of the fact that my reference to my Hansard memory yesterday was to a totally unrelated matter, later clarified by the Chief Opposition Whip. There is, in this instance, nothing that I can ask the minister to withdraw. The member for Lilley has been misrepresented. I rightly, as I always would, extend to him the opportunity to correct that misrepresentation. There is nothing to be withdrawn. The reference is not a reference I like but it is not a reference made to the member for Lilley. He was misrepresented and he has indicated where he has been misrepresented.2928Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, could I follow up on that because does this now mean that, if the minister continues to repeat this untrue statement in the House, he will be allowed to do so?2928SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Lilley is aware that this is a matter that has been addressed by occupiers of the chair for decades and addressed twice by me last week. No-one in the chair ever pretends that they are going to censor what people might say— no-one.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Speaker—10000The SPEAKER—I have not concluded my remarks. No-one makes that pretence. I will come back to the member for Lilley with a number of Hansard references where this matter has been more than adequately addressed. I do not encourage people to repeat misrepresentation that a member indicates has been made against them, but no occupier of the chair at any time can, in fact, restrict what members may want to say. Every occupier of the chair acts on the very reasonable assumption that people come in the House and only make allegations that they believe to be substantiated. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker—10000The SPEAKER—I indicate to the member for Lilley that I had already sat the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations down, indicating that I would call him next.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I think it would assist the House's consideration of this matter if I draw its attention to the statement of a former Speaker of this House—then Deputy Speaker—the member for Watson, who said: As I understand it, the provisions of the standing orders are that a Member can continue to rebut any allegation that is made but I do not think there is any constraint upon a person making an allegation.Of course, all the Minister for Employment Services was ever doing was quoting the member for Lilley, who is embarrassed about what he said.83ZIrwin, Julia, MP10000The SPEAKER—I did not appreciate that assistance from the member for Fowler.2929Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, when you are reviewing this matter, will you particularly look at House of Representatives Practice, pages 490 and 491, and particularly at the definitive rulings from former Speaker Snedden?2929SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I indicate to the member for Lilley that I have looked extensively at the matter. I will not dismiss it out of hand, but I am absolutely content that all of the action taken by me over the last week has been absolutely consistent with action taken by my predecessors, including Speaker Snedden. There is a separate issue raised by the minister for Lilley last week that I am still pursuing which is the matter of the degree to which people should be named in questions. That matter remains unresolved. This matter, I contend, is completely resolved.2929Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I was just about to rise on that point regarding the use of names during questions. How long might it be before you come back to us on that question?2929SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—It could be quite a long time given that today was a classic illustration of the appropriate use of names in questions, and a number of names were used in questions and I took no action. It struck me that my action over the last four years has probably been entirely consistent. I will come back to the member for Lilley when I am able. 2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker—10000The SPEAKER—The member for Lilley gets a great deal—allow me to preface this remark by the simple fact that when the Leader of the House rose a moment ago he allegedly had no facility to address the chair. I am extending a great deal of licence to the member for Lilley, whether he is asking me questions or points of order or in fact challenging, rightly, decisions that I may have made. I hope he recognises that level of tolerance extended. 2929Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I was just following up on your previous comment. It is precisely because this issue of use of names in a question is so important to the opposition that the period of time it will take you to come back to this House affects the conduct of question time on a daily basis. I would say to you that we regard this matter as extremely important. It is one that we will pursue when you have so ruled. 2929SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. Let me indicate to the member for Lilley that this is hardly a matter of earth shattering significance. As today's question time illustrated, I have allowed the inclusion of names in questions. In fact, on checking the record, I have allowed the inclusion of names in questions 65 times in this parliament. This is not an issue that warrants any further discussion at all, save to say that the standing orders make it clear—in neon lights; it could not be clearer—that if a name is used other than to authenticate the question then it will be challenged by me as the standing orders provide. There were ample instances today, which even the member for Lilley would be aware of, in which the name was necessary to authenticate the question and was not challenged by the occupier of the chair. I will come back to the member for Lilley when I have had further consideration of what my predecessors from both sides have done with this over the last 15 years.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I thank you for that.29291The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:292917OT4Mr CharlesTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees at the Solidarity and Justice Community Meeting at St Joseph's Catholic Church, Boronia, Victoria 3155, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned motion.AND we, as in duty bound will every pray.17Mr CharlesOT4Mr Charles (from 17 citizens).293022OT4Mr CharlesTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Members of Christ Church Anglican Church, Berwick, Victoria 3806, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned motion.AND we, as in duty bound will every pray.22Mr CharlesOT4Mr Charles (from 22 citizens).293017009CWMs CorcoranTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees and Members of St Aidan's Anglican Church, Carrum, Victoria 3197, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned motion.AND we, as in duty bound will every pray.17Ms Corcoran009CWMs Corcoran (from 17 citizens).293037009CWMs CorcoranTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees and Members of St Joseph's Catholic Church, Chelsea, Victoria 3196, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned motion.AND we, as in duty bound will every pray.37Ms Corcoran009CWMs Corcoran (from 37 citizens).293010WF6Mr DanbyTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Members at the Baptist Church, St Kilda, Victoria 3182, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned motion.AND we, as in duty bound will every pray.10Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 10 citizens).293110LS4Mr Martin FergusonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees and Members of St Paul's Anglican Church, Fairfield, Victoria 3978, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned motion.AND we, as in duty bound will every pray.10Mr Martin FergusonLS4Mr Martin Ferguson (from 10 citizens).293112LS4Mr Martin FergusonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees and Members of All Saints' Anglican Church, Northcote, Victoria 3070, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned motion.AND we, as in duty bound will every pray.12Mr Martin FergusonLS4Mr Martin Ferguson (from 12 citizens).293115LS4Mr Martin FergusonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees and Members of St James' Anglican Church, Thornbury, Victoria 3071, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned motion.AND we, as in duty bound will every pray.15Mr Martin FergusonLS4Mr Martin Ferguson (from 15 citizens).293120VU5Mr GriffinTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees and Members of the Baptist Church, Glen Waverley, Victoria 3150, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned motion.AND we, as in duty bound will every pray.20Mr GriffinVU5Mr Griffin (from 20 citizens).29322200AMVMr HuntTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees and Members of St George's Anglican Church, Red Hill, Victoria 3937, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned motion.AND we, as in duty bound will every pray.22Mr Hunt00AMVMr Hunt (from 22 citizens).29321300AMVMr HuntTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees and Members of St Mark's Anglican Church, Dromana, Victoria 3936, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned motion.AND we, as in duty bound will every pray.13Mr Hunt00AMVMr Hunt (from 13 citizens).2932800APGMr Anthony SmithTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees at the Oxfam/Community Aid Abroad Meeting at Kalista, Victoria 3791, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned motion.AND we, as in duty bound will ever pray.8Mr Anthony Smith00APGMr Anthony Smith (from 8 citizens).29338ZJ6Mr BarresiTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The following citizens of Australia remind the House that the Murray-Darling Basin faces an environment crisis unless major changes to its management are introduced.Your petitioners therefore request Parliament to support a referendum to delete Section 100 of the Constitution that gives the states `the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.' In its place a new head of power should be inserted under Section 51 handing control of the basin to the Commonwealth.AND we, as in duty bound will ever pray.8Mr BarresiZJ6Mr Barresi (from 8 citizens).29338379V5Mr PyneTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The following citizens of Australia remind the House that the Murray-Darling Basin faces an environment crisis unless major changes to its management are introduced.Your petitioners therefore request Parliament to support a referendum to delete Section 100 of the Constitution that gives the states `the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.' In its place a new head of power should be inserted under Section 51 handing control of the basin to the Commonwealth.AND we, as in duty bound will ever pray.837Mr Pyne9V5Mr Pyne (from 837 citizens).293311483PMs Julie BishopTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully submit that:Australia's Westminster system of government relies on the `separation of powers'. Part of that separation is the convention that judges do not become involved in political issues of the day, in order to preserve the impartiality of the courts. Under this convention, judges seeking a political voice would resign their commission and stand for parliament.Several Australian judges have broken this important convention in recent times. In one case there was a public perception that the judge was campaigning for change in legislation where he would personally benefit from such a change. Such conduct warrants severe censure.Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will:Censure those judges who, by their public involvement in political issues, compromise the neutrality of the courts. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.114Ms Julie Bishop83PMs Julie Bishop (from 114 citizens).2933640L6Mrs DraperTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully submit that:Australia's Westminster system of government relies on the `separation of powers'. Part of that separation is the convention that judges do not become involved in political issues of the day, in order to preserve the impartiality of the courts. Under this convention, judges seeking a political voice would resign their commission and stand for parliament.Several Australian judges have broken this important convention in recent times. In one case there was a public perception that the judge was campaigning for change in legislation where he would personally benefit from such a change. Such conduct warrants severe censure.Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will:Censure those judges who, by their public involvement in political issues, compromise the neutrality of the courts. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.64Mrs Draper0L6Mrs Draper (from 64 citizens).2933283NMs HallTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the crisis faced by rural Australia due to the collapse of Ansett. We are concerned that we will lose vital services and that our local economy will suffer.We believe the Government should act immediately to ensure the long-term maintenance of routes in rural and regional Australia. Local families depend on these services to stay in touch with loved ones, and they act as a lifeline for businesses and tourism in the area.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House act immediately to ensure the long term viability of airline routes that service rural and regional Australia.2Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 2 citizens).29341484SMs O'ByrneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the crisis faced by rural Australia due to the collapse of Ansett. We are concerned that we will lose vital services and that our local economy will suffer.We believe the Government should act immediately to ensure the long-term maintenance of routes in rural and regional Australia. Local families depend on these services to stay in touch with loved ones, and they act as a lifeline for businesses and tourism in the area.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House act immediately to ensure the long term viability of airline routes that service rural and regional Australia.14Ms O'Byrne84SMs O'Byrne (from 14 citizens).29342883NMs HallTo the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the growing desire for Australia to become a republic.Your petitioners therefore call on the House to conduct a plebiscite asking the Australian people if Australia should become a republic with an Australian citizen as Head of State in place of the Queen.28Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 28 citizens).29341083CMs Jann McFarlaneTo the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the growing desire for Australia to become a republic.Your petitioners therefore call on the House to conduct a plebiscite asking the Australian people if Australia should become a republic with an Australian citizen as Head of State in place of the Queen.10Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 10 citizens).2934208WN6Mr Ian MacfarlaneTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain electors in the Division of Oxley draws to the attention of the House that:Many people with a disability and families living with a disability in this electorate are going to lose what little support funding they receive if the Federal Government goes ahead with its plan to reduce its recurrent spending for disability services.Recently, the Federal Treasurer released figures that the Government plans to reduce its spending on disability support under a third Commonwealth State Disability Agreement (to be signed in June 2002), by $100 million.This funding was announced on 25 July 2000 with an assurance from the Honourable Larry Anthony MP, the then Minister for Community Services, that this additional funding would be built into the base of a third Commonwealth State Disability Agreement. The Federal Treasurer's figures indicate that the Government plans to renege on its commitment to Australians with a disability and their families.It is estimated that in Queensland alone, over a thousand individuals and families will lose their support funding as a result of this proposal.Your petitioners therefore:Request the House to ensure that the Federal Government honours the funding commitments its Minister for Community Services made in July 2000—that the additional $100 million provided by the Commonwealth to address `unmet need' is included in the 2002 Budget's Forward Estimates and in the `base funding' for a third Commonwealth State Disability Agreement.208Mr Ian MacfarlaneWN6Mr Ian Macfarlane (from 208 citizens).29344483EMr RipollTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain electors in the Division of Oxley draws to the attention of the House that:Many people with a disability and families living with a disability in this electorate are going to lose what little support funding they receive if the Federal Government goes ahead with its plan to reduce its recurrent spending for disability services.Recently, the Federal Treasurer released figures that the Government plans to reduce its spending on disability support under a third Commonwealth State Disability Agreement (to be signed in June 2002), by $100 million.This funding was announced on 25 July 2000 with an assurance from the Honourable Larry Anthony MP, the then Minister for Community Services, that this additional funding would be built into the base of a third Commonwealth State Disability Agreement. The Federal Treasurer's figures indicate that the Government plans to renege on its commitment to Australians with a disability and their families.It is estimated that in Queensland alone, over a thousand individuals and families will lose their support funding as a result of this proposal.Your petitioners therefore:Request the House to ensure that the Federal Government honours the funding commitments its Minister for Community Services made in July 2000—that the additional $100 million provided by the Commonwealth to address `unmet need' is included in the 2002 Budget's Forward Estimates and in the `base funding' for a third Commonwealth State Disability Agreement.44Mr Ripoll83EMr Ripoll (from 44 citizens).293522MH4Mr JullTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain electors of the Division of Fairfax draws to the attention of the House that:Preliminary Budget estimates recently released by the Federal Treasurer indicate that the Federal Government intends to cut the funding it provides to the States/Territories for disability support under a third Commonwealth State Disability Agreement (to be signed in June 2002).The Commonwealth funding that has been cut from forward estimates is the additional $100 million for `unmet need' for disability support announced by the Honourable Larry Anthony MP, the then Minister for Community Services, on 25 July 2000. This additional funding was announced with an assurance: `Affirmation of the commitment of the Commonwealth, States and Territories to maintain the current base of funding for disability services under a third CSDA, including the significant increased Commonwealth/State/Territories contributions to address unmet need in the last two years of the current agreement'.This action will mean that over one thousand Queenslanders with a disability and Queensland families living with a disability, including those living in this electorate will lose their support. This will be an unacceptable and potentially life-threatening turn of events.Your petitioners therefore:Request the House to ensure that the Federal Government honours the funding commitments its Minister for Community Services made in July 2000—that the additional $100 million provided by the Commonwealth to address `unmet need' is included in the 2002 Budget's Forward Estimates and in the `base funding' for a third Commonwealth State Disability Agreement.22Mr JullMH4Mr Jull (from 22 citizens).293588ZT4Mr SomlyayTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain electors of the Division of Fairfax draws to the attention of the House that:Preliminary Budget estimates recently released by the Federal Treasurer indicate that the Federal Government intends to cut the funding it provides to the States/Territories for disability support under a third Commonwealth State Disability Agreement (to be signed in June 2002).The Commonwealth funding that has been cut from forward estimates is the additional $100 million for `unmet need' for disability support announced by the Honourable Larry Anthony MP, the then Minister for Community Services, on 25 July 2000. This additional funding was announced with an assurance: `Affirmation of the commitment of the Commonwealth, States and Territories to maintain the current base of funding for disability services under a third CSDA, including the significant increased Commonwealth/State/Territories contributions to address unmet need in the last two years of the current agreement'.This action will mean that over one thousand Queenslanders with a disability and Queensland families living with a disability, including those living in this electorate will lose their support. This will be an unacceptable and potentially life-threatening turn of events.Your petitioners therefore:Request the House to ensure that the Federal Government honours the funding commitments its Minister for Community Services made in July 2000—that the additional $100 million provided by the Commonwealth to address `unmet need' is included in the 2002 Budget's Forward Estimates and in the `base funding' for a third Commonwealth State Disability Agreement.88Mr SomlyayZT4Mr Somlyay (from 88 citizens).29363039KL6Mr AndrenTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia, namely `Radio for all Australians Association Inc' draw to the attention of the House the need for the establishment of a radio station for the benefit of those people who suffer the inability to read the spoken word and for the benefit of the community in general.The Federal Government has spent millions of dollars making sure that deaf people in this country receive television services, but for those who can't read or write, which is some 6.8 million Australians, there is a need for a special radio licence and frequency, so these special programs can be broadcast all over Australia.Your petitioners therefore request the House to urgently consider the need for the introduction of legislation to provide this essential service.3039Mr AndrenKL6Mr Andren (from 3,039 citizens).293667XJ6Mr AnthonyTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, plans by the French Government to construct an International Airport on the graves of Australian Servicemen who died in France during World War I.Construction of this airport by the French Government would desecrate the marked and UN marked graves of Australians who made the ultimate sacrifice.Australian servicemen played a vital role in the defence of France and their sacrifice will be dishonoured if their remains are buried under tonnes of concrete runways. Families of those who died may never know where their ancestors' remains are located and they may be unable to pay their proper respects to their loved ones.We the undersigned request the House to act quickly to protect the sacred remains of Australians who fought and died so that we may live in freedom.7Mr AnthonyXJ6Mr Anthony (from 67 citizens).29361258ET4Mr BevisTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the unnecessary and unconscionable social hardship and personal trauma currently suffered by the children who are detained mandatorily in Immigration Detention Centres in Australia.Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Government to release immediately all children currently held in Immigration Detention Centres and to also release their parents.1258Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis (from 1,258 citizens).29361260183PMs Julie BishopTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of we, the undersigned Australians, draw to the attention of the House the government's plan to make a cancer fighting agent known currently as STI 571 (Glivec in the USA) available to Interferon intolerant patients and acute or blast stages of chronic myeloid leukaemia.The proposed cost of the drug which varies with dosages prescribed is likely to be approximately $55,000 per year. Interferon intolerant patients cannot afford the financially prohibitive cost of this highly effective drug. The alternative is to tie up valuable medical resources. Ultimately, the suffering of these patients will continue until premature death.12601Ms Julie Bishop83PMs Julie Bishop (from 12,601 citizens).2936134SD4Mr CadmanTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the great Australian sense of a `a fair go' and we urge that the Australian sense of honour be applied to asylum seekers.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House deplore the continued detention of children in detention centres. (No other western country detains children in circumstances, and to the extent, that Australia does,) Accordingly, we call on the Australian Government to speedily find humane alternatives to detention when processing families with children and the applications of unaccompanied children. We seek a much speedier process for assessing any particular risks any individual refugee may pose to the community. Give refugees a fair go.134Mr CadmanSD4Mr Cadman (from 134 citizens).293714CT4Mr CostelloTo the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia as signed hereunder draws to the attention of the House that the fiftieth Anniversary, or Golden Jubilee, of the reign of Her Majesty The Queen will be celebrated in 2002.The Government of the United Kingdom will be minting a special Jubilee Medal but this Medal will only be made available for presentation to Citizens of the United Kingdom. It is understood that the UK Government expects Dominion Governments to mint their own medals if they wish.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House request the Parliament to mint an Australian Golden Jubilee Medal for presentation to Australian Defence personnel and other appropriate persons.14Mr CostelloCT4Mr Costello (from 14 citizens).293771WF6Mr DanbyTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that bear baiting continues in Pakistan.Your petitioners therefore:Pray that the House sends the petition with the full support of the House of Representatives to the High Commissioner of Pakistan so that action can be taken by the highest authority in that nation to stop this cruel treatment of animals. Your petitioners wish the House to know that the Pakistani Government banned this practice one hundred years ago, but that this ban has not been enforced, thereby the heinous practice of the maltreatment of animals has continued unabated to this day.71Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 71 citizens).2937569083RMr EdwardsTo the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:This petition calls upon the Commonwealth Government to grant an MRI Medicare licence to Western Australia's only specialist children's hospital, Princess Margaret. An MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machine is an essential diagnostic tool for a range of paediatric medical conditions.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Commonwealth provide children in WA with access to Medicare MRI scans at Princess Margaret Hospital.5690Mr Edwards83RMr Edwards (from 5,690 citizens).293711483RMr EdwardsTo the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:This petition calls upon the Commonwealth Government to grant an MRI Medicare licence to Western Australia's only specialist children's hospital, Princess Margaret, and to the private MRI facility in Bunbury.An MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machine is an essential diagnostic tool for a range of paediatric medical conditions.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Commonwealth provide children in WA with access to Medicare MRI scans at Princess Margaret Hospital.114Mr Edwards83RMr Edwards (from 114 citizens).293732283VDr EmersonTo the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that current legislation is insufficient to protect the health of the people of Australia from the dangers of microwave radiation emitting from mobile phone telecommunication towers.Your petitioners therefore request that the House amend current legislation to:Safeguard the people of Australia against health threatening electromagnetic radiation emitting from mobile phone telecommunication towers and installations, by restricting the siting of these facilities to zones of no less than 300m from residential areas.Stop the location siting of mobile phone telecommunication towers and installations, including collocation and multiple siting areas close to residential areas (ie homes, schools, hospitals, aged care centres and other such facilities), until major research identifies conclusively a safe distance for each tower or installation to be located.Implement immediately a major medical and technological research program, by recognised and independent organisations, into the potential adverse health effects of this radiation.322Dr Emerson83VDr Emerson (from 322 citizens).29382683VDr EmersonTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of RepresentativesWe the undersigned, recognise Australia's rich and diverse historic, natural and indigenous heritage and the imperative to conserve and protect this heritage.We further note that the Howard Government has introduced legislation into Parliament to dramatically cut back the powers and independence of the Australian Heritage Commission and to abolish the Register of the National Estate, which has been developed over the past 25 years and consists of some 13,000 places.In its consideration of the Government's proposed heritage legislation, we therefore call on Parliament to support legislation to:maintain the independence and listing role of the Australian Heritage Commissionmaintain and develop the Register of the National Estateincrease Commonwealth protection of heritage places of national importance.Furthermore, we call on the Australian House of Representatives to continue to recognise the heritage values of Karawatha Forest, Mayes Property Historic Precinct and the Kingston Pioneer Cemetery site, which have been recognised by the Australian Heritage Commission and are currently listed on the Register of the National Estate.26Dr Emerson83VDr Emerson (from 26 citizens).2938383NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the Government take action to preserve bulkbilling and to strengthen the Medicare system.The cessation of bulkbilling by many general practitioners as a direct result of government policy has caused great hardship to many local residents on low incomes particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives introduce legislation to ensure that bulkbilling is preserved and that our Medicare system is strengthened.3Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 3 citizens).2938983NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the government reopen Belmont Medicare Office as there is no Medicare office between Charlestown and Lake Haven and there has been a drastic decline in the numbers of general practitioners bulkbilling.The closure of Belmont Medicare Office has caused great hardship to many local residents particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to ensure that Belmont Medicare Office is reopened as a matter of urgency.9Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 9 citizens).2938983NMs HallTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to:(1) our strong support for our independent national public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation;(2) the sustained political and financial pressures that the Howard Government has placed on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), including:(a) the 1996 and 1997 Budget cuts which reduced funding to the ABC by $66 million per year; and(b) its failure to fund the ABC's transition to digital broadcasting;(3) our concern about recent decisions made by the ABC Board and senior management, including the Managing Director Jonathan Shier, which we believe may undermine the independence and high standards of the ABC including:(a) the cut to funding for News and Current Affairs;(b) the reduction of the ABC's in-house production capacity;(c) the closure of the ABC TV Science Unit;(d) the circumstances in which the decision was made not to renew the contract of Media Watch presenter Mr Paul Barry; and(e) consideration of the Bales Report, which recommended the extension of the ABC's commercial activities in ways that may be inconsistent with the ABC Act and the Charter;Your petitioners ask the House to:(1) protect the independence of the ABC;(2) ensure that the ABC receives adequate funding;(3) call upon the Government to rule out its support for the privatisation of any part of the ABC, particularly JJJ, ABC On-line and the ABC Shops; and(4) call upon the ABC Board and senior management to:(a) fully consult with the people of Australia about the future of our ABC;(b) address the crisis in confidence felt by both staff and the general community; and(c) not approve any commercial activities inconsistent with the ABC Act and Charter.9Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 9 citizens).293911983NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at any plans to further privatise Telstra.Further privatisation of Telstra will result in the loss of thousands more Telstra jobs, worsening services to regional and rural Australia, and the loss of up to $1 billion a year for all Australians earned from Telstra profits.We believe these profits, both now and in the future, should be set aside to secure improved educational opportunities for our children, increased research and development funds for our scientists and doctors, and more money for rural and regional Australia.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House reject any further sale of the Commonwealth's shares in Telstra and that the annual profits from Telstra be used for the benefit of all Australians.119Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 119 citizens).29392583NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of Parliament of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that John Simpson Kirkpatrick, of Simpson and the donkey fame, be awarded a Victoria Cross of Australia.Under the Imperial Award system, the award of the Victoria Cross was denied to `Simpson' as the result of an error in the original application. A second application, in 1967, was also denied as the British Government claimed a dangerous precedent would be set, in spite of such a precedent already existing.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to ensure the appropriate recognition of John Simpson Kirkpatrick. 25Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 25 citizens).29391883NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that a majority of Australians voted against the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST). We believe a GST on funerals and all associated services is an unfair tax on death.Your petitioners strongly request the removal of a GST on funerals and associated services.18Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 18 citizens).293917583NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We the undersigned members of the Catholic Parish of Boolaroo/Warners Bay in the City of Lake Macquarie, join together in supporting the statement by the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference which is attached, appealing for our government to adopt policies that extend the hand of justice and compassion in our treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Matters of concern to us as expressed in the statement are `The Rights of Refugees and Asylum Seekers', `A Call for Greater Generosity in Australia's Refugee Program', `A Call for More Humane Treatment of Asylum Seekers in Australia', `Detention of Asylum Seekers', `Detention Centres' and `Three Year Protection Visas'.We also specifically request the House, as a matter of urgency, to enact legislation repealing the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Act 2001 and the Migration Legislation Amendment (Transitional Movement) Act 2002 restoring the right of entry to all those seeking asylum in Australia.175Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 175 citizens).29402683NMs HallTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on you to:Label all Genetically Engineered foods that may be approved for sale;Ensure pies contain meat and jam contains fruit;Make food labels reflect the true nature of the contents;Ensure that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA)—the food safety watchdog—is adequately resourced to protect our food.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.26Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 26 citizens).29402283NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:We the undersigned request the Government open a Medicare Easy Claim Agency for the Toukley area.Local doctors have ceased to bulkbill patients and many people simply cannot afford to pay the doctor and then wait (possibly days) for their Medicare refund. They often depend on their refund to buy the necessities of life—sometimes even the medicine prescribed by the doctor. Lake Haven is the nearest Medicare office and for those without private transport or money it is unreachable. The majority of the population in Toukley are elderly and the installation of a Medicare Easy Claim Agency in the Toukley Area would be very beneficial to the local community.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that the Toukley area is given a Medicare Easy Claim Agency as a matter of urgency.22Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 22 citizens).29402883NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:We the undersigned call on the Federal Government to extend its plan to encourage doctors to outer metropolitan areas including the Central Coast.There is a chronic shortage of doctors in the area and people told are waiting between 7 and 14 days to get an appointment with their doctor.Doctors are over worked and people's lives are being put at risk by the chronic shortage of doctors in the area.The average doctor patient ratio throughout Australia is 1 doctor to 1000 people in the northern part of Wyong Shire the ratio is 1 doctor to 2500 people.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House encourage doctors to outer metropolitan areas including the Central Coast.28Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 28 citizens).29404583NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:We the undersigned request the Government open a Medicare Easy Claim Agency for the Toukley area. Local doctors have ceased to bulkbill patients and many people simply cannot afford to pay the doctor and then wait (possibly days) for their Medicare refund. They often depend on their refund to buy the necessities of life—sometimes even the medicine prescribed by the doctor. Lake Haven is the nearest Medicare office and for those without private transport or money it is unreachable. The closure of Toukley Medicare Office has caused great hardship to many local residents particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that Toukley Medicare Office is reopened as a matter of urgency.45Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 45 citizens).29401137LN6Mr HattonTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that certain citizens of New South Wales request that you exempt the RSPCA of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The imposition of this tax on the RSPCA will severely limit its operations to provide care and attention and rehoming of `all creatures great and small'.Your petitioners pray that the Legislative Assembly pass the necessary legislation to ensure that the RSPCA is GST free.Thank you.1137Mr HattonLN6Mr Hatton (from 1,137 citizens).29412270ZD4Mr HowardTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales point out to the House that:If Sydney's airports are sold on a 99 year lease (50 years plus 49 year option), we will be left with the present sites and condemned to endure a future of increasing noise, pollution and significant risk of crashes.If Sydney's airports are sold for the current reported prices, the public will receive only a fraction of the true real estate value.The noise problem is not solved. The Howard government promised not to privatise the airport until the noise problem had been solved. Using Bankstown as an overflow airport will make room for more big noisy jets at Sydney Airport resulting in increased aircraft noise across the city. It will also inundate people around Bankstown with jet noise ruining their quiet enjoyment of their property and suburb.If Sydney's airports are sold, the public will lose control of future development. Overseas ownership would further reduce our control.The airports' exemption from noise controls mean that they should remain in public ownership and under government control.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to halt the privatisation of Sydney Airport and Bankstown Airport, and to repeal the sections of the Airports' Act which currently permits these sales.2270Mr HowardZD4Mr Howard (from 2,270 citizens).294113500AMVMr HuntTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that we do not accept the current Australian Federal Government policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers because it fails to respect the human rights and dignity of those seeking asylum. This abuse of their human rights is compounded by the unacceptable length of time that asylum seekers are forced to wait for resolution of their refugee status. This policy is unjust, lacking compassion and humanity.Your petitioners therefore request the House to change the Australian Government policy regarding asylum seekers to respect their human right to seek asylum in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees to which our country is a signatory.135Mr Hunt00AMVMr Hunt (from 135 citizens).294113400AMVMr HuntThe petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the desperate need to rebuild Afghanistan, devastated by years of civil war, drought and the oppressive rule of the Taliban.There is an immediate need to:Provide adequate food and shelter to Afghans;To clear landmines and unexploded bombs to allow refugees and internally displaced people to return to their homes; andProvide sufficient funding to the interim government to function effectively and pay all government employees adequately to avoid corruption.In the longer term there is a need to repair and build infrastructure in Afghanistan, including houses, hospitals, power stations, water and sewerage treatment plants and schools. It is only through the generous provision of funding and other assistance that the Afghan people can hope to have a peaceful and stable future.We acknowledge the $40.3 million that the Australian Government has pledged to assist Afghanistan since September 2001, but believe that as a supporter of the war in Afghanistan Australia has a moral duty to contribute more.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:Actively seek that the full US$15 billion estimated to be needed for the reconstruction of Afghanistan is provided from the global community, without removing much needed development assistance from other impoverished countries. The figure of US$15 billion over ten years is a conservative estimate of the World Bank, UN Development Program and the Asian Development Bank; andEnsure that Australia provides a generous share to the funds and other assistance needed, to set an example to other donor countries.134Mr Hunt00AMVMr Hunt (from 134 citizens).29411000AMVMr HuntTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the need for the Australian Government to treat all asylum seekers humanely, and to give adequate opportunities for a meaningful existence particularly while awaiting decisions regarding their future.With regard to asylum seekers in detention, there is a need to make available worthwhile educational, cultural, recreational and physical activities, so that the time spent in detention may be of real benefit to them. In particular, education should provide information on rights and responsibilities of life in Australia. These calls are in line with Recommendations 1 and 3 from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's `A report on visits to immigration detention centres', June 2001.Your petitioners would question the current mandatory detention process. Your petitioners requested the investigation of a reception and community release model, as suggested by the Uniting Church in Australia, Synod of Victoria, and a range of other church and welfare groups.A reception model should:Ensure health, security and identity checks take place;Ensure asylum seekers are notified of legal rights under Australian and international law;Ensure access to appropriate interpreters, translators and legal assistance;Include a community release element, drawing upon the resources of church, welfare and community groups in addition to government resources (including access to benefits).10Mr Hunt00AMVMr Hunt (from 10 citizens).2942860XS4Dr LawrenceTo the House of Representatives in the Australian Federal Parliament and the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled:We, the undersigned residents of Australia ask that the House of Representatives consider the health and welfare of the present and future residents of this country and the environmental impacts of possible negative impacts relating to the visits of nuclear powered and/armed vessels into Australian ports.Nuclear navies are not welcome here whatever the colour of their flags.The recent spate of accidents involving nuclear-powered submarines should be enough to convince all governments that the risk to the environment of these floating Chernobyls is a risk we don't have to take.Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Parliament legislate to prevent all visits of nuclear armed/powered vessels to Australian ports and waters.And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray.860Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence (from 860 citizens).294244WN6Mr Ian MacfarlaneTo the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:The petition of residents of the State of Queensland:Draws to the attention of the House the public need for an Australia Post Office to be located within High Sreet Plaza Shopping Centre, Toowoomba, QLD. 4350.Your petitioners therefore request the House to recognise the inadequate postal services within the suburbs of Rangeville and Middle Ridge and its surrounds and address this matter with the issuing of a Licence to operate an Australia Post, Post Office at High Street Plaza Shopping Centre, the central focal point of our rapidly expanding region.44Mr Ian MacfarlaneWN6Mr Ian Macfarlane (from 44 citizens).2942521983CMs Jann McFarlaneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that approximately 8,000 bears are being kept in cages in China for the purpose of extracting bile for medical purposes and that the cages are so small the bears cannot move, which results in some of them going mad. It is further brought to the attention of the House that the Chinese plan to increase the number of bears, for these purposes, to 40,000.Your petitioners therefore respectfully ask the House of Representatives to object most strongly to this horrendous and tragic practice and ask that steps be taken to stop it immediately.5219Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 5,219 citizens).2942983CMs Jann McFarlaneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the inequitable treatment of long-term mobile home and caravan park residents under the GST.We believe it is unfair that the government single out long-term residents of mobile homes and caravan parks by imposing the GST on half of the residents site fees while ordinary residential rents are not subject to GST.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House condemn the government for its actions and amend the GST legislation so mobile home and caravan park residents are treated in the same way as ordinary residential renters.9Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 9 citizens).294333083CMs Jann McFarlaneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that although the Government promised that petrol prices would not rise because of their new tax—the GST, petrol prices have increased significantly.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that Mr Howard honours his promise and that the reduction in the excise on petrol would be equivalent to the increase in the GST on petrol and therefore not result in an increase in petrol prices.330Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 330 citizens).294380083CMs Jann McFarlaneTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of electors of Stirling points out to the House our unhappiness with the continued increases in fees and charges by the banking sector, at a time when banks are marking record profits.We urge the House to recognise that banks do have an obligation to be accessible and to provide a service to the community.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heed our concerns and if necessary provide consumer protection regulations to ensure that the banks do not continue to diminish service to customers while increasing fees.800Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 800 citizens).2943597XH4Mr McGauranTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of mobile phone users in the region of Sandy Point, Waratah and Waratah North area in the state of Victoria draws to the attention of the House the poor mobile phone reception in this area. This causes residents and visitors of the township of Sandy Point to drive out to areas which have greater reception. Farmers, residents, businesses and tourists who would like to use the mobile system for safety, business and tourism have difficulty and additional cost due to the poor reception. Even with a car kit the system is very patchy and extremely inconvenient.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to request that Telstra install an additional mobile phone facility in the Sandy Point/Waratah North area.597Mr McGauranXH4Mr McGauran (from 597 citizens).29431704V5Mrs MoylanTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens and residents of the town of Northam in Western Australia draws the attention of the House to the unacceptable state of ABC and SBS television signal strength in the town of Northam.Readings taken in August, 2001, by the Australian Communications Authority, show the signal strength of the national broadcaster for both the ABC's, VHF and UHF signals is so weak as to be inaccessible to some television owners in Northam. Channel 2 Perth has a signal strength of only 10 microvolts in Northam according to these readings where a strength of 1000 or more would be considered adequate. Likewise, Channel 5a has a strength of between 28 and 120 microvolts in Northam. This means Northam viewers are being denied the right to watch the national broadcaster in the manner enjoyed elsewhere.Northam also struggles to receive adequate SBS signals and, as one of Australia's towns with the richest multicultural heritage, this is deemed unacceptable.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will immediately take action to provide an adequate free to air signal from the ABC and SBS to the town of Northam.170Mrs Moylan4V5Mrs Moylan (from 170 citizens).2943306KV5Mr NevilleTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the state of Queensland draws the attention of the House:that the National Australia Bank reconsiders the closure of the Kin Kora Branch as it will disadvantage the residents of this area, many of whom will be forced to change banks.The branch serves the local businesses and many consumer customers. The Kin Kora branch has ample parking facilities and easy access. This closure will cause much inconvenience to myself and many other customers.The Gladstone region is presently undergoing a boom in local industry and the National Australia Bank appears not to have considered this.Your petitioners therefore request the House to review this closure and that the branch remain open.306Mr NevilleKV5Mr Neville (from 306 citizens).29443984SMs O'ByrneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the crisis faced by workers throughout Australia due to the collapse of Ansett. We are concerned that many families will be severely affected by the loss of jobs and the loss of unguaranteed entitlements.We believe the government should act immediately to ensure that workers' entitlements are protected whenever a company becomes insolvent.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House act immediately to ensure the security of workers' entitlements.39Ms O'Byrne84SMs O'Byrne (from 39 citizens).294419083EMr RipollTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that they are against the establishment of a new immigration detention centre. We are opposed to a new detention centre being built in the greater Ipswich or Brisbane area.The petitioners also wish to draw your attention to the fact that there are 7 of Queenslands total 14 correctional and detention facilities in the abovementioned areas.We therefore request the Parliament to reject any plans for a new immigration detention centre and particularly in the areas mentioned above.190Mr Ripoll83EMr Ripoll (from 190 citizens)2944555848Mr SeckerTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that we request that an inquiry into the handling of sexual abuse cases in the Family Court be included in the terms of reference of the planned Royal Commission into the Sexual Abuse of Children.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will accept our submission and deal with it expeditiously, to ensure that this term of reference is included in the planned Royal Commission.555Mr Secker848Mr Secker (from 555 citizens).2944595V5Mr Stephen SmithTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain community of the eastern region of Perth and surrounding regions, residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House of Representatives the following actions that are not in keeping with the natural environment and heritage of Australia. Dense urban development on wetlands, flood plains and flood fringe Toxic waste dumps and incinerators in the region to take all Swan coastal plains rubbish Dense urban development in the Hills River catchment area Desecrating of remaining Aboriginal sites in the region Loss of remaining areas of natural habitat and biodiversity Logging of old growth forestsYour petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives take action to stop the major loss from the region of our environmental biodiversity and heritage culture.59Mr Stephen Smith5V5Mr Stephen Smith (from 59 citizens).29441351EM6Dr StoneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House to the proposed plan namely `Option Three: The Floodplain Rehabilitation Scheme' for the Lower Goulburn River.This plan will destroy the family lifestyle and community established on the 25 residential blocks on the east and west side of Deep Creek. This proposed plan will cause irreparable damage to the local environment, including flora, fauna and water species which many people have worked so hard to protect and enhance. The two Aboriginal middens north of the Hamlet will also be in jeopardy.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will not provide federal funding to the Victorian Statement government to implement the proposed plan, namely `Option Three: The Flood Plain Rehabilitation Scheme' that will lead to the compulsory acquisition of our land when other viable options are available.1351Dr StoneEM6Dr Stone (from 1,351 citizens).294580YU5Mr TannerTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to our concern that:the Howard-Anderson government plans to fully privatise the Australian people's 50.1 percent share of Telstra as stated in the government's own 2001 Budget papers;a fully privatised Telstra will focus on profits not people; andservices will suffer under a fully privatised Telstra, particularly in outer metropolitan, rural and regional Australia.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to oppose the Howard-Anderson government's plans to fully privatise Telstra.80Mr TannerYU5Mr Tanner (from 80 citizens).2945646SU5Mr VaileTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives.A petition of Australian pensioners and superannuants residing in the Manning region bring to the attention of the House that hardship and deprivation will be created to pensioners and superannuants by the proposed increase to pharmaceutical prescription charges.We, the undersigned, petition the House of Representatives to reconsider the intended increase of the cost of prescriptions to pensioners as this severe impost will cause extreme hardship to most of Australia's senior citizens who are already experiencing difficulty due to the large monetary gaps in health care.646Mr VaileSU5Mr Vaile (from 646 citizens).294585984FDr WasherTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House:The suburb of Heathridge, Western Australia has more than 7,000 residents who are not serviced by a dispensing pharmacy.The difficulty of people moving to other suburbs with public transport is immense. The 2 kilometre zone prevents a pharmacy existing in the local shopping centre.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House consider an exception in the case of this special circumstance and allow a dispensing pharmacy in the area of the Heathridge Shopping Centre in Western Australia.859Dr Washer84FDr Washer (from 859 citizens).294559884HMr ZahraTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the plight of asylum seekers/refugees and the current treatment under which they are detained.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to receive all asylum seekers according to the UN Convention to which Australia is a signatory; to hold asylum seekers in detention for quarantine purposes only in order to establish identity, health status and criminality; to hold children in detention never more than six days; to give all those granted refugee status the right to apply for permanent visas.598Mr Zahra84HMr Zahra (from 598 citizens).Petitions received.Private Members' Business2945294515:47:002945Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I 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.As many members present will be aware, I am proud to represent a geographical area of regional Australia which is diverse, unique, challenging and, thankfully, resilient. The 2.3 million square kilometres of the Kalgoorlie electorate alone take in much of what is classed as Australia's true outback. One of the things that people in my region can be commended on is that they do not ask for much. What we do ask for is some form of equity with our metropolitan cousins—equity for the communities that support investment in primary, mineral and resource rich industries that return millions of dollars to our national and state coffers every year— and a fair go for the people who opt to live there. Is this too much to ask?In the past we paid the same tax as city people and wondered why we missed out on services such as sealed roads, public transport, hospitals, secondary schools and quality radio and television reception. Now we pay more tax than city people pay. With the introduction of the GST we pay more of our income in tax because the GST is paid on a base price that is already inflated by transport costs and low turnover. One of the recurring concerns raised by people living in the outback is the diminishing value of the taxation zone rebate, which was introduced to compensate for the disadvantages that are faced: harsh climatic conditions, isolation and high living costs.We are community minded people out in the bush. To compensate for the lack of taxpayer funded services, country people volunteer time and donate their income at a much higher rate than their city counterparts. Fire brigades, ambulance services, search and rescue services, sporting club amenities, local halls and swimming pools are in the bush today only because of the efforts of volunteers and the local communities. In the past these efforts were recognised by a tax rebate that gave them about five weeks worth of extra wages a year, and the bush flourished. Today that same compensation will not pay the difference in price to buy the daily newspaper. The support for increasing the financial incentive to live and work in the bush is understandably strong in Western Australia, regardless of political alignments. Once it is increased, there will also need to be an indexing of this amount in line with inflation. I have widespread support: the state government, the National Farmers Federation, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association, local councils and shires and, most recently, the Goldfields Esperance Development Commission. And more is coming.This is not the first time I have brought this matter to the attention of the House. I will keep hammering the issue. The bush is vital to Australia, and right now my constituents are bearing an unfair load—constituents such as those living in the Kimberley and the Pilbara. The Kimberley is known for its superb pearls and Argyle Diamonds and as a top-class tourism destination, but it is also reportedly the most expensive region in Western Australia, with living costs more than 13 per cent higher than in Perth. Broome residents are eligible for a tax rebate of $338 a year, but they still pay an average of $4,700 more than Perth households pay. In April this year, the Pilbara Development Commission revealed an overall increase in the variance between Perth prices and those in the Pilbara. Dampier produced the cheapest basket of groceries in the region, being 2.5 per cent more expensive than in Perth. That is up from 1.5 per cent more in October 2001. Marble Bar had the most expensive basket of groceries costing 45.5 per cent more than Perth. This is an increase of 20.2 per cent since October last year. The quality of perishable items varied from town to town. Not only do they cost more, but the quality of good often goes down. One of the biggest grumbles in my electorate is the price of fuel. At the time of the survey, fuel in Perth was 87.5c per litre, but in the Pilbara only Pannawonica and Dampier had unleaded petrol at under $1 a litre. On average, the Pilbara motorist pays 20 per cent more than the Perth motorist for unleaded fuel and 75 per cent more for LPG. Marble Bar again tops the prices with $1.15 versus 87.5c per litre in Perth and a whopping 89c versus 43.3c for LPG. They are paying more than double for LPG in Marble Bar. Try telling my constituents in Marble Bar that they are not disadvantaged by remote living! Not only is fuel more expensive, but we are forced to use more due to the great distances and no publicly funded transport. Too many communities in the Kalgoorlie electorate are missing out. Targeted Commonwealth funding has helped—and I have nothing but praise for initiatives such as the Regional Solutions and Regional Assistance Programs—but there are still communities which only have the most basic services in communications. We accept that we will probably never have a range of services equal to that in the city, but we would appreciate having enough communications services to be able to run a business with confidence.Warburton in the Central Desert is an example of a community missing out. It is located on the Outback Highway and it has no mobile coverage. It is eligible under the Commonwealth government's $50.5 million regional mobile phone program, but it missed out when tenders were called in March this year. Although eligible, the estimated cost of providing mobile services in Warburton was more than the remaining funds available for the whole of WA.In the bush we often lack services that the city takes for granted. We pay more for air services. A trip to the city from Kununurra will cost $1,400. Our dirt roads are impassable during wet weather. If banks choose to shutdown branches, inevitably it is the bush that suffers. We have greater problems in attracting qualified medical, teaching and administrative staff, and our choices are fewer and the cost of goods is higher. Due to the prevalence of cyclones and high building costs, to find an insurance company to provide cover north of the 26th parallel today is almost impossible.City based bureaucrats and politicians tell me in exasperation, `If it's so tough living in the bush, why not move to the city?' Let me tell you why it is not such a good idea. Our remote areas are resource rich and government collects substantial income from royalties and the development of such royalties. There is a general recognition of the potential of tourism in this country and most of the attractions people want to see are in remote areas. The Australia they want to experience is outback Australia. If we do not recognise the efforts of people living and working in remote Australia, they will leave and, when city folk want to find out why we are such a lucky country and visit the bush, there will be no-one there to pour the very expensive petrol or the beer.Linked to the taxation zone rebate argument is the practice of fly-in fly-out. Despite huge exploration and mining projects in some regions, these benefits simply are not flowing to the local communities. Royalties from mining go to state and federal government, not to local government, and many larger companies employ fly-in fly-out work forces. With the introduction of Labor's fringe benefit tax, many companies providing housing for employees were hit with exorbitant taxes because rentals were subsidised. Rather than be stung by Labor, companies allowed their workers to live in city suburbs and to fly-in fly-out—the cost being written off to production. In Western Australia's case, this results in employees who work in the outback living in Perth where most of their wages are spent. Even though this coalition government has exempted the provision of housing for employees from FBT, the practice remains with disastrous results. Families are under increased pressure. With spouses separated, the homemaker has the full responsibility of raising children and the children suffer an unbalanced view of life. This arrangement leads too often to family breakdowns, in turn placing greater pressure on an overpatronised welfare system. A recent edition of the Bulletin stated that FIFO recruitment policies were practised by more than a third of Australia's 156 non-energy mines, 90 per cent of which are in remote regions. In addition, due to these people being shown as living elsewhere in census numbers, this work force is not even taken into account when allocating money to local governments for necessary infrastructure. Not only do these councils need to cater for increasing use of utilities and pressure on services, they are not funded for these. (Time expired)10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Is the motion seconded?84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr Cameron Thompson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 15:57:002948Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00—I do not always agree with the member for Kalgoorlie, but on this occasion I find myself agreeing with most of what he said. I point out to him that, if he were to trawl through speeches that I have made in this place over the years I have been here, he would see that most of the arguments he put forward have been put forward on a number of occasions previously by me and by others in this chamber. Our difficulty is that the bulk of the members of this place have no idea about the bush. When I visit communities in the Northern Territory, they refer to Canberra as remote, not vice versa. However, in Canberra we consider people living in small communities in Northern Territory as remote. The remoteness is part of a state of mind. The issue for people who live in remote Australia is to have governments and people who make decisions about their lives understand where they live, how they live and why they live where they live. It is apparent that in many of the decisions made by government in the past, and indeed currently, that understanding simply is not there.I want to raise an issue with the member for Kalgoorlie. He rightly points to the disparity between the cost of living in rural remote Australia, and he refers to his own electorate of Kalgoorlie. For those who do not know what the seat of Lingiari consists of, my electorate comprises all the Northern Territory, except for 300 square kilometres around Palmerston and Darwin, and Christmas and the Cocos islands. It is 1.3 million square kilometres and, with deference to my friend the member for Kalgoorlie, is geographically a lot bigger, if not in area at least in the range that it covers. There is 3,500 kilometres from Perth to Christmas Island and 3,500 kilometres from Darwin to Christmas Island. It is not the area, member for Kalgoorlie, but the range.The point I want to make is that I wonder if he was putting the same arguments to his party room during the debate about the GST. It is clear that as a direct result of the GST people in the bush, people in Northern Australia—people in Lingiari, Kalgoorlie, Kennedy, Leichhardt, Grey and a whole range of other remote seats—pay more in tax as a direct result of the GST. They pay more tax on fuel as a direct result of the GST. Their cost of living has risen dramatically as a direct result of decisions made by this government. I say to the member for Kalgoorlie, I hope that he has raised these issues previously in his party room about the impact of the GST because when I was raising these matters in this place and outside of this place they were not supported, except insofar as some members of the National Party—very occasionally—would get out and have a bit of a go about the impact of the government's GST on the cost of living of people who live in remote and rural Australia.Let there be no doubt about it: the member for Kalgoorlie is right. People who live in remote and rural areas—in my case in Lingiari—suffer a great detriment as result of the impact of the GST. But he raises significant points about the disparity of services and the cost of living. What he says about the areas of the northern part of his state could be equally applied to any number of communities in Northern Australia, most particularly in Lingiari.I also want to make the observation that we need to understand the communities we are talking about here. We are not talking about those magnificent pastoral leases that exist across Northern Australia; we are not just talking about mining camps. The member for Kalgoorlie rightly points to the issue to do with fly in, fly out. But we are talking about a very large number of very dispersed, small Aboriginal communities who suffer the most. They suffer more than any other Australians because of decisions taken on the issue of taxation, principally the GST. These people are, by any measure, the poorest and most disadvantaged of all.The member for Kalgoorlie pointed to the fact that there is a misallocation, I believe, of resources in terms of equity and in terms of dealing with these people appropriately. He did not pinpoint Aboriginal Australians. I am doing so because the bulk of the people who live in my electorate—40 per cent of my constituents—are Aboriginal people who live in remote communities. I know the suffering they have as a result of where they live and as a result of failures of governments—successive governments, I might say—to properly deal with their disadvantage, which is caused by their location. This disadvantage is in terms of employment, education, health and infrastructure. You name it and they have got it in terms of their disadvantage.The point that needs to be made on this day celebrating the 10th anniversary of Mabo is that we have a long way to go in terms of dealing properly with our Indigenous brothers and sisters, at least so far as giving them and providing them with the same opportunities that we ourselves have—those of us who are lucky enough to be living in white middle-class families elsewhere in Australia.The other matter that I want to point to today is the fact that this is an important motion because we are, after all, celebrating the Year of the Outback. We are paying homage to, in many respects, the sacrifices that have been made by a whole range of people since this place was first settled by Europeans—by Arthur Phillip and his motley crew. Since that day, we have seen Aboriginal land taken over. They have not been very thankful for that, as you would imagine. But, at the same time, those non-indigenous people who were the pioneers in these parts of Australia operated under great duress. Bear in mind that we have a history of massacres and confrontations which took place during this period. But there were sacrifices which were made and we owe a great deal to those people who worked on the frontiers—the Afghan cameleers, for example, who were the lifeblood of Central Australia during the latter part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. It is worth while pointing out that one of the events of the Year of the Outback will be to have a camel drive from Coober Pedy to Alice Springs. That will be replicating the work which was done by the Afghan cameleers in the late 18th and early 19th century.We need to acknowledge the role that women have played and continue to play in supporting industry across rural and remote Australia and in supporting particularly those people who went to Northern Australia looking for new opportunities in this land of boundless horizons, opportunities which were difficult to come by. Great sacrifices were made. We should celebrate those who have actually done the hard yards in these mining camps.I agree with the member for Kalgoorlie: we should not be rewarding people by giving them tax rebates if they are flying and in flying out. I might say to the member for Kalgoorlie that I doubt whether they should be eligible in the first instance but if they are eligible then their eligibility should be examined. They do get other benefits as a result of their fly in, fly out service.We also should not forget, when we talk about Australian history and we talk about the need to recognise the great advances made by industry in Australia and settlement in Australia, that the brunt of the Japanese aggression during the Second World War was felt in Northern Australia. Bombing raids in Darwin in February 1942 were bigger than the bombing raids on Pearl Harbor. There were then bombing raids successively around the coast to Broome and inland as far as Katherine. These things happened during the course of the Second World War. They are not properly acknowledged when we teach history to our community. It again emphasises in a sense the remoteness question, because it is out of the minds of people. We recalled recently the submarine incursions into Sydney Harbour. Everyone understands them.Very few people understand those of us who live in Northern Australia and what was endured during the Second World War, just as people today—this government and successive previous governments and administrators who have made decisions in Canberra—have yet to come to terms with their proper obligations to understand, comprehend and work with people who live in the bush and provide them with the sorts of conditions which they should properly be able to expect. It is on that basis that I think the member for Kalgoorlie's motion ought to be supported. I do think he raises significant issues which are of great importance to certainly all of the people who live in my electorate.16:07:002950Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I am pleased to see the member for Lingiari supporting this motion. We seem to have a good degree of bipartisanship happening in this chamber on this issue which is important and vital to not only the remote regions of Australia but Australia as a whole, and that is good to see. There are a couple of issues, however, that I want take up with the member for Lingiari. Obviously, they hark back to the diatribe he inserted to do with the GST. I would have thought that, now that roll-back finally has been buried by members of the opposition, we would be in a position where we could acknowledge that both sides of this parliament now recognise the value that the GST has provided in all parts of Australia and the value that it contributes to the Australian economy, and I will go to some figures on that in a minute. Of course, the ALP now are continuing with the GST and at last knuckling down to some sense of reality in relation to that.There was a report in April 2001 from the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Local Government and Shires Association of New South Wales—quite a heavy document—which began with the proposition that private sector job creation is the priority for regional Australia and, whether it is encouraged by budgetary expenditures or tax expenditures—in other words, tax revenues forgone—the commitment must be made. Indeed, the work of the regions has contributed a great deal to Australia's wealth. Going to the period 2000-01, I note that the State of the regions report from the Local Government Association stated that after the introduction of the GST:Export earnings from resource based regions in Australia boomed over 2000-01. According to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, exports increased by nearly $12 billion, or 27 per cent, to a record of $55.6 billion over that period. Petroleum was the best performer, with exports increasing by 50 per cent to $13.5 billion, mainly from the North West Shelf. Other sectors where exports increased by more than $1 billion included alumina, coke and coal, iron ore and steaming coal.That is the huge potential of the remoter regions of Australia to generate wealth for us all. Yet if we look at long-term employment growth as a measure of economic health and we go down the list of regions and look at employment growth in the longer term between 1991 and 2000 and look for the regions where there has been negative employment growth in the period, we will see that, sadly, a lot of them are in the regions. There is a negative rate of 6.58 in Eyre and Yorke in South Australia; in far north-western New South Wales there was a decline over that period by 0.64 per cent; in the Mersey-Lyall region of Tasmania, it was 0.5 per cent; and in northern New South Wales there was a decline of 0.9 per cent. That is employment growth in decline over a decade between 1991 and 2000.In fact, in the 10 years to 1996 the population of metropolitan Australia grew by over 15 per cent and along the coastal areas of non-metropolitan Australia it grew by 23 per cent. But in the period 1991 to 1996 the inland regions lost something like 70,500 people and remote Australia lost 37,000 people. The broad picture that we see is a relative draining of the population of inland Australia. The population profile of inland Australia, also of concern, is ageing quickly. Therefore, it is important that we grasp hold of this, and I think there have been some recent initiatives put forward that can enable us to consider some alternatives.The National Farmers Federation recently put forward a proposal to extend the existing zone rebate scheme for tax for individuals and to extend it to businesses in the more remote areas of Australia. I would like to push that proposal forward and to say that it needs to be considered in the wider context of the tax arrangements that currently apply. While the member for Lingiari was speaking on issues relating to the GST, there are also positive benefits of that in relation to fuel costs. (Time expired)16:13:002951Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I am very happy to take this opportunity today to speak in support of the many people living in the rural and remote parts of my electorate. In this the Year of the Outback we are celebrating the great things about life in the bush and the special place that it holds in the hearts of all Australians. However, residents of rural and remote Australia are the first to admit that behind the apparent romance of the outback the reality is that they pay an increasingly high price for living beyond the booming coastal strip and far from metropolitan centres. That price is counted in the higher cost of living; in the lack of services or the distance from services in the areas of health, education and social support; and in isolation from friends and family.It was the Labor Party that first recognised the hardship suffered by people living in remote regions, the people who live and work in difficult conditions while they develop the country's important pastoral and mining industries and the infrastructure that supports them. The Labor government sought to compensate those taxpayers for their higher cost of living by introducing in 1945 what was then known as the zone allowance, a concession granted in recognition of the higher costs of living and poorer service levels in remote regions. The boundaries of the tax zones have remained largely unchanged since that time, and I believe that the current boundaries create some anomalies that impact on my electorate in Central Queensland. I would like to mention in particular the status of the coalmining communities of Central Queensland. Those communities are between 150 and 350 kilometres from Mackay and most of them obtain important administrative, government and support services from Mackay. People living in those communities constantly point out to me how crazy it is for Mackay to receive the zone B concession, while the mining towns miss out on that rebate.Mackay is a thriving coastal city of 60,000 people served by all major government departments, two airlines, a university and TAFE college, every major bank and a wide range of health and other professionals. You can see how it is a bit hard for the coalminers and their families to accept that people in Mackay need that concession when they are the ones travelling for hours into Mackay every time they need to see a specialist or get their tax done. They are the ones who receive limited services from agencies such as Centrelink and Job Network and have to drive their children up to 400 kilometres for a game of netball on the weekend. I note that the government announced a review of the zonal tax concessions well over a year ago now, and I urge that the review address this anomaly so that it is more fair to people living in the central highlands area of my electorate.I find this concern for rural Australia from a member of the coalition very interesting, given the track record of this government when it comes to ripping away services and opportunities for the bush. I notice that no National Party MPs are speaking on this motion, and maybe that is an admission of the extent to which they have let down rural Australia by constantly sacrificing the interests of country people to the will of their bosses in the Liberal Party.If, in fact, this debate is a signal that the government wants to reverse its neglect of rural and regional Australia, it can start by rejecting the full sale of Telstra. When Ben Chifley announced the zone allowance scheme in 1945, the idea was to reduce disparity existing between remote areas and larger centres close to the coast. Well, that disparity is still there in rural Australia and nowhere is it more obvious than in the availability and affordability of telecommunications services. If the regional and rural areas of this country are to reach their full potential, it is essential that they have access to telecommunications infrastructure comparable to that in the cities.The people of my electorate know very well what a fully privatised Telstra means. We have already seen quite a preview of that. First of all, it means fewer jobs in our region. There have been over 100 full-time jobs lost in Rockhampton since 1996, when the Howard government started selling off Telstra. Just recently, we have seen 23 jobs lost out of the call centre. It means fewer services. People in my electorate are a wake-up to the fact that the improvements that they have seen in telecommunications services over the last couple of years are very much bound up with the privatisation agenda of Telstra and the government. They quite rightly ask: what happens when the honeymoon is over for the bush? Telstra would be fully privatised and they would be forgotten about. They know that it will go the same way as the banks— the bush will be just too difficult to worry about and too expensive to take care of in terms of investment in the telecommunications infrastructure, as the interests of shareholders become paramount. They are very well aware that time is running out for them to get the service that they need. They call on the National Party, as I do, to stand up to the Liberal Party and to reject any more sale of Telstra in the interests of country people.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.295216:18:002952Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I 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.I am pleased to move this motion in relation to funding for ongoing research into muscular dystrophy. At the outset, I acknowledge and recognise that, in the 1999-2000 federal budget, the coalition government allocated some $614 million over six years until the 2004-05 federal budget to provide further opportunities for research by the National Health and Medical Research Council. We have had four federal budgets since then and have also in that time seen massive advances in health and medical research. The findings, the discoveries and the successes which can be attributed to research were funded by the federal government and driven by the NHMRC.The NHMRC provided approximately $335,000 worth of research funding into muscular dystrophy in 2001. Funding from charitable organisations, state governments, the Australian Research Council and overseas bodies is also used to finance research on muscular dystrophy. The NHMRC research program encompasses the full spectrum of health and medical science. Their research has the broad strategic intent of better health for all Australians. It includes biomedical, clinical and public health research priorities.The motion before the House calls for increased funding for the NHMRC which can be allocated specifically toward further research into the disease of muscular dystrophy. Of course, the government does not determine what the NHMRC's research priorities will be, but my call for further funding is so that, when experts in the neuromuscular field working on research into muscular dystrophy apply for grants to the NHMRC, the funding will be there so that they can continue their work or embark on new discoveries in that field. And there have been a number of remarkable breakthroughs in recent times, particularly in areas of gene technology and stem cell research.So it is through one of these avenues of opportunity through the NHMRC that I support the call for greater focus on research on muscular dystrophy and speak in support of this motion. The call for greater focus through increased availability and access to funding allocated specifically for research into muscular dystrophy is widely supported by the community in my state of Western Australia and by the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Muscular dystrophy is a group of progressive, genetic diseases where the muscles that control movement degenerate and weaken. The forms of the disease differ in the age at which the disease appears—it can be from infancy to middle age—and also differ as to the severity, the muscles affected, the rate of progression and the way the disease is inherited, for it is caused by gene defects.It is a heartbreaking fact that carriers— typically mothers and sisters of sufferers— usually do not have the disease but pass it on to their children. Sons get the disease; daughters are carriers. There is currently no cure for any form of muscular dystrophy. Physiotherapy can assist but it cannot stop the progression of the disease. The most common form of muscular dystrophy is found in children. Duchenne is the most common and it affects only males, usually between two and six years old. It usually results in death by the age of 20. It is the most lethal of all the muscular dystrophies.Members of parliament and senators are often asked to support worthy causes and give their time and effort as patron, supporter or ambassador to many causes. Last year I was honoured to be appointed `roving ambassador' for the Muscular Dystrophy Association in Western Australia. It was a position I accepted with pleasure and as a privilege, as I have the utmost respect and regard for the association and the specialist medical scientists who work in the research fields of neuromuscular diseases, many of whom are based at the QEII Medical Centre at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, located in my electorate of Curtin.In particular, Professor Byron Kakulas and his team have made extraordinary discoveries in the field of neuromuscular and neurological disorders. In fact, the work of Professor Kakulas in this field began with research on one of our favourite Western Australian marsupials, the quokka, found on Rottnest Island. In 1958, while working as a resident in pathology at Royal Perth Hospital, he expressed an interest in neuropathology and his then professor of pathology presented him with a quokka, recently deceased. The quokka had died from posterior paralysis. The young medical resident was interested in muscle degeneration and took it on as a research project. Professor Kakulas's research subsequently discovered that the established view that voluntary muscle could not regenerate was not in fact the case. He discovered that skeletal muscle as a specialised tissue could, contrary to established opinion, regenerate.His work over the past four decades has ensured his position as a world authority and world-class researcher on neuromuscular and neurological disease, as he and researchers who have followed him have learned more about the links between the brain and muscle. He has held many international chairs and presidencies in the field and he has published numerous books and articles on muscular dystrophy, neuropathology and the like. As Medical Director of the Australian Neuromuscular Research Institute since 1974, he has combined neurotrauma work with an abiding interest in, and commitment to, sufferers of muscular dystrophy. We have now come, in the professor's words, `to the threshold of a cure of muscular dystrophy through the expression of dystrophin following gene therapy', for in 1986 researchers discovered the gene that, when defective, causes Duchenne.More recently, researchers in Melbourne have corrected that genetic defect. Researchers at the Melbourne Neuromuscular Research Institute—experimenting on mice this time—inserted normal mouse DNA into muscular dystrophy affected mouse cells and then found they could correct the genetic defect. It is believed that, once the technique is refined, it will hold great promise for treating Duchenne by repairing the gene within the cells of people with the condition. As Dr Robert Kaspa of the institute noted earlier this year: The aim of the research was to help people living with muscular dystrophy now, a goal that would be reached more quickly with increased funding and greater interest from researchers.This incredible progress is notable and, while we cannot predict when a cure will be fully developed, we can congratulate researchers like Professor Kakulas and his team and Dr Robert Kaspa and his team for their work, and appreciate the use of gene technology. To date, the cell experiments have shown the most promise. What researchers have done is introduce a normal copy of the dystrophin gene into mouse cells that carry the defective gene and, through a particular process, 15 to 20 per cent of these cells were able to be converted from containing the muscular dystrophy gene to the normal gene.The figures on muscular dystrophy vary to a degree. The Melbourne Institute suggests that muscular dystrophy affects one in 2,500 boys in Australia, but the consensus is that muscular dystrophy affects approximately one in 3,500 children worldwide. It is not only a research issue for Australia but a worldwide issue. In late 2001 the 107th Congress of the United States of America tabled an act to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for further funding for further research with respect to the various forms of muscular dystrophy, recognising that muscular dystrophies are a group of muscle diseases which have three features in common: they are hereditary, they are progressive and each causes a characteristic, selective pattern of weakness. The US Congress also noted in its debates that Duchenne was the most lethal of the muscular dystrophies. The first symptoms are diagnosed at around two or three years, symptoms such as late walking or frequent falling. The sufferers become wheelchair bound at seven or eight and then spend the rest of their lives in an electric wheelchair, dying on average by age 20 or 22 because their muscles waste away. There are other difficulties: there can be intellectual impairment, curvature of the spine or problems with the heart or lungs.We are indeed on the edge of exciting medical breakthroughs that may find a cure. The researchers need the genetic defect to be corrected in 100 per cent of human cells rather than 15 to 20 per cent of mice cells, so there are still further stages ahead for this research. Stage 1—repairing the genetic mutation—is accomplished. Stage 2—getting these cells into the bodies of mice—has been achieved, but the next stages—getting these cells ultimately into humans and then the following stage of getting enough corrected cells into enough of the affected muscles— are still ahead. In Western Australia, there is also a good deal of work being done in comprehensive molecular diagnosis. There are DNA diagnostic tests covering a very broad range of disorders, with over 2,000 families on the register. In speaking in support of this motion, I commend the work that has already been done in the area of muscular dystrophy research and hope that for the current sufferers and for future generations there will one day be a cure. I commend this motion to the House.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?00AMNLey, Sussan, MPMs Ley—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:28:002954Jackson, Sharryn, MPMs JACKSON00AN2HasluckALP00—I am happy to support the motion by the member for Curtin calling on the government to allocate additional funding to the National Health and Medical Research Council for further research into the various forms of muscular dystrophy and, in particular, Duchenne muscular dystrophy.Muscular dystrophy is a physical disorder. It does not affect a person's ability to think, feel, hope and dream. In the more severe cases, walking becomes impossible and even everyday tasks like eating and dressing require the assistance of a helper. The hereditary and progressive nature of muscular dystrophy makes this disease particularly debilitating, and I believe that a bipartisan approach should be taken to progress the research on, and subsequent treatment of, this disease. Professor Allan Bretag, Director of Research for the Muscular Dystrophy Association, has said:If research into neuromuscular disorders was a NASA project they would have been cured years ago.Medical scientists are reportedly excited about the prospect of a cure for one or two of the particular disorders being found in the next five years. This is despite limited funding opportunities for research. As the member for Curtin has said, scientists already know the cause of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. There is a significant effort under way to find ways to correct the genetic defect and, of course, to inform people of the implications of a genetic defect being passed on through their families. As the member for Curtin has already pointed out, we are greatly encouraged by the breakthrough last year by researchers at the Melbourne Neuromuscular Research Institute. There is no doubt that quality medical research is a vital tool in fighting diseases such as muscular dystrophy and in improving the quality and effectiveness of medical treatment for patients. That is why I support the member for Curtin's motion.However, I cannot but note that it is somewhat ironic that the member for Curtin should be advocating the merits of medical research when she appears to be ignoring the advice of medical researchers concerning sick, at-risk children treated within her own electorate. The Princess Margaret Children's Hospital is situated within the member for Curtin's electorate. As Western Australia's dedicated children's hospital, one would expect that it would be properly equipped to deal with the medical needs of sick children. Currently at PMH sick children have to undergo CT scans as part of their diagnostic procedures. The significance of this, particularly for children who require ongoing treatment and monitoring of their illness, is the level of radiation that they are exposed to. Every time a child has a CT scan, they are potentially increasing the risk of developing cancer later in life. Recent research has shown that children are at greater risk of developing cancer when exposed to CT scans because, firstly, children have less body tissue than adults to protect their organs, and thus when radiation passes through their body during a CT scan their organs are more exposed. Secondly, children have a higher proportion of dividing cells in their bodies than adults, and the progression of radiation in the body is associated with dividing cells. The higher rate of exposure to radiation for children associated with CT scans means that children are more at risk of developing cancer.The best way to reduce the amount of radiation exposure for children is to stop the use of CT scans for diagnosis. This can only be done by providing PMH with a magnetic resonance imaging machine. I am pleased that the Labor state government of Western Australia has committed to buying the $2 million diagnostic machine. But, because the Commonwealth will not provide the Medicare licence to run it, the operating costs for this year will be borne by a Western Australia charity, Telethon. I, along with many Western Australians, was disappointed that in the recent budget the government failed to grant a Medicare licence for the MRI machine. These machines are extremely expensive to operate and children's hospitals in most other states have a Medicare licence to operate their MRI. It is not fair that the Commonwealth government expects Western Australian taxpayers not only to purchase the machine but also to pay for its entire operation. Why is the member for Curtin not also demanding that the federal government provide a Medicare licence for this vital piece of equipment? There is very little point in having medical research if you ignore its findings. So I urge the member for Curtin to join with WA Labor MPs in calling on the Minister for Health and Ageing to change her position on this matter and to provide a licence for next year.You can see from the current Commonwealth health-funding decisions that this government's health priorities are not to ensure affordable health care for Australian families. Under the Howard government, families in my electorate of Hasluck will be paying up to $30 more a script for essential medicines, up to $12 extra to visit their GP and up to $150 a year extra for their private health insurance. With the proposal to increase the cost of medicines in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, this government is unfairly targeting sick people who need essential medication. One of the groups particularly affected by these cost increases are seniors and pensioners, including disability service pensioners— among them muscular dystrophy sufferers— who rely on a number of prescriptions to treat their various ailments. According to recent reports, approximately 20 per cent of seniors already do not purchase all of the prescriptions that they require due to the cost restraints. Increasing the cost of prescriptions by $1 per script will have a serious impact on the budget bottom line for many more struggling seniors. If people are not adequately treating their illnesses with the appropriate medication, this in turn puts pressure on state public hospitals with higher admission rates. With the proposal to slash the pensions of 200,000 disability support pensioners by $52 a fortnight, this government is also unfairly targeting people with disabilities.In many instances the services available through the broader health system are not appropriate for people who suffer with muscular dystrophy. The various branches of the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Australia—which receive very little government funding for their organisation; the majority of their annual budget comes from their own fundraising efforts—provide additional services for muscular dystrophy victims, such as specialised equipment and other equipment on loan when their own wheelchairs et cetera require repair. They provide counselling and further advice. They assist with hydrotherapy and transport. I join the member for Curtin in congratulating the Muscular Dystrophy Association branches for their work. I think it is also appropriate to note that they provide these additional services with very little support from sources of government funding. I make this point because sufferers of muscular dystrophy and their families will be significantly affected by the increases in the PBS and by, in addition, the real cuts in services, particularly in areas like respite care.I will talk about that in respect of the Commonwealth-state disability services agreement. The Commonwealth's allocation to Western Australia for disability services has not increased, despite claims in the federal budget to the contrary. In real terms, funding for disability services was virtually the same as that for the 2001-02 financial year. There is a critical area of unmet need for people with disabilities and their families that the Commonwealth government appear prepared to ignore. They cannot let the Western Australian government continue to fund 84 per cent of all funding for accommodation and other individual and family support services. Support services such as home help and respite are vital to the health and wellbeing of both disability sufferers and their families, and these services are in danger if they are not properly funded. States and territories cannot continue to be held solely responsible for funding the increases required by these services in the future.So I close by saying it is not solely about additional funding for medical research, although I support this call by the member for Curtin for an additional funding research allocation by the National Health and Medical Research Council to muscular dystrophy research, and in particular I urge the government to provide additional opportunities to enable medical scientists in Australia to undertake that further research into muscular dystrophy but I also make the point that it is about ensuring proper funding to health and disability services to care for and to support muscular dystrophy sufferers in our community. I urge the House to support the motion.16:38:002956Ley, Sussan, MPMs LEY00AMNFarrerLP10—The member for Hasluck wandered off the track, but I am happy to bring the debate back to the specifics of research funding for muscular dystrophy. I am delighted to be able to second the motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for Curtin regarding increased funding for research into the various forms of muscular dystrophy. The motion seeks to raise the profile of the disease— or, more correctly, group of diseases—so that we may be aware of its various forms and its lethal and insidious nature, particularly as a disease of children. In recognising the damage muscular dystrophy does, especially in childhood, we must recognise the need for additional funding to be made available to the National Health and Medical Research Council for research into the various forms of the disease. Hand in hand with this, we urge the government to provide additional opportunities to enable medical scientists to undertake further research into muscular dystrophy.Muscular dystrophies are a group of muscle diseases which have three features in common: they are hereditary, progressive, and they each produce selective patterns of weakness in muscle groups. The main cause of muscular dystrophy is a genetic defect. The defect is in the gene which enables muscles to produce dystrophin. This leads to muscle fibres deficient in dystrophin. In some types of muscular dystrophy, this is more severe than others. Because the disease is genetic, it is important that diagnosis is swift so that genetic advice can be offered. It is now possible to detect the abnormal gene for a number of muscular dystrophies. Research has got us this far. In fact, the discovery of this gene has spurred researchers on towards seeking a cure.At least 20,000 Australians have neuromuscular disorders, and as yet there is no cure. But this does not of course mean that the research has been in vain. As I mentioned, the defective gene has been isolated in two types of muscular dystrophy, and we have made progress. The Director of the Muscular Dystrophy Association has said— as the honourable member for Hasluck also mentioned—`If research into neuromuscular orders was a NASA project, there would have been a cure years ago.' And one wonders: perhaps we need to attack the need to find a cure to conditions like this with the same vigour and passion that we have employed in the race for space.As a parent of three young children, I cannot imagine the horror of knowing your child has a debilitating, wasting disease that may eventually take his or her life. It must be unbearable to watch your child gradually lose the use of his or her limbs and muscles and to stand by helplessly while this disease steals their childhood. The only thing that I as a parent would have to hang on to would be hope—hope that a cure may be found or, if not a cure, that ongoing research might lead to extending mobility and extending life. Research and increased funds for research give us this hope. I also recognise the valuable assistance our government has provided. I believe that in 2002 some $1.7 million of funds are to be allocated in grants towards scientific, medical and university organisations undertaking research. But, of course, we always need more. We need more to chase the cure that will so change the lives of children so desperately affected.In conclusion, I urge members of both houses to support this motion, to stand behind the work carried out by our Australian medical scientists who, as the honourable member for Curtin states, have made great progress and may well be on the threshold of a breakthrough. I commend the motion to the House.16:42:002957Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I too welcome and fully endorse the motion put forward by the member for Curtin, which draws attention to the need for additional funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council, to be allocated specifically in this case for research into the various forms of muscular dystrophy. In doing so, it is in fact a bit difficult—difficult in a constructive sense, I would like to think—because, when calling for additional funds for muscular dystrophy, it is hard to forget cystic fibrosis, asthma, cancer, childhood arthritis and a range of other disorders and diseases, all of which I am sure we could stand up for here today and fully support a call for additional funding. I do not mean that in any sense to denigrate this call so much as to remind all of us of the areas desperately needing dollars to go into the area of research.I will just digress very slightly for a moment. In Backing Australia's Ability—the government's research policy paper tabled last year—the government wanted to set priorities. They included a range of priorities which I think we would all applaud. I would like to think that, if the government were serious about funding not only muscular dystrophy but also a range of other medical research requiring suitable funding, if the government applied the criteria that is in that paper, they would find themselves able, at least in principle, to come along and support entirely any call for an increase in funding that would be required for research into muscular dystrophy, any of the other diseases that I have mentioned and the numerous others that exist.But I will come back to the motion moved by the member for Curtin. I believe that the United States, along with some other overseas countries, actually contributes more to research into muscular dystrophy in Australia than is currently provided by the government. That is not me knocking the government so much as putting into perspective where the funding is coming from and where we believe we should be upping the ante, to coin a phrase. In 2001 the NHMRC had something like $335,000 that could have been used for this purpose. Between 1999 and 2003 the Australian Research Council had $470,000. There is a list of state governments and private or non-government fundraising efforts over the years. Red Rooster is a famous one. I think over a period of 18 years they have raised something like $1 million—all for muscular dystrophy research.Medical research has a proud record in this country. Genome mapping and stem cell research I think are going to offer more help yet. But the research needs to be targeted, and I am sure I am not the only person in this place who has received letters from parents in the last few months particularly urging us all to support stem cell research for the reason that they can see a potential that could help and widen the opportunities for research and for success in muscular dystrophy as in a range of other disorders.As other speakers have already mentioned, muscular dystrophy is an appalling thing that you would not wish on anyone. Duchenne is the worst and the most prevalent. The symptoms sometimes in their early stages would not necessarily be linked to muscular dystrophy. It could be cardiac problems, cataracts, testicular atrophy, respiratory and gastrointestinal disorders, a slight form of mental retardation, scoliosis or muscle wasting—there is a range of indications that can lead to muscular dystrophy.It is fair also to mention, as the member for Curtin has pointed out, the inheritance of this disease. I understand that if one parent has the disease, even if only mildly, there is probably a fifty-fifty chance that it can be transferred on. I would like to urge all members of this place to support this motion and, in doing so, continue to urge the government of the day to think more carefully about how they can spend their science dollar and look very carefully at medical research, particularly in those disorders that affect our children and therefore affect many lives rippling out from that child. Muscular dystrophy, and the Duchenne version of it, is a terrible thing and we would not want to see anyone suffer from it. I fully endorse this motion and urge all efforts that we can raise into getting more money into the medical research end of this particular disorder.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption for this debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate2958Question proposed:That grievances be noted.295816:47:002958Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—The grievance debate this afternoon gives me the opportunity to comment on a recent announcement by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services on the AusLink plan and the absolute hypocrisy displayed by the minister on this issue. Just one week after the release of the Treasurer's budget, where it was revealed $300 million is to be cut from federal budget funding over the next two years, we have seen an astonishing backflip by the minister for transport on his plans for the future of land transport infrastructure development. Yet he refuses to see anything in transport beyond its relevance to the farm gate. He is irresponsibly inept and blinkered on the challenges of urban congestion.The minister claims that this is a new approach by the government to do what he describes as make the `hard decisions' that are needed in Australia's national interest. Whilst this is a new approach by the minister, it is certainly not an original new approach. Ever since I assumed responsibility for the infrastructure portfolio this has been firmly on the Labor Party's agenda. I have consistently called for a smarter approach to infrastructure planning and management and an integrated national transport plan to secure the economic and social growth of Australia. The record will show that Labor took to the last election a plan for the establishment of a national infrastructure advisory council. That plan would see the private sector and all tiers of government working together to tackle infrastructure policy blockages. The policy also argued for an integrated approach to transport challenges and a national land transport plan. When this important policy initiative was announced, what was the minister's response? Did he support it? Most definitely not.The minister, as the Hansard record shows, mocked Labor's plan and has continued to do so. In this place on 3 April last year the minister had the gall to claim this policy took a `top down' approach to regional and rural infrastructure. Clearly, the minister's attempt at the old smoke and mirrors trick is fatally flawed. Our policy unequivocally stressed a cooperative approach to infrastructure planning by all tiers of government and private enterprise. The minister's plan proposes no such thing. Instead of working with the states, local councils and private enterprise, the minister for transport wants them working for him. His plan constantly stresses that the Commonwealth government will be the decision maker. But all the time the plan puts the onus on the states, local governments and private partners to actually develop good infrastructure policy.The proposal paves the way for the Commonwealth to make funding decisions based purely on local political considerations. It is about drawing state, local and Commonwealth funds under the federal minister's discretion. The minister has also hankered to claw back GST funding from the states. Yet again, the GST deal is revealed as ill-considered and regretted by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.The AusLink plan—or can I say the `Ausdud' plan, as it has been renamed by one of my Labor colleagues at a state level—is without a doubt a blatant attempt at breaking down the national highway system and shirking the federal government's responsibility for that national highway system. Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, as you know from the importance of the highway upgrade in your own electorate, national highways are the arteries of Australia. They are the vital transport link across the nation and the national highway system, by its very nature, is, and should be, a Commonwealth responsibility. In the same manner, the states and local government have clear responsibilities. It should not be open to the Commonwealth to arbitrarily tip bits of money towards state and local roads with no reference to broader plans and priorities for those authorities. It is also unrealistic to expect a broader program to be delivered within existing funds. Where is the funding for the plan—a blatant black hole in the minister's announcement? The minister's speech to the Re-engineering Australia Forum a fortnight ago made just one mention of the federal government's commitment to funding the plan—that is, to amalgamate Commonwealth land transport funding. There is no top-up, no additional funding for growing responsibilities to overcome the backlog on the infrastructure front. In essence, this can only mean one thing: less money into our national highway system. That is exceptionally important, because all around Australia we have major challenges to actually upgrade the national highway system, especially with respect to some of the major accidents that have occurred in recent times. In other words, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is yet again going to rob Peter to pay Paul. What he proposes is that the Commonwealth scrap existing funding allocations, toss all the money into one pot controlled by the Commonwealth government and therefore put in jeopardy a number of essential transport infrastructure projects.The minister also claimed that the federal government has committed every cent it had promised in the lead-up to last year's election. Let us recall what occurred. We had the minister flouncing about the countryside in a VIP jet, paid for by taxpayers, throwing money here and money there, promising everything if it delivered a vote, especially to National Party members in a range of marginal seats in northern New South Wales and Queensland. It is interesting to note that around the corridors some Liberal members of the coalition have actually pointed to the fact that they received very little from those announcements and that in essence it was a National Party program for members of the National Party caucus only. But now we have seen that $300 million had to be taken from committed roadworks to pay for those priorities. It is now blatantly clear that the minister could not afford his road commitments or his Black Spot program without taking it from other projects. The projects most at risk under the minister's AusLink are the politically unpopular projects, regardless of their safety priority. The gross deception of the electorate is that he was not honest about the cost of his commitments. He did not tell those whose projects have been cut, and the workers who will lose jobs as a result, that the promises had a big price tag. How, then, can the minister credibly commit to this announcement? Not only have we seen $300 million cut from roads funding in the budget, but the hollow commitment that the money is there in later years, indeed out years, is a disgraceful attempt by the minister to cover his own inadequacies. He has other plans for those out years, when he will have his new slush fund approach ready for the next election. AusLink has emerged from the minister only as a strategy to get him out of a funding fix. What kind of accountability is that?There is no longer a firm commitment to fund any promised projects on the National Highway, Roads of National Importance and Roads to Recovery. Where was the minister's commitment to an integrated, inter-modal land transport plan in his election policy, in his statement of his third-term agenda or the budget? It was absent, missing, not thought of by the minister because it required a little bit of hard work—something that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is not well known for.If there is one thing that is certain, it is that Australia is facing serious transport challenges over the coming years. We need an integrated, intermodal approach to transport infrastructure to ensure that Australia has a modern, efficient and effective transport system. We need efficient passenger and freight transport networks linking Australian communities and Australia to the world and we need a progressive transport policy that addresses the challenges it faces. But it hinges around government accepting responsibility. We also need a minister that is genuinely committed to those changes, not committed to using those challenges to cover his political hide. AusLink is nothing short of a cheap attempt at cost shifting and responsibility shifting in an effort by an inept minister to hide his own shortcomings.Labor has long recognised the need for a change in thinking on national transport infrastructure. We will deliver. (Time expired)296016:57:002960Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—I rise today to share with the House the story of a remarkable little boy in my electorate of Leichhardt. His struggle and his triumph are directly tied to a political decision that this government will soon have to make. The wrong decision could prove extremely detrimental to Sam Endres and hundreds of others in a similar situation. Sam Endres was born profoundly deaf but, because he is such an intelligent child, his parents Paul and Kerrie did not know that something was wrong until Sam was some two years old. Paul Endres told me in a recent meeting I had with him that the days following Sam's prognosis were the bleakest in his and his wife's lives, because the prospects for Sam's educational years were poor at best and absolutely debilitating at worst. Sam's parents were reportedly told by medical and educational experts that the best they could hope for was that he would communicate by sign language and that he would not progress past a year 4 reading level. Sam has a physical shortcoming but he is in no way mentally disabled, yet Queensland Education told the Endres family that in Cairns the only way Sam could be schooled was through a special school predominantly catering for children with mental and severe learning disabilities, not physical disabilities. To place Sam, an intelligent child by anyone's standards, in this environment would literally cripple his own learning abilities, locking him out of the opportunities that other children with his mental capacity take for granted. Paul and Kerrie were quite understandably devastated. But for Sam there came hope, and that hope was a cochlear implant. Just before he turned three, Sam received the gift of hearing through a cochlear implant. I have a photograph of Sam at the exact moment that he heard his first ever sound. His expression certainly shows the miracle of his new ability. I would like to table this photograph. Sam is now five years of age and is currently completing his first year of school in a mainstream school, not a special school. What is more, he is the best reader in his class, thanks to his cochlear implant and the accompanying auditory-verbal therapy that enables Sam's brain to interpret sound.Professor Graeme Clark invented the cochlear implant and he specifically built it in two separate devices—the internal implant itself, which comprises a series of electrodes threaded through the cochlear, and the speech processing unit. Everyday sounds are picked up through the microphone attached to the speech processor and processed by the computer in the processor. The processor then sends these sounds to the implant embedded in the cochlear in the form of electronic signals that the brain can then interpret. Speech processors used to be very heavy and cumbersome and were carried about in a backpack but, as technology has progressed, the speech processors have become very small; the latest version fits snugly around the ear.It is precisely because of the technology that is constantly improving that Professor Clark made the deliberate decision to separate the cochlear implant into two distinct parts. The beauty of it is that the recipient does not require invasive surgery every time the unit is upgraded, only the first time when the implant is inserted. The part that is upgraded is the processor and it requires no surgery and therefore no risk. Every upgrade and every technological advancement maximises a recipient's hearing capability. It is vital that children especially receive the latest upgrades as soon as they are available. Once a recipient receives a cochlear implant, of course they must learn to use it, which involves a long and intensive period of teaching the brain how to interpret the signals created by the implant. The younger the recipient, the easier it is for them to learn to use the implant in the most effective way, and the easier it is to teach them speech.Because Sam was a very young recipient, his speech is perfect. It is much harder for a person who has been deaf for many years to achieve that clear speech. Until a child is six, his or her brain has what doctors call `elasticity'—an incredible capacity to absorb new things, almost like a sponge. This is the key reason that hearing specialists like to implant cochlear units in recipients as young as 12 months of age. It is extremely important to the child recipient because they can learn and become educated unhindered by physical barriers. Obviously, if a child like Sam can hear, speak and be understood before he reaches school age, he will not lose out on critical educational time, which leads me to why I have raised Sam's story in this House.Last year, the Private Health Industry Medical Devices Expert Committee recommended that requirements for health funds to provide upgraded and/or replacement speech processors for cochlear implants be removed, the reason being that private funds should not have to cover procedures that do not involve surgery. Of course, we all know that if a health fund is no longer obliged to provide free speech processors to their customers, in all likelihood they will not. This will mean that parents, despite contributing to a private health fund, will have to pay for processors themselves at a cost of between $8,000 and $10,000—a price that most cannot afford.If this recommendation is accepted, the only alternative available for these families, other than scraping together some $10,000, will be to apply for a processor through the Australian Hearing Service. That means sitting on a waiting list, possibly for months. I suggest that families did not join expensive private health funds to be put on a waiting list. Unfortunately, due to accidental breakages, malfunctions and technological advancements, a child will need several speech processors in their youth. Every day that Sam wears his processor in early childhood is absolutely critical to his future ability to hear, speak and learn. Children with cochlear implants require the latest, most current technology to maximise their speech capability. I believe that to deny them this capability is unacceptable and discriminatory. These kids cannot afford to be left with no hearing ability for those weeks or months between losing the use of their existing speech processor and reaching the head of the AHS queue. Every day a child lives without a speech processor severely hampers their progress in communicating with the rest of the world. Going without a speech processor for a month, or even a week, will halt their progress completely. And if that child is in school, they may never be able to catch up on the lessons that they missed while they were deaf to the world.I understand that advice from the Department of Health and Ageing is that some $1.6 million has been committed over four years for AHS to fund replacement speech processors. The department advises that it is confident that this represents sufficient funding. But I have had other advice suggesting that this amount falls grossly short of the actual amount of funds that would be required if patients suddenly lose their private health coverage. I am concerned that the new pressure on the AHS will make a tough situation much worse, exacerbating the already long waiting list. This is simply unacceptable. When the committee reviewed the speech processor, I believe it made a terrible mistake. It grouped the speech processor in with hundreds of prosthetics it was also reviewing. Speech processors are not like artificial limbs and should not be reviewed as such. I firmly believe that the unique technology of the cochlear implant is so different that it is beyond the intent of the current legislation. The implant is one item comprising two parts. They cannot be independent pieces of equipment: one half will not work without the other and it must be treated as one item. The speech processor should never under any circumstances have been classed as a prosthesis.As Paul and Kerrie's elected member of parliament—and as Sam's elected member of parliament—I implore this government not to accept the recommendation of the committee to remove the requirement of health funds to provide speech processor upgrades and replacements. Give the speech processor the special consideration it deserves and examine cochlear implants as a completely separate issue. We cannot deny these children the rights of hearing and speech that we all take for granted. We cannot jeopardise their capabilities and their futures. I want to see Sam Endres grow up, go to university, and make his special mark in life. I do not want to see Sam Endres—and so many other young people like him—struggle all his life with a reading level of grade 4 or less when it is totally avoidable and very much in our hands. I hope that every honourable member in this place feels the same as I do.10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! During his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources sought leave to table a document. Is leave granted?Leave granted.296217:07:002962Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00— On 17 September 1987, I stood in this place to give my first speech to the parliament. In the course of that speech, I made a number of comments which related to my commitment to ensuring the recognition of Aboriginal rights to land. Indeed, today we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Mabo decision. It is something which I know many Australians applaud, although some—notably the opposition—failed to at the time and certainly have remained in a position of opposition. During that first speech to the federal parliament, I made a number of points. Remember that this was the year prior to the bicentenary. On the matter to do with Aboriginal interests in land, I said:This is one issue which I believe to be of pre-eminent importance as we approach 1988. As a nation we have yet to recognise and accord Aboriginal people the justice that is their due.I then quoted from an address by a now deceased significant Australian author, Xavier Herbert, who, on addressing the issue of Aboriginal land rights, said:Until we give back to the black man just a bit of the land that was his, without strings to snatch it back, without anything but complete generosity of spirit in concession for the evil we have done him—until we do that, we will remain what we have always been so far, a people without integrity; not a nation but a community of thieves.That speech was made 11 years after the passage of the Northern Territory land rights legislation, but it was not until the High Court brought down the Mabo No. 2 decision in June 1992 that it became evident—as a result of the actions by Eddie Mabo in taking the Mer people's case to the High Court—that Aboriginal rights to land, in terms of expunging the doctrine of terra nullius, were recognised.After the 1993 election, the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, decided that something needed to be done to convert the decision of the High Court into law. As a result of that, I was privileged, along with my colleague sitting at the table, the member for Banks, to be involved integrally in the development of the initial native title legislation. Indeed, the Aboriginal negotiating team, which was primarily responsible for negotiating the arrangement not only for the Native Title Act but for a package of three things—a social justice package, an indigenous land fund and the Native Title Act—often worked in a room adjacent to my office. I know the member for Banks has some significant and important records of some of those meetings, none of which he released to the press, of course.Importantly, at the time the opposition railed against it and saw it as the end of life as we all knew it in Australia. Subsequently, I vividly recall sitting in front of the television and seeing maps of Australia and the current Prime Minister saying—this was prior to the 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act—`Aboriginal people are going to claim your backyard.' Of course, that was never going to be the case. Those with any knowledge of the High Court decision knew it to be the case. Informed people in the then opposition—now the government—should have known it to be the case, but the fact is they chose to ignore what was patently obvious to anyone who had any understanding at all of what the High Court had determined.Then, of course, the Keating government was defeated and, in 1998, amendments to the legislation were put before the parliament. The amendments sought to amend the rights to claim and negotiate and, sadly, to extinguish native title. On the positive side, they did provide a legislative basis for regional agreements, upon which many negotiations have taken place subsequently. But I recall that, at the time, the amendments followed the High Court's decision on Wik, which in 1996 found that native title could coexist with pastoral leases on their land— the issue of coexistence of title.I was at the High Court on that particular day—an historic occasion—as was the member for Banks. There was a gallery of interested Indigenous participants, as well as a phalange of legal representatives that you would have needed the Treasury to look after. The court made its determination and, within hours, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer, attacked the integrity of the High Court and said that, effectively, they were doing this nation a disservice, an injustice— much in the same way as the current Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs is doing about the judges of the Federal Court. This tells me a lot about where the government is coming from in relation to these debates.Then we had that extensive negotiation leading up to the 1998 amendments which were carried on the back of the Wik determination by the High Court. At that point I was working for the National Indigenous Working Group, being engaged in the negotiations to get an outcome in this place. Of course, Indigenous people were to be disappointed, because significant changes were made to the act which had a detrimental effect on their rights. When I came into parliament, I pledged to represent the interests of Aboriginal Australians, who comprised a significant proportion of my then electorate, the Northern Territory. I now represent the seat of Lingiari. About 40 per cent of my constituents are Aboriginal Australians.It is important that we understand that we still have work to do to ensure that Aboriginal Australians—Indigenous Australians— get the justice that is their due. We ought to understand that the Native Title Act, far from providing the capacity for Indigenous Australians to claim people's backyards, has become, as a direct result of the 1998 amendments, very restrictive in terms of providing the capacity for Indigenous people to make claims over land which they regard traditionally as theirs. It seems that Indigenous Australians, particularly those who have no direct contact with their country, have tragically been missed out. Nothing has yet been done by any government subsequent to the 1993 native title legislation to put in place the social justice package which in part was designed to ameliorate the difference between people who could have access to native title and people who would be denied access to native title. The social justice package would have addressed the issues of employment, health, education and access to property that many Indigenous Australians still believe they have been excluded from.On many occasions I am recorded as reminding people about the importance of Aboriginal land. I remain committed, as I have been since my first speech in 1987, to ensuring that, where we can, we obtain the justice that is due to Indigenous Australians. I remain committed to that agenda. We need to take every opportunity to ensure that we get it right. We can put it right by being considerate and understanding and by sitting down to negotiate adequate and appropriate outcomes with Indigenous Australians who continue to demand that their rights be recognised.296417:18:002964Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to raise the matter of the World Wide Fund for Nature and their continuing campaign against the sugarcane farming industry in Queensland. The WWF have engaged in a concerted campaign against the sugar industry in Queensland since mid-2001, alleging that it is causing damage to the Great Barrier Reef. They have issued a report entitled Clear ... or present danger? Great Barrier Reef pollution report card and brochures such as Get active now to protect the Great Barrier Reef. This report received a great deal of media attention in Queensland and there was little by way of a proper critique of the accusations made against the sugar industry by the WWF. The WWF cherry pick sentences and paragraphs from research papers with which to support their rather extravagant claims. In a sensational fashion, which unfortunately has become the norm for WWF, they then publish the hotchpotch of selective quotes as fact, which is then channelled through the media to an unsuspecting public. Let me give an example of their extravagant claims and language:28 million tonnes of sediment flows onto the reef each year—that's equivalent to 3.5 million dump trucks emptying a load of soil onto the Reef each year, or nearly 9,600 a day.That is certainly enough to grab a headline and to alarm anyone who reads it and takes it at face value. Unfortunately, there are no facts to back up that outrageous claim. When you read the material from reputable organisations such as the Australian Institute of Marine Science you find that in certain river systems such as the Burdekin there is little evidence to substantiate the WWF's extravagant claims. However, there have been those who have undertaken a critique of the WWF report card, one being Jennifer Marohasy, an environmental scientist, and the other being Dr Gary Johns, of the Institute of Public Affairs. They said that the WWF make no substantiation of their claims and that with little or no scientific validity the WWF have merely `filled in the blanks'.Who or what are the WWF? What is their role and, more importantly, who funds them? That is a very good question but a very difficult one to answer. There are no financial statements available. Although I have written to the WWF asking for details of their financial backers, they refuse to divulge any details. What information regarding the organisation is available, though, indicates that in 1999 they had worldwide revenues of some $720 million, branches in 41 countries and in excess of 3,000 staff. It seems that their current US budget is $100 million, and they have set aside a similar amount for their worldwide reef campaign. In Australia they are headquartered in Sydney. There are four or five staff in the Brisbane office, which has been set up as part of the antifarming-proreef campaign. Certainly, judging by the glossy brochures which they distribute, the WWF clearly have a large budget to pursue their aims. The latest manifestation of their campaign is to distribute the Get active now to protect the Great Barrier Reef' kit to children in schools located in sugar towns in North Queensland. I hold up a postcard directed to the Prime Minister. It says:Dear Prime MinisterI am very concerned about the amount of pollution Australia is producing.In particular, our appalling record on fossil fuel and other `greenhouse' emissions is contributing to the worldwide threat of global warming.Many scientists believe that this is causing coral bleaching and that at the current rate of degradation, our own national icon, the Great Barrier Reef, could be dead within a matter of decades.Can you please let me know what measures you are taking to avert this environmental disaster?We all agree that the Great Barrier Reef is a national icon. It is very significant, particularly in Queensland, and we all wish to preserve the Great Barrier Reef. However, there have been a number of extremely misleading statements by WWF, including in the postcard I have referred to. I want to refer to a study into coral bleaching undertaken in the United States by Robert Buddemeier, a senior scientist and chief of the Geohydrology Section at Kansas Geological Survey. He says that coral bleaching is an adaptive mechanism. The final conclusion of his long report is probably of most interest to us. He says:We view bleaching as providing an opportunity for reshuffling, a potent adaptive mechanism that instantly creates a host-symbiont combination with features that may prove more robust under altered conditions.In layman's terms, this means that in coral bleaching, which is a breakdown of the relationship between the coral and its symbiotic algae, the zooxanthellae, the coral simply expels its algae or, as the report proposes, the algae may voluntarily leave the coral. The reality is that under stress, corals and algae decide to part company—a little like landlords and some of their tenants. They invite in an algae that is far more robust and suitable to the conditions at the time, whether they be temperature or chemical or some other stimuli. Coral bleaching is no more significant than perhaps a human being developing a tan after being out in the sun for too long.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPFK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—You can read the study for yourself. It says that corals after this process are much more robust in the future. There it is; you are very welcome to read it. If you do not agree, that is fine. WWF are very good at putting out blanket statements. If they said that coral bleaching at present is subject to many scientific hypotheses, that would be a fair comment, and this is one of those hypotheses. However, to say that the reef will be dead in a few years is simply not right. In fact, coral bleaching does not indicate that a reef is dead; it indicates that it is going through an adaptive phase. Many corals, although not all, reactivate. However, some species do not.Returning to WWF and their claims, in their mission statement they state, `We base our work around sound science.' None of us would disagree with sound science. Unfortunately, the WWF do not do that. They certainly have the right to mount a campaign like anyone in the community, but they have a great responsibility to rely on scientific facts and on sound science. In my opinion and in the opinion of others, they have not done that. They are part of the old doom brigade—the sky is falling in. The paper put out by Marohasy and Dr Gary Johns states:It is understood that the WWF reef campaign has helped generate over 7,000 new supporters in Australia alone during 2001. The increase in WWF membership has come at the price of undermining community confidence in Queensland agriculture, in particular sugarcane growing and beef-grazing.The paper goes on to say:WWF may have played a useful role in saving the Panda from Mao's China, and the Siberian Tiger from the Soviets. But the Great Barrier Reef is arguably the best-protected coral reef in the world. The reason WWF suggests otherwise has more to do with raising its profile than protecting the reef. Hear, hear to that! In fact, it is about the three Ms. It is about membership and 7,000 new members, it is about media and getting the front page, and it is about money and getting donations. If only it was about what scientific organisations with integrity, such as the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which has been in existence for 25 years, and its director, Dr Stephen Hall, are about. So many of these other organisations believe in a win, win and in a cooperative, sustainable relationship between the industries along the Queensland coast and the Great Barrier Reef. It is possible for all of those to live together with sensible management practices and for the reef to flourish as well. As Dr Johns says, it is arguably one of the best managed reefs in the world. (Time expired)296617:28:002966Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—In this grievance debate I wish to air my concerns that as individuals and collectively members of this place we have not done enough to raise its standing in the public's eyes. Much of the criticism that we bring on ourselves is deserved and it should cause us to assess the way in which we go about our business. I want tonight to highlight some of my concerns and perhaps suggest ways in which we can improve our relevance to those who view us from outside. It is simply not good enough for this place, in a modern physical surrounding, to do its business in the same way it was done back in 1901 when the federal parliament first started.One area that is not paid enough attention is that of the executive government coming into this place and announcing its policies. I want to assure my colleagues on the opposite side that this is something that both sides of the political fence should take on board because both sides are guilty. But it will take the efforts of all—not only members of the executive but non-executive members from both the opposition and the governing parties—to bring about change to the culture of this place.I believe that there should be a greater use of ministerial statements. It is interesting to see what the House of Representatives Practice says about the use of ministerial statements. On page 255, in the paragraph about ministerial statements by leave, it simply concludes:Ministerial statements are not an everyday occurrence and their frequency has decreased in recent years.Regrettably, the statistics about the number of ministerial statements that we have had progressively over the years are fairly chilling. In 1996, there were 23; in 1997, 25; in 1998, eight; in 1999, 15; in 2000, seven; and, in 2001, four. Again, I do not wish to quote those statistics in a partisan way, even though I have taken a point in time that would suggest I was doing that. Simply put, I believe that we have gone away from having a full discussion and debate about policy matters.I wish to contrast us with the British situation. It is very interesting that at present people from the United Kingdom believe that they have an executive government that is ignoring the parliament. But I find that an interesting analysis because when we compare it to our situation they do so many things that reinforce the importance of their parliament much better. For instance, in the post September 11 period the parliament was recalled on three occasions, and it happened at a time of recess. The parliament was recalled on three occasions to hear a ministerial statement from the Prime Minister about those events. Not only is this comparison about the fact that the parliament was recalled but it is about the nature of the discussion and the way in which those ministerial statements were handled. There was a much fuller debate than we usually allow—even though after a ministerial statement we would at least allow the opposition spokesperson to make a statement and usually we would allow a notation of the ministerial statement. For instance, last week there was a fuller debate in the Main Committee about the ministerial statement to do with events in East Timor. In the House of Commons there is a debate where not only the opposition spokesperson gets involved but a number of members of the House of Commons get involved. When comparing the nature of the debate, at the end of the discussion of the ministerial statement in the House of Commons there is a question period in which questions can be asked of the Prime Minister or of the minister who made the ministerial state about the content of the ministerial statement. The importance of this is that those questions are in the context of a very different culture in the way in which members of the House of Commons actually interact in debate.Here in Australia we have set pieces. Everybody is guilty of it. We come in here and we have a set time of 20 minutes; somebody gets up on the other side and has a set time of 20 minutes. Very rarely is there an exchange or interchange based on ideas. But the culture of the House of Commons allows, through their standing orders, active intervention—they can ask if the member on his own feet would allow interruption. That culture has allowed a much more civil interaction between the members. This is illustrated by the fact that at the end of a ministerial statement they then allow questioning. Questions about the detail of the ministerial statement would get a civil response and they would then proceed. I think that these are important cultural points of difference between the Australian parliament and the United Kingdom parliament that we really should be picking up on.One of my bugbears—and perhaps I am a bit partisan because I do use this minister as an example from time to time—is that I wish that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs would come in here and make statements about the way in which we deal with and handle asylum seekers. Those statements could then lead to a fuller discussion on the floor of this chamber that might defuse the way in which the handling of asylum seekers is perceived in the public arena—the perception is perhaps 80 per cent punishment and 20 per cent compassion. We could be seen to be trying to come to grips with this as an issue. In the House of Commons, since October last year there have been two ministerial statements on the handling of asylum seekers.I will again go through the elements of a ministerial statement made in the House of Commons: the minister comes in and gives the ministerial statement and, as in Australia, notice of that ministerial statement will have been given to the opposition. In Australia the opposition spokesperson would then get up and make comment. But in the House of Commons the discussion continues and other members get an opportunity to speak to the ministerial statement. Other members get an opportunity to ask questions about the ministerial statement of the minister, who remains in the chamber. If you look at their Hansard record, you will find that when the minister cannot stay for the full discussion of the ministerial statement the first thing they do is apologise to the House and give reasons for their not remaining. This is what is required. It is almost a quantum leap to imagine that we, as non-executive members of this place, would ask those who form the executive and are members of this chamber to take the chamber seriously.As I said from the outset, I understand it is not just one political party doing this; it is something that has slowly got into the culture of this place. But I think that if we were to get back to having discussions and debates that were relevant—not just about legislation and about us being good legislators but on topics of interest—perhaps those who bother to observe us would see that we were more relevant and perhaps we could then encourage others who do not bother to observe us to take us for a serious chamber that ventilates our concerns and the concerns of the people we represent. Hopefully, there would be 150 different views. If we could deal with this as a proper cultural exchange that recognises that we can debate these issues in a civil manner without having to score points, I think we would be seen in a much better light by those we represent. (Time expired)296717:38:002967McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I wish to grieve on behalf of the Australian people and the electors of Corangamite about the large increases in public liability insurance premiums. I raised this issue in a motion before the House today, and I wish to add to my remarks. We have a situation in Australia where legislators, business people and lawyers are following a `pot of gold' syndrome, and by that I mean that if you wish to receive a large payout you will sue and live in hope. The result of that is that volunteer groups and small business are now paying excessive premiums—so much so that they are going out of business and those small voluntary groups are ceasing to operate in urban and rural Australia.What is the problem? What have we really got here when on some occasions insurance premiums are not able to be quoted? You cannot even get somebody to give you a quote for a premium for a particular activity—be it in the building industry, be it in adventure tourism. That is a remarkable set of circumstances. Public liability premiums increased on some occasions by 30 per cent after 1 July. Most people are living in fear and trembling about that outcome. Other increases have been in the order of 300 per cent. In the longer run, of course, the community pays.I would like to get a precise position of the debate as it now stands and read from the joint communique of the ministerial meeting of the Hon. Helen Coonan and the state ministers held on 27 March. I would just like to quote the major factors behind rising premiums and the reduced availability of public liability insurance that were identified. These were:· changing community attitudes to litigation;· change in the courts' view of what constitutes negligence;· increased compensation payments for bodily injury claims;· past under-pricing and poor profitability of the insurance industry;· the collapse of HIH, a major player in the public liability market; and· a decision by insurance companies to be more selective about the risks that they cover.In a very complex world I think that covers the issues that I will speak about in a short while. One of the problems, of course, is the litigation culture that is now arising in Australia—more claims and a higher dollar value of the claims, so much so that people are encouraged by their lawyers to make a claim. We have a situation where advertising is now taking place in hospital wards for workers compensation. Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, you would be aware of that in your own electorate. We have the `no win, no fee' situation contributing to this whole argument. I strongly support the comments of the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, the Hon. Joe Hockey, both in this parliament and on 25 February 2002, when he said that the liability crisis was due to `an aggressive legal profession'. He went on to say:There's a very strong argument that the widespread reform of the legal profession in the last few years has failed and lawyers should not be able to advertise and not be able to provide services without charging.I strongly commend the minister's statement, and I think there is a lot to support that view. The legal profession are unhappy about that suggestion. We have the eminent authority of a former Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs AC KBE, who made this comment in an address to the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering: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 ... The injured person does not put it down to bad luck, or blame himself, but blames someone who can be sued.I think that encapsulates the argument that many people out there in the cities and towns of Australia are concerned about, and that comes from someone who was formerly the highest legal authority in the land. The other factor, of course, has been the commercial pressures for insurers to increase their premiums. According to a JP Morgan-Deloitte 2002 survey, premiums have not kept up with inflation over the last 10 years. I quote from that report:On a CPI adjusted basis, premium rates in the commercial classes of business are still below their 1993 levels.If you read the literature, you will find that the competitive insurance companies have been trying to retain market share. They reduced their premiums and are unable to keep the capital sums and now they are seeing that they need to increase their premium prices. Reinsurance costs have also increased. And, of course, we had the catastrophe of September 11. Again I quote from the report on the same survey, which put it in a very clear manner:... the events of September 11 forced insurers to focus on the premium rates they were charging for the risk being covered and determine whether the risk/reward position was appropriate.It very simple terms, the insurers found a new catastrophic position after September 11 that they had not considered and now they are moving their insurance rates forward. I would just like to quote a very interesting comment from Mr Julian Morris, Director of the International Policy Network in London, who made an interesting speech to the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney. I quote from a report dated Wednesday, 6 March 2002 in the Australian. The headline—which will strike a chord with many Australians— reads: `We are liable for ourselves'. I said in the earlier debate in this place that adventure tourism small operators are looking at the option at Mansfield of bringing about a set of arrangements whereby they can insure themselves in certain circumstances. The article says:Scrap negligence law and encourage self-insurance, argues Julian Morris.I would like to quote from the body of the article because I think it encapsulates the debate and the arguments I am putting forward to the House. The article states:But if the consumer pays the bill anyway, shouldn't he or she have a choice? Why not simply scrap the arcane system of negligence law and allow individuals to make whatever private contracts they like? Instead of relying on the courts or the government to set the price of compensation, we could all decide how much insurance cover we want and be free to buy whatever goods we want—with or without warranties. Producers would still be obliged to ensure that their products are fit for the purpose and are what they say they are. But they would no longer be obliged to attempt the impossible task of foreseeing all possible ways in which people might misuse their products and harm themselves.That clearly demonstrates the fundamental problem that whitewater rafting and equestrian businesses and some of those more dangerous sports such as parachuting face. They would be covered in a special set of circumstances, rather than being found at fault at the end of the day. Mr Morris went on to say:Imagine the consequences of such reform. Car manufacturers would not be held liable for injuries sustained in crashes caused by incompetent driving. The owners of cinemas would not be held liable for injuries sustained by people who forget how to use retractable seats. The producers of coffee would not be held liable for causing harm when a person spills their inherently hot beverage.They are quite simple examples. Another recent example that comes to mind is the huge payout to an individual who hit a sandbar which was deemed to be the responsibility of the local council.We have a situation here in Australia— which all members of this House are concerned about, as the earlier debate indicated—where we need to put forward some positive propositions so that Australia's way of life can continue. I genuinely believe that this is a major issue in the area of childbirth, where insurance premiums for gynaecologists are now at something like $40,000 to $50,000. What an amazing circumstance: that you have to have that sort of insurance premium to go about your daily business. I suggest that we ought to cap some of the particular claims, as we have done in workers compensation in Victoria, and that insurers might contest some of the public liability claims, as has been the case in Canada.I commend the arguments to the House and to the public. I invite everyone to make a contribution to this very vexed issue, which really challenges the fundamental right of average Australians to go about their daily business without the fear of a major payout by way of premium and, when conducting their own business, the fear that they will be wiped out because of a massive payout well beyond their control because of the activities of the law and the way in which the situation arises. I hope that we do not reach the situation in America, where litigation has become the order of the day, and that we remain a free and open country. (Time expired)296917:48:002969Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I rise today to talk about a recent report of the Economic Development Committee, a Victorian state government parliamentary committee, and its inquiry into the impact of structural changes in the Victorian economy. This particular inquiry encompassed a range of different issues. The terms of reference mentioned banking, in particular; postal communications; municipal services, including the reduction in the number of municipal outlets due to the recent municipal amalgamations; public transport; and employment services. The committee also assessed the impact of the withdrawal of the above services, including the reduction in the number of municipal outlets due to the recent municipal amalgamations on small and medium sized towns.The committee has seven members: three from the Labor Party, three from the Liberal Party and one from the National Party. Last month, the inquiry came down with a broad consensus and a range of findings and recommendations which, I believe, are certainly worth having a look at with respect to what could be done to deal with some of those issues that are faced in rural and regional areas. The chair of the committee, the Hon. Neil Lucas, is an opposition member of the upper house in Victoria and is a former local government chief executive in the Berwick area. In his foreword he said:Rural communities acknowledge that there will never be a return to the days of old. Rapid technological advancement and globalisation have forever changed the way in which services are delivered.The committee received some 61 written submissions, and approximately 110 people attended public hearings throughout Victoria. The committee came together with a consensus on all findings and recommendations contained within the report. As I mentioned earlier, the report covers a range of different areas of services that are seen to be absolutely crucial to the operation of small towns, in particular. I would like to focus on the issue of banking services and some of the findings and recommendations which have come forth from this committee on this occasion. I stress that I do not think that some of the recommendations are practical or necessarily desirable and also I do not necessarily agree with some of the findings. With respect to trying to encourage some debate about the development, or lack of development, of these sorts of services currently in rural and regional areas, it is important to air some of those ideas and to get people thinking about what might be the way to go in the future.When we talk about banking services in Australia, we can say that the banking industry has been facing up to some fairly massive technological changes, particularly in recent years. The increase in the levels of electronic banking and the withdrawal of face-to-face direct services not only in metropolitan areas but also in regional and rural areas has been significant. It has certainly created a good deal of passion and angst in the community. It has had quite a direct impact on the operation of rural and regional communities.If you look at this report, you will find figures that have been provided by particular small towns and particular impact studies. For example, one of the figures relates to when a local branch closed and there was a drop of about 40 per cent in local business for butchers and a range of other services. I note that the member for Eden-Monaro on the other side is nodding his head, which he not often does when I speak, but on this issue I think he also has an understanding of the sorts of problems faced in those areas. When you look at some of the examples given, you see that branch closures is a severe problem. Although this report is about what is happening in Victoria, I do not think it is that different in other states—in fact, in some areas in other states I think the problem is probably worse. The findings and recommendations in the report cover a range of issues that are worthy of looking at for the future. There are some figures in this report which refer to the number of branch closures, and the number of branches that have gone in the past seven or eight years is phenomenal. Although there have certainly been technological advancements with Internet facilities and things like GiroPost and Australia Post that have improved accessibility post those closures, the fact of the matter is that it has altered the basic character of banking in a range of locations and that creates real problems for those communities in maintaining themselves. It has certainly created some real difficulties for them.I have been a bit amazed by the lack of action by the government in respect of this— and we saw that most recently with the announcement by the National Australia Bank of the closure of some 56 agencies across the country. Ministers of the government have come out and said, `This is terrible.' The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Warren Truss, came out publicly—he put out a press release, as I recall—decrying the fact that the National Australia Bank had done this and calling upon them to remember that they were a bank that had been built largely on rural investment and development and to take it into account. But words are cheap in this sort of exercise. The government has to look at taking some direct action to ensure that banks take into account the needs of those areas.At the last election, the Labor Party went forward with a proposal for a social contract on banking services in rural areas in particular but also in general. The whole design of that was to try to ensure that there was certainty about service delivery, that we evaluated what was required for particular communities and in that way put a system in place which would ensure access to affordable banking services for all Australians. I urge the government to look at that again. It is one thing to say, as the Treasurer has on occasion, `Shop around.' It is one thing to say, as the minister for agriculture has, that the National Australia Bank is not really doing the right thing by the communities that helped build it. There is scope to take action, and that action ought to be taken by this government.It is interesting to look at the recommendations in the report of the committee— which included members of the coalition in Victoria—as they go across some of those issues. For example, one recommendation stated:The Committee recommends that following the announcement of a bank branch closure, the State Government assist affected communities by:· assessing the capacity of existing, alternative services and the appropriateness of these alternatives for specific target groups (elderly, disabled, unemployed, business customers); and· providing a resource guide that facilitates the adoption of alternative banking methods, promotes the benefits of establishing and supporting a community bank through case studies of towns successful in overcoming bank branch closures and provides referrals to local, state and federal sources of assistance in acquiring and establishing alternative banking services.There is a range of recommendations which go to the detail of what can be done to try to alleviate the concerns of particular communities—not necessarily to stand in the way of change but to try to ensure that aspects that occur around the question of those changes are done in a way which minimises disruption to communities that are already seeing it pretty tough.Going beyond that, a range of other points is being made in this report. There is quite a deal of encouragement of community banking facilities, putting forward the view that in certain circumstances they will be quite successful, and there is a good deal of concern about the operation of the banks in a wider sense. Those points are worth making. There are also concerns about electronic banking and Internet services. It is one thing to say that they are part of the future—and they certainly are—but, when you are looking at the question of access to those sorts of facilities in rural and regional Australia, you see that that access is not as good as it is in metropolitan areas. I guess that comes back, in a range of ways, to the debate that has been going on particularly within the National Party regarding issues like the sale of Telstra, as proposed by the current government. When you look at some of these services and issues, it is clear that there is still a long way to go to ensure that the communities in rural and regional areas have a fair and reasonable level of service delivery.I urge members to have a look at the report if they are concerned about these issues. It brings forward a range of concerns which people on this side of the House have been speaking about for some years. It certainly highlights the fact that over the last seven or eight years in particular those communities have had a massive gutting of services which is having an extremely detrimental effect on the operation of those communities and on the families, the Australians, the Howard battlers who live in those locations.297217:58:002972Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10— I do not think I need to remind anybody in this House about the problem that often exists in the community with regard to people's understanding of the various levels of government—who is responsible for what. Every day of the week I am sure that all members of parliament have people come to their offices about matters which in fact are not the responsibility of the federal government but invariably are the responsibility of either the state government or local government. I find myself often having to give a bit of a history lesson to many people as to why it is that the federal government legally cannot involve itself in particular matters which people want you to fix because they have had no luck at the local or state level but which are, constitutionally, matters for the states and/or local government and not the federal government. The education about civics that was introduced into schools a few years ago is a great step forward so that more people in our community will grow up with an understanding of our three levels of government. I do not want to talk tonight about whether we should change that but it is something that I feel like debating at times. I am sure that every member in the House would agree with me on that matter.Meeting responsibilities is what I really want to talk about. When the federal government recently highlighted in the budget the fact that we needed to put more resources into defence because of various things happening internationally which require a greater defence commitment, we did not go around to the states and say, `We want you to throw in some money to keep our troops in Afghanistan or to protect our borders.' We took that responsibility. It is a federal responsibility, and we know what sorts of resources we have to place. The same should apply to those matters which are the responsibility of the states, but I find in my electorate that we are constantly having this debate, particularly when it relates to roads and education but also in relation to a whole heap of other services as well.Because there are some grey areas, it seems that the states are able to exploit those grey areas and always when they get into some strife they want to pass the buck to the Commonwealth and say, `If the Commonwealth helped us out, we could solve this problem.' Really, it gets a bit rich when every time a state government finds itself in a bit of trouble it says that the easy way out is that you just say, `Come on, the Commonwealth can kick the can and help solve the problem.' What if we did that every time there was a responsibility which was quite rightly that of the federal government and we wanted to put more resources in? If we said to the states, `Come on, you come and help us,' they would quite rightly scream. So I think there needs to be an understanding of these responsibilities.I want to mention a couple of things that are fairly typical of what is happening in my electorate in that respect. As for roads, down on the south coast of my electorate we have a problem at Pambula bridge on the Princes Highway. It is an old wooden bridge, it is low lying and every few years it floods, and that causes a great drama, particularly for the people around Eden if they want to get to the hospital, which is on the north side of the river that the bridge goes across in Pambula. The Princes Highway is quite clearly a state government road; it is not a part of the national highway system, therefore it is the responsibility of the state government.The state government decided that they were going to spend some money and replace this bridge. But when it was discovered by the community that all they were going to do was build a new bridge in exactly the same location and at exactly the same level, the community said, `That's not going to solve too much. It's still going to flood just as often, so we are going to have the same problem.' But the state government were adamant that that was all they were going to do, and it was only after a lot of community jumping up and down that finally they said, `Oh, well, all right, we've listened to the community and you don't want that so we'll do something better, but it's going to cost a lot more money.' Instead of the $3 million-odd that they were going to spend, they said that a better solution—a solution that they should have been working towards in the first place—was going to cost $10 million. So they said, `We'll put in five and we'll just ask the Commonwealth to put in five. It's not the Commonwealth's responsibility but we'll ask them anyway.' So this is the sort of example coming from the state government. If they were really taking their responsibilities properly, in their budget tomorrow they would have that bridge fully funded, because it is needed, it is on a major road down the coast and it is on a major state highway. If we are going to increase tourism and industry in that region, we need to know that the highways are going to be open all the time and they are going to be safe. So instead of just passing the buck and saying the Commonwealth can pay for it, they should live up to their responsibilities and do the right thing and spend the money that is required to fix that particular problem.I am the first to say that I have said a number of times that the Princes Highway is gradually becoming more of a major highway and that if there is a way in which the Commonwealth can help at some particular time along the way then we will try to do so. But we have to remember that in 1991 there was an agreement between the Labor federal government of the day and the state governments that the federal government would only fund the national highway system— major highways between capital cities and between Sydney and Melbourne—that is, the Hume Highway—and that the state highways would be funded by the states. We have also introduced Roads of National Importance, and that is an opportunity to get a bit of extra funding into certain areas—and the Kiama bypass is an example of that—and I hope that we can find some additional federal funds in the future for difficult locations. I will certainly be out there working to get that additional money, like I did to get some black spot funding—about $2 million has been spent on the Princes Highway in black spot funding—and I will continue to work to find out about any other bits of the highway where we can help out, but the state government have to acknowledge their responsibilities for that particular piece of road.Another example is the state government seeming in fact to be almost knocking back assistance over the Queanbeyan heavy vehicle bypass, also a state government responsibility. The federal government, acknowledging the importance of that bypass for the town of Queanbeyan, said that they would contribute $2 million towards it. We will put up $2 million towards the cost of about $5½ million, so you would think that the state government would jump at that and say, `You beauty! Here's a couple of million dollars we don't have to find.' But the state member for Monaro actually put questions on notice to the state transport minister about the Queanbeyan heavy vehicle bypass in which he said:Has the federal government committed $2 million to the Queanbeyan heavy vehicle bypass? Does this represent some 40 per cent of the total estimated cost to the project? Is the Queanbeyan City Council committed financially to the project? Have you met with the ACT minister for roads with regard to the cross-border aspects of this project? Will you be matching the federal commitment in the forthcoming budget to ensure this project goes ahead? As a commitment to the project was made by the state government in 1995 and the recent RTA cost-benefit analysis recommended the project proceed, what is causing the delay?All those legitimate questions on notice to the state minister for transport and what was his response? It was:The Queanbeyan bypass is an important project currently under consideration.Talk about the arrogance of the man! He gives that sort of answer to those six questions—legitimate questions to be asked. It is not good enough. The federal government is putting up $2 million for something that is really a state responsibility. The state government gave a commitment to it back in 1995. They should get on with it. Hopefully, they will do the right thing in tomorrow's budget and the money will be there—the rest of the money—so that this badly needed project can be done.I am just about out of time, but the other example I was giving was with respect to education. Every time parents or P and Cs complain to the state government about extra funding, they say, `Go and talk to the federal government; they should give us some more.' Every time they get into strife, they use that particular excuse. In Eden-Monaro, the federal government has in fact been funding the greater proportion of all of the capital works for schools. As Brendan Nelson said, the federal budget last year increased funding to New South Wales by 5.2 per cent. Had the Carr government increased their budget by the same amount—that is, 5.2 per cent—rather than the 2.5 per cent, they would have had an extra $145 million to spend. I call on them to increase their budget tomorrow. (Time expired)10000Price, Roger (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. L.R.S. Price)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question agreed to.Bills2974R15402974Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Mr Costello:That this bill be now read a second time.upon which Ms Macklin moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) Its failure to deliver a budget surplus in 2001-02 after a decade of growth:(2) Its failure to deliver a budget surplus in 2002-03 without breaking previous commitments on defence, roads and working credits; (3) Imposing the cost of a pre-election spending spree on families via higher interest rates and cuts in health and welfare spending;(4) Falsely claiming that cuts to health and welfare payments are needed to fund the war against terrorism and border protection;(5) Wasting $5 billion of taxpayers money by gambling in foreign currency markets through cross currency derivatives;(6) Wasting almost $3.5 billion by failing to manage currency risk on defence spending despite warnings from the Auditor-General;(7) Wasting $31 million on maintenance services for 40 years old helicopters that are years overdue despite a $800m downpayment;(8) Its failure to recognise the GST as a Commonwealth tax and this Government as the highest taxing of all time;(9) Its failure to consider the fairer options put forward by the opposition to offset the harsh measures it intends to impose on families, the sick and disabled;(10) The failure of its Intergenerational Report to recognise that investment in education, research and development is critical to our future prosperity and our capacity to generate the revenue and wealth required to support an ageing population.18:08:002974Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00— Last Thursday at the commencement of my remarks on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03, I was explaining the policy failures in this year's budget. I explained to the House the very close link between deficit budgeting and higher interest rates. This link, of course, was confirmed with the testimony of the Governor of the Reserve Bank just last Friday when he announced that interest rates over the next 12 to 18 months are likely to increase by two per cent. This confirms the link: at the beginning of May a deficit budget here in Canberra; at the end of May the announcement of a prospective two per cent increase in interest rates. This is a deficit budget that has placed pressure on the upward movement of interest rates. It is a deficit budget where the price will be paid by home buyers and small businesspeople around the country. It confirms the long list of policy failures by the Treasurer. It also confirms one of the great adages in politics: where there is no belief, there can be no achievements.Unfortunately, the Treasurer believes in nothing bar himself and image making. The one constant in his life has been the image makeover. I would argue that he has had more image makeovers than Gary Glitter. The Treasurer is always oscillating from one extreme of politics to the other. He started life as a Baptist nerd, knocking around the suburbs of Melbourne. Then he joined Young Labor and the Social Democratic Association at Monash University. Then there was another radical shift in political direction when he joined the HR Nicholls Society. Then he entered this parliament and became a budget cutting Treasurer, trying to boast about his surpluses. We all now know that he is a deficit Treasurer who has lost his fiscal discipline. Then, after his reputation as a budget cutting Treasurer, there was another oscillation when he became the leader of the moderates within the Liberal Party, trying to remake his image. Then, finally, we had the ultimate image makeover when, in a recent edition of the Bulletin magazine, he tried to present himself as a man of the people. Unfortunately for the Treasurer he was surrounded by everything but people. He was surrounded mainly by sausages and thin air in the photograph in the Bulletin magazine.So there has been a series of image makeovers: Baptist nerd, Young Labor, HR Nicholls Society, budget cutting Treasurer, leader of the moderates, and now he is trying to pose as a man of the people. It begs the question: what next? What will the Treasurer do next in his oscillation from one political extreme to the other? Join the Hare Krishna? Try and reinvent socialism? Join the neo-nationalist movement in Europe? The truth is: where there is no belief, where there is no constant set of beliefs in politics, there can be no achievement. That, ultimately, is the Treasurer's political life story: no belief, no achievement. He shapes up as the Ben Doolan of Australian politics.I would argue that this budget also bears the mark of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—someone who has had his own troubles. The one thing about the minister for employment is that he is always trying to give the ALP his problems— not our problems; his problems, driven mainly by a sense of guilt—and one of my roles in this place is to give them straight back to him. I would argue that he has four great obsessions in his life: trade unions, the so-called elites, the royal family and, of course, Labor families. The first obsession is trade unions. Why does he have this problem with trade unions? It is his problem; it is not Labor's problem. He has this problem because his mentor, BA Santamaria, tried to take over the union movement in the 1950s and failed. So the minister for employment is trying to live out the failings of his mentor, Santamaria. Now he takes the view, along with many others in the National Civic Council, that what they cannot control they will try to destroy. For all the claptrap we hear from the minister for employment in question time, all the rattling on about the trade union movement, no-one should think for a moment that this is anyone's problem but his. It is his problem, and we need to give it back to him. It is his problem that Santamaria was unable to take over the unions in the fifties and sixties. It is a problem that the minister for employment is trying to live out: a father figure who did not get it right; a minister for employment bashing and trying to destroy the union movement. There is another reason that the minister for employment is obsessed with unions: all the great problems and scandals in his life have been a product of too many unions. That is how he became the `great hereditary disappear' of Australian politics: too many unions. No wonder he is always banging on about unions in question time— he has had too many himself.His second great obsession in life are the so-called elites. Again, this is his problem, not ours—and we are giving it straight back to him. He is obsessed with elites out of a sense of guilt because he has the CV of a rolled gold elite: the son of a North Shore medical specialist, the product of an expensive private school, an Oxford education, an editorial writer for the Australian newspaper, press secretary to a Liberal Party leader, head of the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy and now a cabinet minister in Canberra. This is the CV of a rolled gold elite. Yet in the straight half-world in which the minister for employment lives, it is the trade unionists, the housos and the working class of the Labor Party who are supposed to be the elites. No wonder they call him the `mad monk'. This is a crazy campaign against elites which, in its final form, represents a campaign against himself. It is another obsession driven by guilt in his own elite background. It is another instance of the minister for employment trying to give problems to the Labor Party, but again we are giving them straight back.His third obsession in life is the royal family. You could not get any more elite than the royal family. This is the double standard that the minister for employment constantly exercises. He has got the hide to call young unemployed Australians `job snobs', he wants young or unemployed Australians to work for the dole, yet at the same time he supports a royal family that would not work in an iron lung. It is a double standard. It is a piece of hypocrisy. It is an obsession of the minister for employment. He tries to make out that other people have a problem if they do not support this elite institution, the royal family. The truth is that it is his problem and, again, we are giving it straight back to him.His fourth and final obsession is Labor families. The truth is that the minister for employment, as we hear question time after question time, is obsessed. He hates the idea of Labor people nurturing their own families. He is obsessed with the strong and productive relationship between Kim Beazley Snr and Kim Beazley Jr. He is obsessed with the strong and productive relationship between Frank and Simon Crean. He has got the hide to call the Leader of the Opposition `genetically engineered'. It makes me wonder that, by this standard, he must think the minister for foreign affairs is Dolly the sheep! The truth is that the minister for employment gave away his genes yet he has got the hide to call others in this parliament `genetically engineered'. He has got the hide to call people on the Labor side `hereditary peers' when in truth he is the great hereditary `disappear' of Australian politics.I would argue that the minister for employment is indicative of the new political correctness in Australia. There is a new political correctness in this country and it runs along these lines: it is all right for the minister for employment and the shock jocks on radio to beat up on the blacks, the unemployed, the disability pensioners, the marginalised and the disadvantaged in our society. They call that `political incorrectness'. But when someone else talks about one of the Melbourne establishment, like Tony Staley, or talks about Kerry Packer's gambling losses or the lifestyle of the publicly funded Queen Mother, all hell breaks loose. This is the new political correctness in Australia. It is a political correctness by which the elites and the privileged in our society are quarantined from any criticism. It is a political correctness that is a soft touch on the ruling elites and it is trying to turn them into a protected species.We need to bust through this political correctness and have a bit of truth. In truth, people at the top end of town are living off the system as much as those at the bottom end. Sometimes those at the top end of the town are not exercising their proper responsibilities as citizens. We need to have an honest debate and recognition of these truths. We should not be looking just down the social ladder to those who might be breaking the rules. Very often those at the top of the ladder are also rule breakers. We need to break through this new political correctness and have one standard across society. We should not have the ruling elites, such as the royal family and friends of the minister for employment, quarantined from any public criticism.I noticed this form of political correctness was evident in a recent article by `Nancy Boy' Bolt in the Herald Sun newspaper—and I even got a mention in dispatches. He accused me of `walloping a comedian with a foam club when he'—that is, me—`was stopped in the street for a skit'. The news for Nancy Boy Bolt is, in fact, that was the skit. It was a Logie nominated skit with a nerf bat. I can only imagine that if Nancy Boy Bolt is terribly offended, as he was in this article, at the thought of someone involved in a comedy skit with a foam club, as a kid he must have had nightmares about Tom and Jerry cartoons. Even today I can imagine that Nancy Boy Bolt breaks out in a cold sweat just thinking about the Three Stooges—all that violence and harm caused by foam clubs and nerf bats. Better that than beating up on the most disadvantaged parts of society as Bolt and the other tabloid shock jocks do day after day. This is what the slanderous Bolt said about disability pensioners on ABC TV on 19 May:Tough. If you are disabled but you can pay your own way, then tough, do that. It is a shame politicians can't say such things.So this is the new political correctness practised by so many Howard government ministers, practised in particular by the minister for employment, and echoed in the pages of the Herald Sun by people like Andrew `Nancy Boy' Bolt. It is a political correctness that says it is okay to be tough on disability pensioners but it is not okay to question the public funding that propped up the Queen Mother and her opulent lifestyle year after year, decade after decade. It is a political correctness that is a soft touch on the ruling elites in this country. It is a political correctness that is trying to turn the most privileged and affluent of Australian citizens into a protected species. It is a political correctness that applies rigorous standards only to the poor, the disadvantaged and the marginalised in our society. It is a political correctness that I thoroughly reject. Most of all I reject the way in which the minister for employment tries to call disadvantaged people, and those who advance their cause in this place, part of the elites, when he defends the real elites— the affluent, the privileged, the powerful in our society—from decent public scrutiny and decent public standards. So there are many things to criticise in this government. We can criticise the double standards and the hypocrisy of the minister for employment in particular. I note his obsessions in life and the problems he has. One of the sad things about this parliament is that he is always trying to give those problems to us. The truth is they are his problems and he needs to be accountable for them—the failings of his father figure, B.A. Santamaria; the failings of his own judgment and his own criticism of Labor families, the failings of his critique of so-called elites and the failings of his support for the royal family. They are his problems, and we are giving them back.The most important thing in this budget debate is to give back to the Australian people some decency in the way in which the finances of the nation are organised. The truth is that we should not have a budget that is trying to make pensioners—disability pensioners, in particular—pay for the government spending spree prior to the last election. This was a government that promised a surplus budget prior to the last election—in fact the Treasurer said he would guarantee surplus budgets. But then straight after the election he has decided to slash support for older people and their pharmaceuticals, he has decided to slash public housing funding and he has decided to slash the disability support pension—and still produce a deficit. So much pain for disadvantaged Australians while still breaking his election promise.The sad situation is that the government has lost fiscal discipline and the Treasurer believes in nothing other than his own image. That is why he has had more image makeovers than Madonna and Gary Glitter put together. The Treasurer believes in nothing, and that is why he has been so cavalier in breaking his election promise with a deficit budget. The sad fact confirmed by the Governor of the Reserve Bank last Friday is that the deficit budget will produce higher interest rates, and we heard it directly in the testimony of the governor. The governor has said that he wants to return monetary policy to a neutral setting, and he defined that as between three and 3½ per cent real interest rates. At the moment interest rates in real terms are two per cent, so there will be a one to 1½ per cent interest rate increase. But the real problem is that the Reserve Bank also said that underlying inflation will increase in the next 12 months from 2½ per cent to 3½ per cent, and that will produce further upward pressure on interest rates. So we are likely to see interest rate rises over the next 12 to 18 months of between two and 2½ per cent. This has been confirmed by the Reserve Bank. It is more than coincidence that in the same month we had a return to deficit budgeting in Australia we have had the announcement of a substantial interest rate rise. It is a bad budget that hurts the most vulnerable in our society and is bound to lift interest rates.18:24:002977McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—In rising to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03 I want first to totally refute the remarks of the member for Werriwa. His personal attacks on the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations show the paucity of his understanding of the budget. He purports to be the intellectual driving force of the Labor Party yet he comes into this House and attacks on a personal basis members of the Howard government. I totally reject his personal accusations against those ministers. I say to the intellectual of the Labor Party: where are your arguments? Where is your genuine attack on the budget? Why don't you concentrate on the main issues rather than indulging in a personal attack? I must say I am disappointed in the member for Werriwa.The budget is a very responsible document and I would like to refer to some aspects of it in the short time available prior to the dinner break. The budget will be projecting a surplus of $2.1 billion and the debt has been reduced by $61 billion—a remarkable achievement. The border protection has been a major issue during the campaign, and the government will spend $2.8 billion over five years in order to protect our borders, fulfilling the promise of the Prime Minister and the government that the people of Australia could feel confident that the policies enunciated during the campaign would in fact be carried out during the life of this parliament. Under that policy 105,000 immigrants will pass through the border control in a legal manner—and I emphasise that point. There will also be 12,000 refugees, which indicates the government's compassion and the government's understanding of this very vexed issue facing the whole of the Western world.Mr Deputy Speaker, I have suggested that there be incorporated in Hansard table 3 from Budget Paper No. 1 in relation to the national debt. I seek leave to incorporate the document.Leave granted.The table read as follows—Table 3: Commonwealth general government sector net debt(a) and net interest payments(b)Net debtNet interest payments$mPer cent of GDP$mPer cent of GDP1974-75-1,901-2.8-267-0.41975-76-341-0.4-389-0.51976-778981.0-161-0.21977-782,8962.9-106-0.11978-794,9834.41260.11979-806,2444.92900.21980-816,3564.44440.31981-825,9193.54750.31982-839,1515.16540.41983-8416,0157.91,3270.71984-8521,8969.72,4621.11985-8626,88910.83,6261.51986-8729,13610.74,3871.61987-8827,3598.84,0191.31988-8921,9826.33,7221.11989-9016,1214.23,8481.01990-9116,9364.32,8340.71991-9231,1327.72,7390.71992-9355,21813.02,9120.71993-9470,22315.74,5491.01994-9583,49217.76,3101.31995-9695,83119.17,8121.61996-9796,28118.28,4491.61997-9882,93514.87,3811.31998-9970,40211.96,9011.21999-0053,1068.46,3261.02000-0139,2585.85,0820.82001-02(e)38,8455.54,2120.62002-03(e)34,4744.63,7480.52003-04(p)18,9642.43,2590.42004-05(p)1,7590.22,2790.32005-06(p)-18,857-2.12,5880.3(a) Source: ABS Cat. No. 5513.0, 5501.0, Commonwealth Final Budget Outcomes and Treasury estimates.(b) In 2005-06, there are some one-off factors leading to a marginal increase in estimated net cash interest payments, including the recognition in cash terms of the capital growth on inflation indexed bonds maturing in this year and repurchase premia on nominal bonds repurchased in earlier years and held to their maturity in this year.(e) Estimates.(p) Projections.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—I would like to draw the attention of the House to that document because it relates to the debt level that the government has now reduced by $61 billion. That document clearly demonstrates a remarkable change from the Fraser government. In 1983-84, under the Fraser government the net debt was $16 billion, a very small figure. If you then look at the table, you see that in 1991-92 it was $31 billion. I give the figures in round terms because it demonstrates the problem. In the following years it went from $31 billion to $55 billion, $70 billion, $83 billion and $95 billion. In 1996-97, the last year of the Keating government, it was a $96 billion debt. That debt was undertaken by the Keating government. Not only did they not repay capital items but they used that debt for recurrent expenditure. The other key figure is that when they incurred that debt of $96 billion they were incurring an interest bill of $8.5 billion. I put on the record that that was almost within range of the total defence expenditure of about $11 billion or $12 billion. So in simple terms we could have done a whole lot of very valuable things for the Australian people with the interest that the Keating government were paying on that massive debt. Under the Costello regime, the debt has been continually reduced back to $82 million, $70 billion and $53 billion and in the year 2001 back to $39 billion. It is projected on these figures 2001-02 to be $38 billion. These figures graphically demonstrate the argument the Treasurer has put to the Australian people that that massive debt has been reduced and that governments historically have borrowed money to pay their way and seek political favours. However, the Howard-Costello government in handling the finances have been responsible. They have taken the tough decisions, and this document graphically demonstrates the return to a more stable position, with lower interest rates, lower inflation and lower government debt—so much so that it is projected that by the year 2005-06 there will be a surplus of $18 billion. This is a remarkable turnaround and a turnaround to be commended. The member for Werriwa did not address that situation in his personal attacks on members of the government frontbench, particularly the Treasurer. I commend the Treasurer on his performance in this particular area. It is a matter that I have been concerned about for many years, and the government have turned it around. They now obviously have less interest to pay and that will mean resources to be devoted to those with disabilities and those poorer members of our community, and that will be a very commendable social outcome of a reduced deficit, let alone the reduced inflation and reduced interest rates that all Australians are enjoying.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the very good performance of the government and the Treasurer in reducing the Commonwealth's debt. I would now like to move to the related problem of the household debt. I note from the budget papers that in 1981 the household debt was 40 per cent of disposable income, by 1996 it was 80 per cent of disposable income, and by 2001 it was 110 per cent of disposable income. That is a reflection of the low interest rates and the capacity of households, under the Howard government, to generate wealth and consume goods and services. I have some concern about that. I note that the graphs, as demonstrated in the budget papers, are similar to those of other developed countries, such as the US and the UK, where low interest rates occur. The other matter which I draw to the attention of the House is the consumer credit debt, which is in the vicinity of $50 billion. I re-emphasise the fact that Australian households and individuals have been encouraged to take on a con-sumer debt of $50 billion by way of Bankcard. If there is, by chance, a change in interest rates of one or two per cent, that will reflect very heavily on that amount of debt. To be fair, governments around Australia have reduced their level of indebtedness. Peter Costello, as Treasurer, has done a very good job of reducing the level of debt of the national government. I issue a warning to individuals that the excess of debt in changing circumstances is a problem that would worry us all.Likewise, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was costing the taxpayer approximately $1.2 billion in 1991. The Hon. Peter Walsh, a former finance minister, informed the parliament and the people that the escalation was going be a concern in the future. In 2002, it is costing the taxpayer and the government $4.2 billion, and it is projected that it could cost another $40 billion in 2040. If you follow that line of projection, the taxpayer and the government are incurring a debt of considerable magnitude in the provision of health services to individual older Australians. The change in the copayment from $3.60 to $4.60 is a minimal payment which encourages a more responsible attitude towards pharmaceuticals.The Intergenerational Report, released in the budget, again looks at the future and where Australia will be in the year 2042 with the problems of an ageing population and declining birth rates. I note that the declining birth rate is a matter for concern; the number of people entering the work force will be very much reduced and, in the comparatively near future, Australians will not be reproducing themselves.Taking the broad figures from the budget papers, we note that the world had a growth rate of 2.5 per cent in 2001, compared with 4.7 per cent in 2000. Obviously in that financial year growth and productivity around the world was reduced. The projections for the Australian economy, on the other hand, are very encouraging. It is projected from the budget that, in 2002-03, the productivity growth rate will be 3¾ per cent. That is a very encouraging figure. The fundamental outcome of this budget depends upon those growth rate figures, both in real and in monetary terms.Productivity from the changes to the industrial relations regime, new innovation and the general good management of the government have ensured that, contrary to other Western developed countries, the productivity figures are very encouraging. When you look at the US figures, growth for 2001 was 1.2 per cent, which is a very low figure compared with the four per cent in the previous four years. This gives an interesting relativity of Australia's good performance under the stewardship of the Howard government compared with other developed Western nations. The Japanese economy, which is so important as a trading partner to Australia, contracted by 0.4 per cent. This gives a clear indication of the difficulties facing the Japanese policy makers in terms of the corporate debt, the banking debt and the ability of that economy to recover and be a genuinely good trading partner to Australia.In Australia our exporters were doing well until recent weeks when the value of the dollar, relative to the American dollar, was very favourable to exporters. The cattle industry has done remarkably well, the grain industry is doing well and the dairy industry in the heartland of Corangamite is doing very well. Lambs are at $100 and those other big exporters of iron ore and coal are all looking favourable because of the low Australian dollar. Overall, the Australian economy has done well. There has been a very careful attempt by the Treasurer and the government to contain expenditure, to reduce debt, and I think all Australians are benefiting from those important initiatives.I would like to look at a broader topic of globalisation and the importance of Australians and this parliament sticking with the difficult issue of making sure that Australia remains competitive in its agricultural products and manufacturing. It must remain competitive in everything it does, whether it be financial services, the provision of health, the provision of government services, or just maintaining a sensible balance of no extraordinarily high debt levels such as those the Keating government foisted upon this parliament. We need to ensure that there is a free flow of capital. This was assisted, of course, by the floating of the exchange rate. I commend the Labor government on that good policy in its early days of office. It assisted Australia in reaching a genuine competitive position.Globalisation has been a benefit to Australia. All too often in our own electorates we see lobby groups of farmers or people who have enjoyed the benefit of a special interest group saying that globalisation is a difficulty. The facts of the matter are that globalisation and Australia's position in the world are very much supported by our ability to trade competitively, to trade internationally and to make a profit in the final analysis. The benefits of trade are so well known to many of us. I will quote an article by Mr Chris Pierson of the University of Nottingham in the Australian Journal of Politics and History, volume 47, dated 4 December 2001. He said:World trade in goods has grown almost twice as fast as GDP since 1950.What he is really saying—and this particularly affects Australia because Australia is a trading nation—is that, because those nations were prepared to go out and seek export markets, they were able to enjoy the benefits and prosperity that went with that world trade. World trade has doubled since 1950, and that is not so long ago—when there were a lot of forces in the world, they were restrictive and they said they would stick to the home market. He went on to say:The trade in services also appears to have doubled in the period since figures were first reported in 1980, so that total world trade may now amount to as much as 45% of world GDP.The facts of the argument support very much that Australia should be in the global market and that we should use everything in our power in this parliament to encourage exporters and support them, both by way of tax changes and by way of our attitude to exports.Computing and Internet costs have dramatically decreased, of course, here in Australia and in the Western world. Technology growth has contributed massively to the growth of world trade over last few decades. The important debate that we need to have is that some of the social democratic political parties in the Western world are somewhat inward looking and can win the internal debate at the polls by saying that they want to protect the home market relative to arguing the case for globalisation and expanding their markets to other attractive markets around the world—although that would be more difficult.In an interesting piece in the Australian Journal of Political Science, Mr Tom Conley of Griffith University had this to say:The belief that turning inward and retreating to earlier Australian responses to deal with economic vulnerability would be catastrophic for Australia's future prosperity, does not mean that protectionist impulses will not continue to influence the Australian policy debate.The protectionist debate will continue. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, the government are reviewing that protectionist policy. The issue for debate is not that the car industry enjoys a 10 per cent protection at the moment and the government are looking at reducing it; the fundamental debate that both sides of this parliament need to have is one of whether one particular manufacturing sector enjoys protection or whether we are prepared to go out and be competitive in the world, putting our goods and services, in terms of quality and price, on the world market and not expecting to be protected against others who are doing better than us.In the few minutes remaining, I draw the attention of the House to the results of this globalisation and the benefits of trading internationally and competitively. Let us look at the OECD rankings of GDP per capita and the ranking of Australia. It is always very interesting to see where we sit internationally with other nations of the Western world. Switzerland seems to have done pretty well—it is at the top of the class—from 1975 to 2000. In 1975, Australia was 10th on the table; by 1980, we had slipped down to 12th; by 1990, we had slipped down 13th; and by 2000, we had come back to 11th.Because there have been reforms of the industrial relations system, the tax system and our ability to export competitively, our wealth creation has improved. We have been competing with the United States, which has been sitting up near the top of the class— second in 1975, second in 1980, third in 1990 and second in 2000. We have moved up and down, and it is only with policy settings that we have been able to improve our position. Our position in terms of GDP per capita reflects the fact that the poorer sections of the community now have more ability to enjoy the benefits of the taxation system since the introduction of the GST, so the flow-on of the genuinely created wealth in Australia from exports can be spread through the whole community. I suggest to both the government and those sitting opposite that we continue the good fight to ensure that globalisation and Australia's position in the world continues.The introduction of the US farm bill is a disaster for globalisation. The minister at the table, Minister Tuckey, with his Western Australian electorate, would appreciate only too well that the US farm bill, which is contrary to the spirit of globalisation and international trade—and for the political benefit of President Bush and the Republican Party—has set back the cause of globalisation and international trade.When it came to the crunch, the US administration, while they advocate free trade at every forum around the world, were prepared to put a high tariff on their steel exports and a tariff on their farm products. I am very strong of the view that both are retrograde steps in terms of the improvement of those poorer countries, in particular Australia, who need to export, who need to be part of a world trading system and who need to be part of globalisation, which is so often bandied around as a bad thing. I commend the concept that we need to export, we need to be competitive, we need to make profits and we need to ensure that all those industries are looked after by a better tax system, a very responsible government and a very responsible budget.20:15:002982Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—In speaking to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03, I support the second reading amendment moved by Mr Latham on behalf of the opposition. This evening I will restrict my remarks—wearing my shadow minister for health and ageing cap—to an area that is covered only minutely in the budget papers but which is a very important issue so far as our health system and the Australian community are concerned: that is, the issue of medical indemnity insurance. In the budget papers you find an appropriation of $2 million for consultants to advise and assist the government on medical indemnity insurance. Importantly, you also find medical indemnity insurance and, more precisely, the consequences of the United Medical Protection provisional liquidation listed as a contingent liability—not costed or quantified but nonetheless listed as a contingent liability— which reflects the government guarantee previously given from 29 April to 30 June and on Friday extended by an announcement of the Prime Minister. It is a very important area so far as our health care system and medical practitioners are concerned.There are two aspects to the medical indemnity insurance issue: one goes to the general difficulties of medical indemnity insurance, which we have seen in the system for some time, and the second goes to the position of United Medical Protection— UMP—and Australasian Medical Insurance Ltd—AMIL, as it is known in the trade. UMP is the insurer for 60 per cent of Australia's medical practitioners: 90 per cent in New South Wales, a substantial proportion in Queensland, and just about all medical practitioners in rural and regional South Australia. It is a significant and important medical insurer.So far as the issue of medical indemnity insurance generally is concerned, this is an issue that has been on the government's watch for some time. Indeed you could argue, if you wanted to be ferociously critical, that the government has been aware of the issues surrounding medical indemnity insurance since 1996, when it first came to office. When it came to office it had the Tito report, which drew attention to these issues coming down the track and to the fact that this was an issue requiring substantial reform and substantial application. Regrettably, in my view the government has been asleep at the wheel; it has not dealt with this matter until the crisis has been upon it.In July last year Labor announced a comprehensive policy on medical indemnity insurance, and it did so at that time because the issue of public liability insurance abounded. Labor recognised that there was a need for a comprehensive policy response to the issue of medical indemnity insurance. There are a number of factors to Labor's policy announced then which stand the test of time and which ring true today. First was the need to ensure that we reduce clinical risk and improve clinical outcomes. Often neglected in this area but one of the most effective and constructive things the Commonwealth can do is to put the shoulder behind the wheel for a comprehensive effort to reduce clinical risk and improve clinical outcomes. That is one of the best ways of ensuring that issues of liability, indemnity and negligence do not come to pass. Yes, as a nation we perform well internationally but we can do better, and that is acknowledged by the profession at all levels and it is an area where the Commonwealth ought sensibly to put its shoulder enthusiastically to the wheel.Secondly, we advocated the use of structured settlements, of periodic payments to get people off the pot-of-gold mentality and to have people treated and cared for essentially by way of annual payments or structured settlements, and to make the necessary taxation changes to see that as an attractive award so far as the courts are concerned. Thirdly, there was the need to pay special attention to the high-risk, special damages areas—neuro, spinal, obstetrics and anaesthetics. Those are the disciplines where you find the large and special damages areas. Seventy-five per cent of them come in the obstetrics area; the remaining 25 per cent generally come with serious road traffic trauma or serious spinal and neuro injuries. It is in this area—neuro, spinal and obstetrics—that concentrated and special attention is required. Fourthly, we drew attention to the lack of a national database and the need to ensure that, to assist in this area, national data is required. Finally, we drew attention to the need for improved prudential regulatory arrangements and improved prudential supervision and transparency.We repeated those themes in the run-up to the November 2001 election. Regrettably, there was nothing from the government at that time. After the election, belatedly, in December last year, the Prime Minister announced a summit, which was held on 23 April this year. At the time the Prime Minister announced the summit, as shadow minister for health and ageing I welcomed it. I said that it was belated, but nonetheless I welcomed it, and I hoped that the government would look at the constructive, thoughtful and helpful suggestions that we had put on the record for some time. Indeed, I wrote to the Minister for Health and Ageing, requesting my attendance at the summit. I thought that this area would require long-term substantial change and reform and that an attempt at bipartisanship would be productive, but regrettably the minister thought that my presence would not be helpful.On 23 April the summit was held. Regrettably, between December and April we heard nothing from the government. The Commonwealth was not there driving reform in this area. Indeed, on the day before the summit the minister for health, Senator Patterson, was reported as saying that it was not the Commonwealth's role to be driving policy in this area; it was a matter simply for the Commonwealth to liaise. The communique which issued from that summit in April essentially drew attention to the series of issues that Labor had drawn attention to more than nine months previously, but no final decisions or agreements were struck. On Friday, when the Prime Minister announced the extension of the UMP guarantee, those long-term issues were still there, and we had seen no movement on those issues since the announcement of the prime ministerial summit in December last year and the actual holding of the summit in April.So far as the UMP/AMIL situation is concerned, one could argue that this is a particular issue that the government has had on its plate certainly for 18 months and probably for two years. UMP made an extra call upon its members in November 2000 and that was the first public sign that UMP was in trouble. In February this year, the government announced a $35 million guarantee to ensure that UMP could trade until the end of June. The government certainly created the impression that, if UMP got into further difficulty, it would be there. In my view, having created that impression, having backed UMP with a $35 million guarantee to ensure that it could trade until 30 June this year, having created the impression that it would be there essentially as an insurer of last resort, on the eve of the summit on 23 April when the Prime Minister wrote to UMP and indicated that the Commonwealth would not be there, the profession and the industry were somewhat startled. That is very adequately reflected by the front page story in the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday, 24 April entitled, `PM abandons doctors' insurer.' The report stated:The decision to leave UMP to its financial fate, made by cabinet late on Monday, stunned representatives of state and territory governments, medical groups and malpractice insurers who gathered yesterday at a Canberra summit to confront the growing crisis in medical indemnity insurance.The report continues:After the cabinet meeting on Monday, government officials claimed a rescue package for UMP had been agreed on. But during the summit in Canberra yesterday it was revealed the package amounted to a commitment to maintain services whatever happened to UMP.Either advertently or inadvertently, the government created the impression that they would be there for UMP. On the eve of the summit, the Prime Minister wrote to UMP and the impression was created that the government had pulled the rug on UMP.In the aftermath of the summit, and with that becoming public, I called on the government to outline what their plan was to be. I was not alone: the New South Wales Minister for Health and the AMA called on the government to outline their plan. If the government and the Prime Minister were saying that they would not be there for UMP but they would guarantee the continuation and continuity of medical services, how were they proposing to do that? The prime ministerial letter indicating that no more would be there for UMP certainly came as a surprise. It scattered the horses and the government simply said, `We guarantee the continuity of medical services,' but they failed or refused to outline their plan.On the following Monday, 29 April, UMP called for provisional liquidation. How did the government respond to that? People may recall that the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Coonan, had to handle the matter in the absence of the Minister for Health and Ageing. She essentially conceded on the 7.30 Report that night that the government had no plan. She said that the government could not bind or guarantee the conduct of future governments or future parliaments. That certainly sent the profession and the industry into a pink fizz. On the afternoon of Monday, 29 April, UMP called for provisional liquidation and by a quarter to eight that night, following the appearance of the Assistant Treasurer on the 7.30 Report, everything was primed for chaos in the medical profession and we certainly saw that.The front page story in the Australian of Tuesday, 30 April stated: `Health system in chaos as medical insurer faces liquidation. Doctors will shut out patients.' The front page of the Sydney Morning Herald on the same day read: `Doctors shut doors as insurer folds. Essential services in jeopardy. “Ironclad” protection demanded.' The following day, Wednesday, 1 May, the Australian headline read: `AMA calls doctors back to work after government backflip. Medical rescue operation.' On the same day, the Sydney Morning Herald headline read: `Doctors' bans stay despite deal. Private patients stranded as Government, AMA rush through short-term fix.'The first dramatic evidence that the government had badly mismanaged a crisis was revealed. Having neglected for some time the long-term structural issue of medical indemnity insurance, we then found the government mismanaging a crisis. There was no plan to present to the profession when UMP said it was going into provisional liquidation and no plan to indicate how medical services would be guaranteed and that sent the profession and patients into a ferment.The following day, the Prime Minister indicated that the government would legislate to effect a guarantee from 29 April to 30 June. There had been no talk of a guarantee the night before. Subsequently, Senator Patterson wrote to medical practitioners saying:The government is committed to ensuring that these guarantees will be contractually binding on future governments. The government will legislate by 30 June 2002 to confirm the effect of that guarantee.There was no talk like that from Senator Coonan on the key night. When the opposition was called on to indicate how it would respond to such legislation, I immediately said, sight unseen, that the opposition would support such legislation, giving the medical profession the parliamentary certainty it required to back up that legislative guarantee. The fact that the government badly mismanaged this crisis is more than adequately reflected in comment pieces in the Australian Financial Review on Tuesday, 30 April and Wednesday, 1 May. On Tuesday, 30 April, the Australian Financial Review stated: `Government adds to the confusion.' The article went on to state:The Federal Government has been singularly unconvincing in its handling of the United Medical Protection debacle and has laid itself open to suggestions it has been calculatedly misleading.Whether Government unsteadiness in its management of the UMP issue reflects differences among ministers themselves about what to do, or whether it is a consequence of a deliberate policy of obfuscation, there is a sense that indemnifiers, doctors and the public have been led up the garden path ... the Government's behaviour gives little cause for confidence that it will manage this crisis to a satisfactory conclusion ... but the Government's unwillingness to spell out exactly what it has in mind has been most unhelpful.Reaction yesterday to UMP's announcement that it was appointing a provisional liquidator underscores the continuing uncertainty, which the Government seems intent on allowing to fester.The following day, on the Wednesday, the FinancialReview headline reads: `Government has only itself to blame'. The FinancialReview comment piece says:A Government which seems to have done its best in the past several days to cloud the issue ...... the Government only has itself to blame for the confusion.... calculated lack of clarity in the Government's position has contributed to the present debacle ...Canberra's approach to this whole issue has been a textbook lesson in how not to conduct public policy in a highly sensitive area, namely health. The Government has had plenty of time to come to grips with this issue. The fact that ...it—... has allowed it to come to this where doctors are unsure whether they are insured or not reflects no credit on ... the Government ... All this could have been avoided with reasonable foresight.So the government's own inept handling of a crisis sees disruption to medical services and the whole profession placed under an unnecessary lack of confidence. And that continued. On Friday, 24 May, in the New South Wales Supreme Court Mr Justice Austin was saying:One my central concerns is a degree of uncertainty about the meaning and extent of the Commonwealth's commitment under the interim proposals.In other words, the New South Wales Supreme Court could not work out the nature and extent of the Commonwealth's guarantee. Again, that is reflected in the Australian Financial Review on Monday, 27 May where the comment piece says:Friday's day-long deliberations by the NSW Supreme Court highlight what a sticky mess the government is in with the medical indemnity crisis.It's an incredibly complex mess of the Government's own making and, suffice to say, it is learning on the run.Finally, when we have crisis upon crisis, deadline upon deadline, on Friday—with over 8,000 UMP insured doctors, mainly in Queensland, requiring some certainty from the government before they determined whether to reinsure with UMP or make other arrangements—we have the Prime Minister extending the guarantee from 30 June until 31 December, indicating a plan or a structure to ensure that UMP's tail, as it is so described, is dealt with and calling upon doctors to continue under the guarantee until 30 December. On Friday we find again no further delineation of long-term structural reforms, other than the Prime Minister saying the government now has another six or nine months to attend to it. Further last minute clarity so far as doctors are concerned, placing increasing pressure on the medical profession and on patients.This is a matter which has been very badly handled by the government. The crisis has been managed very badly. That has seen disruption to service and lack of confidence for doctors. The general long-term structural reform issue has been neglected and also very badly handled. We now need to ensure that between now and December the government acts on those long-term structural reform issues: the tort law reform issues, structured settlements, special attention for the catastrophic care cases and ensuring that we have a concerted effort to improve clinical outcomes and reduce risk.Ancillary to but not directly related to this particular UMP issue are the difficulties we have seen concerning the insurance of midwives, the insurance of the Family Planning Association of New South Wales and the insurance of Aboriginal medical services. Again, on all of these issues where the Commonwealth has an interest the government has either ignored the difficulties, as in the case of midwives, or been slow to act, as in the case of Aboriginal medical services and family planning.Drawing to a conclusion, one of the proposals which you find in the Prime Minister's announcement on Friday refers to a potential levy on doctors whose insurer, UMP, may not be able to deal with the tail of claims confronting it. You might recall the Prime Minister earlier in the piece saying neither he nor the Treasurer had given any special consideration to a levy, but now we seem to be running counter to that. The point I make about the levy on doctors is that I notice that both the AMA and the Australian Divisions of General Practice have said that the consequences of a levy may be passed on to patients. Just as the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have drawn attention to the need for a special role so far as the ACCC is concerned in dealing with any changes to public liability insurance, it seems to me there is also potentially a need for the ACCC at least to be engaged in a monitoring role in the event the government moves to a levy proposal. Why do I say that? It is clear that the great danger to the consumer, the customer, the patient—in addition to the disruption to medical services—is another addition to the cost of health care.Already this year we have seen private health insurance increase on average by $150 per year per family. The government's proposal to increase, under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the cost of essential medicines will see 300,000 Australians in families whose cost of essential medicines will increase by the maximum $190 per year. We have seen bulk-billing go to record low levels—74.5 per cent—with the average cost of visiting a doctor now $12 more than it was when the government came to office. The flow-on cost of medical indemnity insurance will also add pressure on those families seeking to get quality health care at affordable rates from their medical practitioners.Labor will now examine the government's proposed scheme in respect of unfunded liabilities, the tail, only scant details of which the government provided on Friday. But as well we will continue to press on the government the constructive suggestions that we made for long-term reform in this area so as to ensure that in future these matters will be much better attended to by the government of the day and much better attended to by public policy than they have been to date. 20:35:002987Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing10—I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03. Looking back over the past year, there has been a decisive shift in the priorities of all Australians and of governments and people around the world. This time last year, terrorism was not a topic generally discussed around the dinner table. Osama bin Laden's name was unfamiliar to most, except for the occasional reference in the world pages of the newspaper. But all that changed on September 11.Everyone's lives have been changed by the events in New York and Washington. This year's federal budget clearly reflects those changes in priorities that governments around the world are now facing as a result of attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. It comes as no surprise, then, that this government should make vitally important decisions that ultimately will make our nation a safer place to live. The security of the nation is paramount. The defence budget includes an additional $1.3 billion over five years to upgrade security within Australia. While expenditure on securing our borders has increased to $2.9 billion over five years, it is a necessary budgetary shift given the events of the past year.I welcome the release in this year's budget of the first Intergenerational Report prepared by the Commonwealth government. I believe it is one of the most significant reports released in many years. While the report seems to have received little publicity in the light of other key government decisions, the importance of the key messages in this document cannot be underestimated and certainly should not be ignored.Governments are often accused of only looking forward as far as the next election. The Intergenerational Report looks beyond the next three years, or even the next decade. It is an important indicator to the issues to be faced by governments for the next 40 years to 2041-42. Not surprisingly, one of the main challenges highlighted is our ageing population and the pressures that this will place on Commonwealth government finances. To show the contrast, the report states that the proportion of the population that is very old—that is, over 85 years of age—is expected to triple over the next 40 years while the proportion in the prime working age range of 15 to 64 will fall. A recent article in the Herald Sun revealed that figure showed in 2001 that the country's 100 year-plus population almost doubled in the preceding two years, rising from about 2,500 in 1999 to 4,217 in 2001.The impact on government finances is significant. The Commonwealth's spending on health as a percentage of GDP will more than double from just under four per cent to more than eight per cent. The impact of this spending growth is already evident. The report highlights that spending growth on the PBS has been rapid and that, of all the Commonwealth health expenditure components, spending on the PBS is projected to grow the fastest, even taking into account the current proposed budget changes. Spending on aged care will also more than double as a percentage of GDP, from 0.72 to 1.77 per cent. As Treasurer Peter Costello says:... if we can explain the nature of the challenge—that is, making social services sustainable—if we can start taking steps now, the steps which we will have to take later will be less significant.My colleagues opposite, of course, have fallen over themselves to criticise the government's health measures in a typically short-sighted attack on the budget, yet I am reminded of the words of one of their former ministers, who clearly had a better understanding of responsible government than his current contemporaries do. Former senator and health minister Graham Richardson in 1993, while Labor was in power, expressed great concern about the rapid decline in the number of people with private health insurance and the lack of forward thinking by his own party. He said:There ought not to be a rule in Australian politics against thinking ahead. We have operated in a fog for a number of years in which that rule has I think been observed, by and large by too many of us. We think three years between elections—we can do something in the first, try and wrap it up in the second, and in the third spend the time talking about what we will do next time. That's a pretty pathetic way to run Government.What Mr Richardson highlighted at the time—apart from the very key issue of the decline in private health insurance—was the complete lack of vision by his government. It is a matter of record that the coalition government acted swiftly and decisively on the matter of private health insurance. This government not only stemmed the massive decline in private health insurance but had people returning to private health insurance in their thousands. The 30 per cent private health insurance rebate and the introduction of Lifetime Health Cover showed that the coalition government had succeeded where Labor had failed. This, of course, is one part of the greater vision we must have for the future health of all Australians.There are important parallels to be drawn between this year's health budget and the Intergenerational Report in the context of planning for the future health of this country. I thought it was worth looking back at the past 40 to 50 years to get an understanding of how rapidly our nation is changing. There is a fascinating publication put out by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing to coincide with the Centenary of Federation entitled Putting life into years. It provides an invaluable insight into changes to our health system over the past 100 years.Looking back to 40 or 50 years ago, Australia was in the midst of the baby boom, and the new Menzies government recognised its social responsibilities as part of its commitment to post-war reconstruction. As part of the plan introduced by then health minister Earle Page, everyone was to have access to free life-saving drugs. Hospital insurance and a voluntary medical benefits scheme were to reduce the cost of care, and pensioners would get free doctor services. This highlights that what are considered core services in our health system today were just being introduced only half a century ago.What particularly caught my attention in this publication was that in 1948 the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme started operating. At the time, the PBS supplied drugs in the British Pharmacopoeia to pensioners as well as supplying 139 life-saving and disease preventing drugs for others. The cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in 1952— its first full year of operation—was £7.6 million. By 1959, the cost had already almost tripled to £21 million. Today, spending on costs and co-payments under the PBS has reached $4.77 billion. As of last year, the PBS covered 593 generic drugs, available in 1,469 forms and strengths, marketed as 2,351 different brands. It is estimated that 75 per cent of all prescriptions dispensed in Australia are subsidised under this scheme.It comes as no surprise, then, that something needed to be done to address the cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to ensure that it remains sustainable. In what smacks of rampant political opportunism, or the most severe case of selective amnesia in recent memory, the Leader of the Opposition has launched an amazing attack on the government's PBS measures. What makes this attack so hypocritical is the fact that, as Alan Ramsey from the Sydney Morning Herald pointed out, he was sitting not more than a few metres from then Treasurer Paul Keating when he announced similar measures in the 1990 federal budget, measures that included introducing concessional copayments for pensioners for the first time in the scheme's 42-year history. To quote some of the lines from Paul Keating's budget speech in 1990:... the Minister for Community Services and Health is announcing tonight the most far-reaching restructuring of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme since it was introduced.He went on to say:It took almost 40 years—from 1948 to 1985—for the costs of that scheme to grow to half a billion dollars.It took only another 4 years for the costs to grow by another half a billion dollars. And in another three years those costs would have doubled again to more than $2 billion were we not to have acted now.And what was the core of Keating's announcement? He continued:The measures we are announcing tonight will cut the growth in spending on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by about $1 billion in two years.It is the absolute height of hypocrisy for the opposition leader to now not only criticise the measures announced by this government but also say that he will have them blocked in the Senate. I hope that the Democrats and the Australian Labor Party will take the opportunity to further consider their views on this issue and realise that action must be taken now to ensure a sustainable health system in the years to come.The Treasurer has already taken the opposition leader to task over his attempts to confuse the public by suggesting that all scripts will rise by $6.20—a claim that totally misrepresents the facts and is clearly wrong. This government announced that for non-concession card holders the maximum rate for any pharmaceutical would increase by $6.20 to $28.60. However, many commonly used pharmaceuticals are under the ceiling rate, so the price will stay the same. For example, Ventolin inhalers used by asthma sufferers cost $17.20; after 1 August they will still cost $17.20. The sedative Normison costs $7.58; under the new provisions it will still cost $7.58. The anti-inflammatory drug Voltaren costs $12.86; from 1 August it will cost $12.86. Similarly, the contraceptive pill Trifeme 28 will still cost $15.02, as it does today, and the antihypertensive drug Tenormin will continue to cost $12.61 per script after 1 August.In fact, 45 per cent—almost half—of all items on the PBS are priced below the general copayment level, and therefore their price will not change. For pensioners and concession card holders the maximum copayment increases by $1 from $3.60 to $4.60. But it must be remembered that there is a safety net of 52 prescriptions in a particular year, after which they are free for pensioners and concession card holders. Importantly, however, medication that costs the taxpayers of this country hundreds or even thousands of dollars will still cost the consumer a maximum of only $28.60 or for a concession card holder $4.60. It is also important to remember that 85 per cent of scripts written are for concession card holders.It should be pointed out that the PBS budget measures cover a much wider area than the changes to copayments. The budget measures also will see improvements to the rules for evidence based quality prescribing, an increase in the provision of information on PBS prescribing requirements to doctors, a strengthening of the current approach to identify and investigate pharmacy fraud, a decrease in the incidence of doctor shopping, better facilitation of the use of generic medicines and an undertaking of a review of drugs for the treatment of arthritis. This year's health budget also includes an $11.5 million commitment over four years for better diagnosis, treatment and care for Australia's more than three million arthritis sufferers. Earlier intervention and care for this complex and debilitating disease will allow sufferers to remain independent and in the work force longer.The budget reaffirms this government's commitment to the National Illicit Drug Strategy. Since 1997, this government has provided $57 million towards 133 non-government programs that provide a significant number of treatment services for illicit drug users across Australia. The 2002-03 budget allocates a further $65 million to the Non-Government Organisation Treatment Grants Program and $14 million over four years to the Community Partnerships Initiative, which allocates grants for local projects that promote health and reduce drug related harm.As I mentioned at the start of my speech, the events of September 11 have resulted in a significant change in budget priorities for this government, and the health portfolio is no exception. This budget has included key measures to protect Australians through the stockpiling of antibiotics, antivirals, vaccines and chemical antidotes in case of terrorist action. This is a necessary initiative in the face of the worst-case scenario of bioterrorism incidents. I recently had carriage of legislation through the parliament to enable this to happen.I welcome another significant funding initiative—a $55 million package for palliative care. This package includes education and training for GPs to support palliative care nurses and allied health workers in their role of maintaining quality of life and dignity for people who are dying, more efficient specialist backup and better coordination between hospitals and community care, better support for families and friends who are trying to cope under such difficult circumstances and increased awareness of palliative care in the wider community.The budget includes important initiatives that will benefit older Australians. As I indicated earlier, Australia has a rapidly ageing population, and this is reflected in the additional expenditure under the portfolio of the Minister for Ageing. The Intergenerational Report clearly highlights that aged care must be a priority for future governments. Under this budget, more than half a billion dollars will be spent on older Australians. The government will provide an extra $211 million over four years to increase residential aged care subsidies. This money will assist providers to meet labour costs and address the disparity between wages in the aged care and hospital sectors. A further $100 million in capital grants will help small aged care homes in rural and remote areas to upgrade their facilities. The Minister for Ageing recently announced an additional 8,231 new places worth an estimated $180 million for allocation in the 2002 aged care approvals round, bringing the total number of places allocated since 2000 to more than 32,000.I would like to take the opportunity to point out that short-sighted decision making is not just an affliction of the federal Labor Party; I could not believe my eyes when I read about the actions of the new South Australian Labor government, which had recently cut funding to build aged care beds through the HomeStart Scheme, and yet it had the temerity to criticise this government's aged care budgetary measures. What is more, I am told the Labor Rann government's dumping of this funding for aged care beds was done in secret and certainly was not raised before the last South Australian election.I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate East Timor and its people on gaining their independence. I am very proud to belong to a government that has played such a crucial role in making this possible. I was pleased that the Prime Minister was able to attend the independence day celebrations. I believe that neither he nor the government have received proper credit for the role they played in getting to this point. As Senator Robert Hill put it in a recent interview, if it were not for the courage of the Australian government and the professionalism of the Australian Defence Force, we would not have had independence day celebrations a week ago. As an aside, I would like to congratulate General Peter Cosgrove on his appointment as Chief of the Australian Defence Force. It is worth noting, too, that there are still over 1,200 Australian troops stationed in East Timor continuing their peacekeeping role.I think a comparison of this government's role in East Timor with that of Labor governments of the past should be put on the record. In 1974, under Labor icon Gough Whitlam, advice that East Timor should be independent was rejected and Australia supported East Timor's incorporation into Indonesia. At that time, Australia's support was crucial if East Timor were to avoid the fate that eventually befell it. The situation was particularly exacerbated during the Keating years, as Australia's then Prime Minister had such a close personal relationship with Indonesia's Suharto.Perhaps one of the most telling comments came from Mr Jose Ramos Horta, now foreign minister in the new East Timorese government. While campaigning in exile for independence in 1999, he said:The people of East Timor will remember John Howard, his government as the government that tried to help them. They will remember the likes of Paul Keating who year after year were an accomplice of the Suharto regime.It is important to note that East Timor would not now be independent if there had not been a change of government in Australia in 1996. As the Prime Minister said during the independence day celebrations:... of the things that we have done in the area of foreign policy over recent years none has been more noble than what we did in relation to East Timor.... we have adopted a policy stance which was right, it was fair, it was just, and it's something of which I'm very proud.On matters quite specific to my electorate, I note that, in the budget, money has been allocated for the continuation of work on the Commonwealth Law Courts in Adelaide. People who have travelled in and around the CBD will no doubt have seen the demolition of the old police building, which had outlived its usefulness. I am proud to report that construction of the courts on that site is now well under way. The $76.6 million project on the corner of Victoria Square and Angas Street will provide accommodation for the High Court, the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Service.Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to place on the parliamentary record my congratulations to the Kilburn Knights, who exacted revenge on the Broadview Tigers after last year's defeat, to take home the Trish Worth Cup in a very tight encounter.10000Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lindsay)—I am pleased to hear it.20:55:002991Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03. The seventh Howard-Costello budget fails the most important test of any budget as far as the people of Australia are concerned. Forget about deficits or surpluses. Forget about intergenerational reports. Forget about strong defence and domestic security. Forget about the stock market reaction. When it comes to the most important test of a budget, the question is whether it is fair to all Australians, and this budget is just not fair to all Australians. It is a budget that pushes this government's agenda—there is no doubt about that. But that agenda is not about fairness; that agenda is about satisfying the narrow self-interest of a few Australians—not the majority and certainly not the most in need. It is not a fair budget but it is a clever one, because this government has developed wedge politics into an art form. The basis of its wedge politics has become the way it is able to turn some of the less fortunate in the community against those who are even less fortunate than themselves. This is a government that preaches downwards-envy. It tells those with little that it is okay to envy those with even less. But when it comes to upwards-envy, when someone is doing better than you, it is a sin to envy them.We know that the Treasurer was brought up in a strong Christian home. No doubt he was taught the Ten Commandments, and he must have been at Sunday School on the day they dealt with the 10th commandment—that is the one about coveting. To remind the House, and to quote from a modern version, the 10th commandment says:You shall not covet your neighbour's house. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.And `covet', of course, means to envy. We know that the Treasurer does not covet his neighbour's wife, or at least the wife of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and I suppose he is not too envious of his neighbour's house nor his ox or donkey. We know that he covets the Prime Minister's job; however, that is not mentioned in the 10th commandment, so I suppose that that is okay. But, as far as the Treasurer is concerned, upwards-envy is a sin. It is not okay to envy someone who is doing better than you.As they said when I was at Sunday School, `The Good Lord helps those who help themselves,' and so does this government. I will come to some examples of downwards-envy later, but let me begin with some of the ways in this budget—and in earlier budgets produced by this Treasurer—that the government has been more than generous to those who have been helping themselves to government handouts. Let me turn firstly to an excellent article by Brian Toohey in the Sydney Sun-Herald of 7 April this year. The article is headed `Millionaires receiving full age pension', and I will quote from it in part:A couple with $1 million in assets can still get the full age pension following changes in social security rules designed to achieve the opposite result. Other changes allow a single retiree with an annual income of $74,000 to pay less tax than someone on less than $23,000 a year.The article goes on to say:Little notice has been taken of these complicated changes outside the rarefied word of retirement planners. But some Public Service economists in Canberra are expressing private concerns that the budgetary impact of the new rules will soon become unaffordable. One official, who does not want to be named, says the changes threaten to wreck the bipartisan policy of concentrating social security benefits on those most in need.Hear, hear to that! The article continues:Although next month's Budget is expected to contain tough crackdowns on spending, this official fears Treasurer Peter Costello would face a heavy backlash from the financial sector if he stopped well-off retirees from getting the age pension.As we can see from the budget, there is no crackdown on millionaires getting the age pension. But we will see a crackdown on people who receive the disability support pension—some of the most disadvantaged people in the community. But they do not have retirement planners or the financial sector to go into bat for them. Let me give some examples of this `millionaires welfare state' that the Treasurer has definitely created. Brian Toohey goes on in his article to quote some actual cases. He quotes Graham Colley, superannuation manager for RetireInvest:... a couple can have an income of $85,000 a year and still get the age pension. As well, special rebates allow them to pay no tax.When I think of the working families in my electorate of Fowler who struggle to pay off a mortgage and to raise a family on less than half of $85,000 a year and pay thousands of dollars in tax, it makes my blood boil. But, according to the Treasurer, I would definitely be breaking the 10th commandment: you cannot envy someone because they are better off than you. That would be a sin.I will give another example. Brian Toohey mentions the case given to him by Peter Morgan, senior technical manager with financial advisory group Sealcorp. His example is that of Martha, a 63-year-old who earns $18,000 a year from a cleaning job. Martha qualifies for $4,700 in age pension, but she pays $1,169 in tax. Morgan then gives the example of Casey, a 65-year-old single man. Casey has $1 million in assets, including $700,000 in an allocated pension. Casey misses out on the age pension, but receives a retirement income of $74,000 a year on which he pays the grand total of— now wait for it—$124 a year in tax. The point Morgan makes is that, if Martha works a few extra hours, she will have to pay tax at the rate of 68c for every dollar she earns over $20,000, while if Casey earns an extra dollar he will pay tax at the rate of only 27.5c. In any language, that is definitely not fair. There is nothing in this budget to make it fairer. To make matters worse, there is no indication from the Treasurer of any change to make it fairer in the years ahead. The Treasurer refers in his budget speech to the first Intergenerational Report and the need to start now to put in place measures which will sustain a decent health system and aged care system into the future. The Treasurer notes that the ratio of old to young in our society will increase. He says:If we ignore moderate changes now the challenges will only get greater, the decisions will only get harder, and the solutions will slip outside our grasp.If you will not make the kinds of changes that Brian Toohey tells us that public service economists have urged him to make, what hope is there for moderate change in the future?But let us look at some of the changes in this year's budget and see just how fair they are. I will start with the government's baby bonus. The Treasurer tells us that this will allow claims of up to $2,500 per year for up to five years. But this depends on the amount of tax paid by the mother before leaving the work force. So to get the maximum of $2,500 per year—and we have to remember this—you would have to earn $53,000 per year. Less than that, and you find you are scaled down to a $500 per year minimum. The maximum benefit goes to mothers with higher incomes, and while the amount is capped at $2,500 per year there is no means test on income. The bonus is paid per year for up to five years, with a maximum of $12,500. But that is only if you can afford to stay at home for the full five years. When you add to that the non-means tested family tax benefit part B, a mother with a spouse on a salary of $1 million can get an extra $2,752 a year on top of the normal family allowance. Is that fair? Who earns more than $55,000 and stands to benefit most from the baby bonus? By the government's own calculations, only the top seven per cent of employed and partnered women will qualify. But do not say anything, because the Treasurer will accuse you of envy if you do.Let us look at what other compassionate assistance the Treasurer has for the battlers, the working families, the people out there on `struggle street', those on low incomes who want to save for their retirement. If you recall what I said earlier about Martha, you might understand why they would. The government will make a superannuation co-contribution of up to $1,000 per year for individuals with an income of less than $20,000, tapering down to zero for incomes of $32,500 or higher. That seems fair enough. But you might ask how many working families get by on $20,000 a year and can afford to make $1,000 in personal undeducted superannuation contributions— not many I will bet, not many in my electorate. But how many wives of executives on big salaries might take advantage of it? Plenty, you can be sure. So what might seem fair at first glance is just another government handout for the rich.Speaking of government handouts for the rich, the Treasurer says he is going to make super contribution arrangements more family friendly. But I do not think that means more friendly for working families. He will allow members to split future super contributions with their spouse. But the benefit of that will go to super fund members who can expect a tax-free lump sum payout more than $106,000 and a reasonable benefit limit of more than $530,000. The ordinary working family will get little or no benefit at all. And if that is not good enough for high-income earners, the Treasurer says he will cut the superannuation surcharge from 15 per cent to 10.5 per cent over three years. And who will benefit from that—people earning more than $85,000 a year, that is, the top five per cent of taxpayersThis government's generosity to the rich is not matched in any way by additional assistance to the less well-off in our society. Instead, the government will make life harder for working families and those people dependent on support. This Treasurer is like Robin Hood in reverse—he robs from the poor to give to the rich. And he has got the nasty band of merry men and women on that side of the House to help him with his dirty deeds. So who does the Treasurer pick on first? The unemployed, of course. Last year the government managed to underspend its Job Network program by $200 million, not because there were fewer long-term unemployed—in fact there were more. No, it just cut back on the amount of assistance it gave. And what has the Treasurer got in store in this budget? Since nobody squealed too loudly when the government underspent last year, he will cut spending to that level permanently. There is training assistance to mature age workers of $500 to attain basic skills in computer and information technology. I expect for that amount of money the 11,500 participants might just about learn how to turn a computer on. Clearly, the government will spare no expense when it comes to assisting the long-term unemployed to find work! But, in keeping with its approach to envy, the government would not want too many people to throw in their jobs just so that they could get $500 worth of computer training. They used to say that nothing was too good for the workers, but according to this government nothing is too good for the unemployed.If you think the Treasurer is being hard by ripping off the unemployed, the mugging he has got in mind for disability pensioners really takes the cake. This part of the budget really shows up the difference between upwards and downwards envy. For those people over the age of 55 who have acquired sufficient wealth to be able to retire from the work force, this government gives generous tax concessions. As I explained earlier, the government wants to make it easier for people with large superannuation payouts to relax at their beachside homes and play a few rounds of golf. We do not hear it mentioned that their retirement pensions receive generous tax concessions when they were being accumulated. Very few people between 55 and 65 now enjoying their early retirement were part of the blue-collar workforce that built this nation.What of those workers who have spent more than 40 years in the work force, who broke their backs to build this nation, and now find themselves unable or unskilled to continue in full-time work? This government is about crack down on them. In the weeks and months ahead we will see the government trying to demonise this group in our community. We can expect to see on programs like 60 Minutes and other shows how people with bad backs on disability support pensions are able to bend over and pick things up. We will see the government stirring downwards envy—but nothing about the over-55s who are enjoying early retirement courtesy of tax concessions. That is upwards envy. That breaks the 10th commandment, and your Sunday school teacher will tell you that is wrong.Another example of this government's thinking is the budget's funding for education. Looking at a breakdown of Commonwealth funding for schools, the increase this year in funding for public schools comes out at an extra $24.92 for each public school student. Before your local public school goes out and spends that huge sum, we see that the increase in funding for each private student works out at an extra $298.31. So each public school student now receives $955 in Commonwealth funding, but each private school student receives $3,857. In fact, by next year the government will give more in funds to private schools than it does to the whole of the public university sector. But let us not have any upwards envy. Let us keep giving even more money to wealthy private schools and precious little for disadvantaged public schools or to our struggling universities. That might create downwards envy. Then we come to the area of health. Having taken the axe to funding for the unemployed and for disability support pensioners and to public education, the government turns on that other privileged class in Australian society, the sick. The same Treasurer who gave generous subsidies to people with private health insurance now wants to jack up the cost of prescriptions so that pensioners will pay an extra $52 a year and families could face paying an extra $190 a year. Shame, government, shame! (Time expired)21:15:002994Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10— In rising to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03, I say that the electorate of Parkes is very much centred on small business and the people who work for small business. It really does not matter whether you work for somebody or work for yourself, it is small business and the production and employment it provides that is the make-or-break issue in the electorate of Parkes. In fact, to get an idea of just how big small business is, the town of Dubbo, a city of about 40,000 people, has well over 2,000 businesses, which is not one business per 20 workers but one business per 20 people, per 20 head of population in that city. The reason that this is what I would describe as a great budget is that it deals with some enormous issues. Even though we hear talk today of higher interest rates and higher inflation, without a budget as responsible as this one we would not be in the position that small business finds itself happily in today. The reason that the population of my electorate and I think country electorates in general have so much to be pleased about is that we are seeing growth in country areas, certainly in many areas of my electorate growth we have not seen for many years. Partly that is due to all those programs that have meant so much over the past few years, like Networking the Nation, Regional Solutions and Roads to Recovery. All the medical schemes that have come up over the last few years to retrain mature nurses, to give scholarships for nurses and doctors, to introduce clinical schools in places like Dubbo and the same type of situation in Broken Hill have had an enormous bearing on the potential quality of life and without doubt have arrested the slide of past years. The continuation of those programs does more than simply look after social problems. It means that all those businesses, be they large or small, that do exist in our region have much more confidence about whether in future potential employees are going to be there, are going to be happy and are going to be in a healthy situation. Out of a total of $650 million new spending given to health and aged care in this budget, almost 40 per cent goes specifically to country and regional centres. That is another reason that people in a seat like Parkes are so satisfied with a budget that they can see is specifically aimed at their concerns.I would like to talk for a minute about small business. I have heard members on the other side of the House as recently as three weeks ago talk about the fact that they could see no mention of small businesses in this budget. Let us talk about the $96 billion in government debt that the current government inherited in 1996. The fact that about $62 billion of that is paid back actually means that the Commonwealth of Australia is not paying somewhere in the order of $5 billion in interest every year. The fact is that it takes the government out of the borrowing market. It was only last year that I was asked by a person in Canberra why it is that ordinary Australia does not realise how important an issue that is. We tell them, but I guess the detail is lost in the media and certainly lost to the opposition. But when you take government borrowing of $62 billion and payment of around $5 billion a year in interest out of the equation, that takes one heck of a big competitor out of the market for all the small businesses in Australia that want to do things and invest. They have an enormous reason to feel incredibly grateful that this government has seen fit to take itself out of the equation as a competitor for money in the money market. That is why interest rates have got low and that is why under what this budget does they will remain low, because this is not a deficit budget. In a tough budget we have managed to keep a profit rather than a deficit, so we are not re-entering the borrowing market. The fact that we do have in world terms one of the strongest economies in the world, with massive growth compared with most of our competitors, speaks volumes for the fact that business, be it large or small, can work with confidence and know that it can do so in the years ahead because the stage has been set once again in the new term. I heard the member for Werriwa earlier tonight mention that a member of the government frontbench—I cannot testify to the accuracy of the statement—may have been involved with Young Labor. He was obviously being very caustic about what he believed the Treasurer stood for. He should think about the saying that goes, `Anybody who is not reactionary when they are young has no go.' That same train of thought goes, `Once you grow up, if you don't become conservative about politics, you've also got no sense.'The electorate of Parkes would, as would the vast majority of Australia, absolutely back to the hilt the spending on defence in this budget, the spending on security and the spending on border protection and processing. In fact, I would go further on that to say that the seat of Parkes, which is so very much centred on exports and agricultural production, would also say that those issues of border protection are important to us in another way as well: that the greatest selling point that we have in Australia is our virtual disease-free status, and border protection is certainly about that. One hint of BSE or foot and mouth and the cost to this country, not just the seat of Parkes, is incalculable. So we in country Australia can be enormously thankful for the border protection measures. Funds for housing for the aged are up by $100 million for country areas. For ageing at home there are 6,000 more places; for the training of aged carers, $211 million. This is one heck of an issue, for two reasons, when you live out in the west where caring is such an expensive business: one, because of the amount of money being made available for housing for the aged, and, two, there is not as much money out there for the simple reason that houses are not worth as much, and anyone who puts in a bond cannot put in anything like the bond that somebody from Sydney or Melbourne can. We have 39 providers in the electorate of Parkes. We spend around $35 million a year out of that money. The gold card extensions will cost somewhere around $93 million. It is a tough budget, and it is tough times. But this government is still looking after veterans. It is doing more for veterans, it is doing more for the aged, and it is protecting the needy.I would even stop there and say that one of the great things out of this budget is that over $70 million is to be spent on six new cancer radiation treatment centres—an incredible thing to have out there, when you consider that people have to travel from the far west of my electorate to Melbourne or Sydney. Couples in my electorate do that on a weekly basis, and so you can imagine what it would mean to them to have a radiation treatment centre in their own backyard. There are not—and I stress `not'—many governments with the guts and the foresight to look ahead, see a need and act on it, particularly when it may mean that that budget will impact harder than it would otherwise do. I think the courage of this government to deal with the costs and ramifications of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for this nation into the future says an awful lot about looking at Australia for everyone in the long term rather than taking the short-term political view which has been thrown about this House so often in the past few weeks. But at the moment we are dealing with the issue of future costs and also protecting the needy. The opposition have made comments day after day, week after week, about the cost of every prescription going up. This is totally incorrect; they are trying to frighten people. In the seat of Parkes, where it has been explained to people what is going on, there is a deathly silence about how bad it is. I wonder whether that is because one dollar more to $4.60 for those on concessional rates is not a lot of money. When is it not a lot of money? A lot of those prescriptions can cost $700, others can cost $250, yet people will still get them for no more than $4.60. After 52 prescriptions have been issued, people get them for zip—nothing, free. I think that is the sort of truth the opposition benches should be concentrating on. I wonder whether part of the reason for this silence is that $28 for the rest of us— who then, after $875 or thereabouts, go on to the concessional rate—is also not much to pay for prescriptions that can cost $50, $250 or up to $1,000. I think that is the reason that Australia has accepted the courage of the government and the necessity of its actions. I think the other reason is that the majority of Australians realise, unlike our friends across the way, that we all pay for this. It is not some magic amount of money that falls out of the sky. We are all paying for it. We would have all been responsible for the $60 billion it was expected to rise if the government had not had the courage to take this action.Then there are disability pensions, and we have had unremitting attempts by the opposition to frighten people who have no reason to be frightened. My office has had calls from people inquiring about the changes to the disability support pension. Nearly every one of them—in fact, I would go so far as to say every one of them—has been from people who have had absolutely no change in their circumstances as a result of this budget. This does not affect the severely disabled and the blind. Anybody with a serious disability problem has not been affected by this. I think it is very dishonest and it is very cheap to try to frighten people who have no reason to be frightened. The object of the changes—and it will cost government money for quite some time to do it—is to provide 73,000 places for help with retraining, training and rehabilitation. Probably what we are trying to do most out of these changes is simply help people become part of mainstream Australia. Who would not want to be part of mainstream Australia if they had the ability to do so? That is the point here: if they have the ability to do it, they will be helped to become part of mainstream Australia. Once again, in this budget we have a government that faces facts, but it is still looking after those who need its help.The seat of Parkes has an enormous need for apprentices, and that is why there is another great amount of good news for us in this budget. The $750 that employers get for starting off somebody who is still at school, and the next $750 they get if they keep them on after they have left school, is a huge boost to our electorate. After doctors and nurses, tradespeople are probably the next in most demand. It does not matter how good your investment is or how good your businesses are, if you do not have the tradesmen you cannot do the work. The payment of $1,100 to supplement the cost of training information technology and high-skill people is also an enormous benefit for us, as is the training of mature people in the use of computers.Total funding for government schools has gone up to $6.6 billion. Work for the Dole has been one of the bigger success stories for the Parkes electorate—not just in the bigger cities, like Dubbo, but also in the towns. Certainly, it has been an enormous issue in Broken Hill. Another $81.5 million is going into that. Once again, we have a government with a budget that has delivered to young people, delivered to education and delivered to training—and all of that in a tough budget.The seat of Parkes is very export orientated. I think one of the most exciting things happening for a lot of our businesses is the fact that, because of this budget, in July we will have a TradeStart office opening in Dubbo. That office will do an enormous amount in educating, encouraging and running through the protocols with any business which may not have realised it had the potential to export. Out of this budget, there is more money going into the diesel fuel rebate for the hospitality and retail industries, which do not currently have commercial electricity available to them. Let me tell you, when you have a small business with the courage to go into those sorts of things—whether it be tourism or straight-out hospitality—and you do not have commercial electricity available to you, you certainly need a government that is willing to back you to that extent. That will cost over $20 million to implement. Our recommitment to the regional airlines and what we are doing for them gives my electorate every reason to be happy that we have a government delivering this sort of budget. Once again, we are talking about low interest rates and low inflation in this budget, because that is the way it has been designed. It is not borrowing $96 billion and it is not paying $5 million a year interest on that.I started talking about small business and I repeat that my electorate revolves around it. We have a budget based on defence and security; it is a budget that deals with trouble before it gets to Australia. It deals with the costs of the future and it protects those who need its protection. It is a budget that recognises country needs, which are health, communication, education and business stability. I can go back to my electorate and look people in the eye when I tell them that they have a budget in tough times, but we will do the best for them that it is possible to do at this time.21:35:002997McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03. It is sad to listen to someone who has gone through a metamorphosis. I remember the member for Parkes when he was, I think, the President of the New South Wales Farmers Association. He was a very strong advocate for people in rural Australia. In that incarnation, he understood the plight of people on the land. When you look at the city-country divide in this country, poor people in the country are far worse off than poor people in the city. But since the member for Parkes has become a member of the parliament, rather than as a National Party backbencher—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—Since he's become a Lib.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—Like most members of the National Party, he has become a Liberal in gumboots. The parliamentary secretary at the table was never stupid enough to join the National Party, even though they wanted him to.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—They used to stand for something.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—He had a better standard. National Party members, prior to their positions in this parliament, were proper farmers' advocates and had a thing to say about what people on the land needed, particularly people who live in the small country towns. Now you see them come into the House and say that a dollar extra on people's prescriptions does not matter much. It probably does not matter much to a member of parliament who is earning over $100,000 a year but, for the constituents of the member for Parkes, particularly the poor farmers whom he used to represent—and now he is walking out of the chamber—if they have two or three things wrong with them, a dollar per script represents a fair bit of money. There is nothing worse than National Party members, who out there on the stump are okay, but as soon as they get in here become Liberals in gumboots and forget the lot, figuring that they are now on $100,000 a year as a member of parliament, so the rest of the poor little people in the bush can go to hell. At least the parliamentary secretary reckoned everyone could go to hell; he did not care about them one way or the other. He has a little more credit going for him. I cannot help liking him, too, which is one of my sins rather than his.This budget has not been a good budget for anyone. It certainly has not been a good budget for people in this country who are not well off. In the 22 years I have been in parliament I have not seen such a budget that attacks those least able to protect themselves. I did not think that I would find a budget that attacked the disabled, a budget that attacked those who are terribly sick, or a budget that basically says, `We haven't been able to identify a threat to Australia, but we're going to put a lot of money into defence.' Unfortunately, the people who are going to make the sacrifice are those at the bottom end of the scale. We will have some nice little tax cuts for people like the member for Parkes who are on high salaries. They will not have to pay as much on their superannuation levy— at least they think that, but we will not let that get through the Senate. We are giving tax cuts to the rich and imposts to the poor— a traditional Liberal government budget, one might think. Even in the past I did not see the Libs be as bad as that. To find new members coming in here who are apologists for things like this is just a little bit hard to take.When we were debating the additional estimates for 2001-02, I was struck by the bits-and-pieces ordinariness of those bills. There was nothing in them that grabbed the imagination and nothing to inspire us or to give a lift to the Australian people. Often, the additional estimates are where governments come good—they have been naughty in the budget but they realise that they ought to put a bit of a lift back into the system. The additional estimates are where you find a bit of decency. But not this time—it was dull, plodding stuff. So what do we have now? We have more of the same—another unimaginative, uninspiring group of budget bills. They are hardly likely to bring much joy to anyone in the community, but they are very likely to bring unhappiness to those who are less well off.The budget was introduced by the Treasurer with references to the war on terrorism and the depressing events of the previous eight months. The budget speech must have had some listeners wondering what was going to be announced next—war with Germany or something like that. He had some listeners thinking that they were listening to one of those 1939 broadcasts. They must have thought that war was about to be declared—in some ways I suppose it was, given the commitment of our troops in Afghanistan, our obligations under the ANZUS alliance and the fact that we were facing a time of increasing austerity. We would all be asked to tighten our belts, according to the Treasurer, and to make do with less for the sake of the cause—Australia et cetera. No doubt those references were intended to set the scene for what was to come in his speech: to justify the expenditure on defence and security, for example, to be paid for by cuts to other programs—welfare programs. The poor would pay, as they usually do in these circumstances. It was very depressing and I am not sure that it achieved much, nor do I believe that it fooled the Australian people. I think that the Australian people, while acknowledging that the past year has not been a good one, in many ways would like to go forward without being constantly reminded of past events, horrific as they were.It was a strange way to begin a budget speech, and not in my view an appropriate way. People look to governments for leadership and a positive attitude. They look to the budget speech as one of the most important speeches made in parliament each year. The budget establishes the financial context for the coming year and it sets out the government's agenda. Just look at the amount of media interest it attracts. That media interest is generated in response to the interest of the public. The Treasurer had a captive audience that night. What did he do this year? He spent time delivering a lesson about the state of the world, focusing on doom and gloom— doom and gloom that none of us really needs to be reminded about. The government say that, in all the assessments that they make, there is no threat to Australia. But the government use it as a mechanism for tightening our belts and delivering on the surplus that they had squandered. As we are all aware, it was just another tactic to enable the Treasurer to put forward yet another miserable budget.The so-called Intergenerational Report is another odd document which the Treasurer decided to feature as part of this year's budget package. It also seems to be designed as part of a softening-up process. You can see the government's tacticians' minds ticking—`Let's give them a bit of a blast on the ageing of the population and the low birth rate, then we will identify the emerging issues associated with an ageing population and then they will have to accept some proposals which try to address the problems resulting from looking after an increasing number of aged, sick and disadvantaged et cetera.' The budget is a bit of a mixed bag on those matters. It claims to be addressing their needs but I am not convinced that their needs are being addressed—quite the opposite in fact. Look at the reaction from the disabled and organisations representing them. Unlike what the member for Parkes says—his electorate must be different from everybody else's—we have all received messages from people who have been done in the eye by this budget. We have all seen reports in the media about the inequities that will be produced by the proposed changes to the disabled pension eligibility. By altering the work test for recipients of the disability pension from a minimum of 30 hours a week to a minimum of 15 hours a week the government will force genuinely disabled Australians to lose up to $52 a fortnight in payments and access to other benefits. If they do work, they could face a marginal effective tax rate of up to 80c in the dollar. It is outrageous to even try to make out that this measure will help people with disabilities. However, the government and ministers go out and tell that blatant untruth.Far from encouraging people with disabilities to find work, this measure is a real disincentive to working more than 15 hours a week. It will have the opposite effect to what the government intend and it will be a terrible thing to visit upon people with disabilities who, more than any others, want to try and contribute and do their very best to become part of the community. This government are now going to sock them right in the hip pocket. They are going to give the disabled a hard choice to make: whether to try to overcome their disability and get back into the work force or to take a drop in the disability pension.Look at the reaction to the proposed changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by pensioners and others at the lower end of the income spectrum. They are justifiably worried and confused. The reaction of my constituents has been entirely different from that of the member for Parkes. No-one has rung my office to say, `Well, another $1 a week, what do I care?' I suppose if you were earning over $100,000 a year, as a member of parliament does, maybe you would not care all that much. However, if you are on the pension, you care a lot. If you are on a low income and you have a sick child, you care a lot. If you are struggling with a husband or wife who has a debilitating disease which means they need three or four different types of medication, you care a lot. To gratuitously say that an extra $1 a week is not much is just not to understand the situation at all.Some commentators have questioned the government's research behind the Intergenerational Report, which is the government's next move on Australians. There is certainly not universal agreement among the experts in this field about what will happen. The threatened unimaginable bill for the taxpayers of the future may never eventuate. I believe that the government are taking a particularly pessimistic view, because that suits them, of the future and demands that might be placed on the welfare budget in order to justify the harsh budgetary measures in this year's budget. It is rather interesting that the Treasurer has brought this forward now. The report has been before the government for some time and there has been discussion for some years about the effect of the changing age profile of Australia. However, all of a sudden, when we have one of the worst budgets we have seen in the last decade, the government trot out this shock horror: no-one is going to be able to fund the baby boomers. The government are just overestimating the case.To put a human face on some of the proposed budget measures, I would like to tell you about one of my constituents. As it is not question time, I can get into the specifics. This particular lady contacted my electorate office. She was most concerned about the cost of prescriptions. While the member for Parkes and other members of the government are not concerned about that, this ordinary Australian had a problem with that. She needs eight separate medications and she tells me that that is not unusual, particularly for some of the elderly in our community. Any increase in the cost of her prescriptions is not just another $1 a week; it is $8 a time. She has no choice about taking these medications. She has been prescribed them and she needs them to maintain her health at an acceptable standard. She is just one person out there who is concerned and upset about the cost of her pharmaceuticals, some of which are subsidised and some of which are not.The government have said that the increased cost of pharmaceuticals would mean only an extra $52 a year for a pensioner. As we know from the people in our constituencies, even if it is only $52 a year, that is a significant amount of money for a pensioner. Every dollar counts when you are on a low income. It might not count when you are on $100,000 a year, but if you are on the pension, every dollar counts. However, the government do not understand that most people are on more than one prescribed medication. Sometimes they are on five or six—or eight, like my constituent. The government do not understand that when you are on a very limited income, this becomes a significant impost. It is fine if you are a healthy person who does not need medicines, but for those who are not healthy, like so many older people, it is a significant burden to have to meet the increased charges. Most of these older people have chronic illnesses. They require constant ongoing medication. They cannot afford to pay the increased costs of their prescribed pharmaceuticals.Another example is the proposed changes to the eligibility for disability pensions. What the government are about to do is too cute by half. The government are starting to realise this themselves. Even with all their chest thumping at the beginning, and even with the speeches that government members have been making over the last few days on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03, while they are defending these outrageous claims and the things the government have done, the Prime Minister is quietly and carefully preparing the ground for a backtrack. With this government's budgets we get these big claims up front that they are going to do this, that or something else. But they misjudge public opinion every time and they backtrack a lot of the time, and we are seeing that at present. I think the government are starting to realise they have made a mistake. Labor and the community have made sure they understand that what has happened to pharmaceuticals and what has happened to the disability pension is just so outrageous that even this government, with a smokescreen of national security, are not going to be able to get away with it. That has happened so often under this government: they come up with what they think is a good idea and then they are forced to come to grips with the full implications of the policy. That is what happens when you let ideology get in the way of good sense. That is part of the problem with this government: ideology always gets in the way of good sense and then after the outrage occurs they have to fix it up. You have to wonder why the government runs into this tactic so often. You have to wonder why they did not learn the first time and get smart the second time or the third time or the fourth time. If they listened to the marginal seat holder at the table, the honourable member for Leichhardt, they might realise they should get smart the second or the third time. But they do not and that is their problem.Ultimately, even governments full of ideology like this one have to bow to public opinion. And we all know where they are going to go: they announce draconian measures and then they seek to backtrack after they have terrified everyone. Why do they do it? Why do they want to frighten old people? Why do they want to frighten people with disabilities? Why do they want to frighten the most disadvantaged people in our community? Why don't they just come clean at the beginning? But no.Even today we have seen yet another apparent backflip. On budget night, the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Vanstone, was unequivocal in her threat to withhold $100 million of Commonwealth, state and territory disability agreement funding promised before the election campaign if Labor did not vote for cuts to the disability support pension. As the minister said, the increases would also be dependent on parliament passing the government legislation on disability support pension reforms. But what did we have today on the Alan Jones program—Alan Jones, the Prime Minister's ideological friend, the former Liberal candidate for the state seat of Earlwood, Malcolm Fraser's speechwriter, the man who has disgraced himself over many years? What did the Prime Minister say to the parrot today? The Prime Minister, in commenting to the parrot, said:... there are two things that were in the budget linked to the changes to the Disability Support Pension. One of them was additional funds called unmet need money, and the other was an investment in new services. Now in relation to the investment in the new services we can't make that money available if the changes to the Disability Support Pension is blocked. In relation to the other issue that is something we'll have to give consideration to.There we are: a backdown. He tells the parrot, the parrot tells the Sydney community and what we have once again is a budget that sets out to hurt people, and the government will have to change it. (Time expired)21:55:003001Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03. The budget introduced by the Treasurer on 14 May provides a blueprint for future governments on how to respond effectively and fairly to a growing international threat to Australia and its people. None of us could have predicted the events of September 11 and their aftermath but they have caused this nation, as well as our friends and allies, to devote greater resources and attention to the safety and protection of our borders and to fight a war in the defence of our way of life.At the same time, the Treasurer has not neglected the very real need to plan for our future. Governments have often been criticised for focusing only on short-term responses to issues and a failure to adopt a long-term vision in response to changing circumstances and to build a better, stronger and more prosperous nation. The Intergenerational Report does this. It provides the government and the community with the necessary tools for the creation of sound policy that will serve us well into the future.The report provides a picture of what Australia will look like 40 years from now. We are an ageing population, which means we have to design policies today that will provide equitable services to the people of tomorrow while maintaining strong economic growth and security that has been so much a part of the focus and the success of the Howard government. Australia is not alone in facing this situation. Most Western nations are having to cope with an ageing population. It will not be long before the baby boomer generation starts to reach old age—the middle of the next decade. If we do not start planning now then our welfare system will simply not be able to cope with the increasing demands that will be made on it.A report released late last year State of the nation 2001: a century of change by the Centre for Independent Studies demonstrated how government expenditure had tripled over the last four decades and that the largest increases in spending were on education, health and welfare. According to figures from the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services, the percentage of Australians receiving pensions and benefits increased from five per cent in 1973 to 18.4 per cent in 1998.To do nothing in response to the clear evidence that an ageing population will mean a greater call on the public purse for health and welfare needs would be to abrogate our responsibility as legislators. The Intergener-ational Report shows us that our budgetary position is in good shape now and probably will be for the next 10 years. But if we fail to make long-term plans today, taxpayers in the future could face much higher taxes, and a high taxation regime would stifle enterprise and lead to a decline in the economy, leaving future generations with even less ability to pay for required services and welfare. Taking action now is a responsible path for the government to take, and I congratulate the Treasurer and the ministry on acting responsibly and in the national interest.One item in the budget on which the opposition has attempted to engender a scare campaign is the decision to restore the balance between what the government pays and the contributions patients make to the cost of their medicines. The government subsidises the cost of a range of medicines to make them affordable through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This will continue but, in order to maintain the scheme's viability, the government is asking people to pay a little more for some of their medicines. Pensioners and concession cardholders will be asked to pay an extra $1 per script but only up to 52 scripts. After that, they pay nothing. General patients will pay a little more but it is important to remember that the price will only rise if the medication has already reached the ceiling rate of $28.60. If the medicine is priced below the ceiling rate, then there will be no increase as a result of this budget measure. For example, Ventolin is a medicine much used by sufferers of asthma, but Ventolin is below the ceiling rate so the price of Ventolin will not change. In fact, the price of many antibiotics will not change. An example of this is Augmentin. It costs $18.19. It will still cost $18.19 following this budget measure. There is no change, because it is priced below the ceiling rate.The real cost of medication is hardly ever discussed but it ought to be something all Australians understand and appreciate, because without the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—that is, a subsidisation of medicines by the federal government, and the taxpayers, more importantly—we would be asked to pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for each and every script. By way of illustration, the actual cost, I am advised, of a recently listed treatment for cancer on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is $6,745 per script. This is what patients would have to pay if the PBS did not exist. But, because of government subsidisation, the most a pensioner will have to pay for a prescription is $4.60.I believe the public would benefit from having this information included on their receipts when they purchase their medication, because by knowing the actual cost they would have a greater appreciation of the decisions that governments of all political persuasions have to make when formulating their budget priorities. Setting national priorities is something only governments can do, but an informed and advised citizenry can increase the chances of ensuring the right priorities are set.With regard to higher education, recent figures released by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee show a significant increase in university enrolments in 2002. Numbers have increased by 14 per cent over 2001 to an estimated 835,327 students. It is certainly true that a university education is attracting greater numbers despite the doomsayers and protestations when the government made changes to HECS. Mutual obligation is no deterrent to those who understand the value of education. But is quantity to be the only and final judgment of a system of education? The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane, made the observation at the recent Towards Opportunity and Prosperity conference in Melbourne:... although we have made great progress in the breadth of our education system, we cannot make the same claims about the depth. At the higher level of higher education we are not keeping up.Another eminent Australian, the Hon. James Spigelman, Chief Justice of New South Wales, in a recent article in the public affairs journal Quadrant, expressed a view about the limits of quantitative assessment. The jurist said:Not everything that counts can be counted. Some matters can only be judged—that is to say they can only be assessed in a qualitative way.The quality of a nation's education system, in this latest wave of globalisation, is becoming increasingly important. That is why I am very pleased to support the minister in his decision to instigate a higher education review. As Dr Nelson said when making this announcement:The higher education sector is at an important crossroads. Fourteen years after the last major reforms, it is time to take stock of where we are, where we want to go and how we intend to get there. We must have the maturity as a nation to now consider our policy options for the future.True to the progressive nature of this government, the minister is challenging all of those involved in the education sector, in industry and in the general community to take a renewed look at the way higher education is delivered in this country. He challenges us to strive to have one or two universities in the top universities in the world. I dare say many Australians would be surprised to learn we do not have any Australian universities numbering among the 50 best universities in the world. I share the minister's enthusiasm to take up this challenge.Because this is a government which is forever looking for new and better ways to advance the Australian nation and its people, it sometimes surprises me to see how policy negligent the opposition has become. When Minister Nelson asked, as he did at the Economic and Social Outlook Conference in Melbourne, `What are the barriers in Australia that prevent private investment in university infrastructure as occurs in other countries?' a person could have been forgiven for answering, `The Labor Party.' The Labor Party have become so opposed to private enterprise and so opposed to small business that they are fast gaining the reputation as the blocker of all new and invigorating measures to improve the quality of services and outcomes for the Australian people.They ought to take a look at what their cousins in the United Kingdom are up to. The Labour government of Prime Minister Tony Blair do not share their Australian counterpart's dislike and distrust of private enterprise. Quite happily, they are working on improving service delivery in health and education through partnerships with the private sector. In fact, the Labour Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Estelle Morris, has recently been advocating private sector involvement in schools as a means of lifting standards and improving outcomes.Improved standards and outcomes are nowhere more needed than in the area of our natural environment, and I commend the measures announced in this budget by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp. As the minister stated in a recent article in the Australian:... we are not yet managing Australia's environment on a sustainable basis. Although good progress has been made in a number of key quality-of-life areas—such as urban air quality, improved streetscapes and parks and more energy efficient homes—the main national tasks of halting and reversing the destruction of prime agricultural land through salinity and the degradation of water quality in our river systems remain.In this year's budget, the government has allocated a further $100.7 million to tackle salinity and improve water quality as part of the seven-year $1.4 billion National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland and New South Wales have all signed bilateral agreements with the Commonwealth to implement the national action plan, which targets the 21 regions that have been the worst affected by salinity and poor water quality. Working with the local communities, sustainable natural resource management strategies will be planned and implemented. The government is also working with state governments on a package of water efficiency projects in the Murray-Darling Basin as part of an initiative to restore up to 28 per cent of average natural flow to the Snowy River and increased environmental flows in the River Murray. One of the targeted water quality projects, I am pleased to say, is in Adelaide's Port River waterways, which is well known for its dolphin population.It is sometimes said that a society can best be judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable members. Australians have never shirked their responsibilities when it comes to offering a helping hand to a person in genuine need. True to this national tradition, the Howard government is implementing the Personal Support Program as part of Australians Working Together. Personal Support Program providers will help people who have multiple, non-vocational barriers to employment such as drug and alcohol problems, mental illness, homelessness or domestic violence. They will assist people to achieve goals that match their abilities, capacities and circumstances. The Personal Support Program will help people with many personal barriers to move towards employment and join in the community. It will also encourage local organisations to network with each other to deliver better services.I am particularly pleased with the announcement that a number of organisations will deliver the Personal Support Program to needy people in my electorate of Makin. I wish to congratulate and thank the Adelaide Central Mission, Centacare Australia, Community Bridging Services, Heta Corporation, the Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services of South Australia, Ostara Australia, South Australia Career Consultants, the Service to Youth Council, Relationships Australia, Anglicare South Australia, Baptist Community Services South Australia, Career Systems Inc., Para Worklinks Inc. and Workskill Inc. not only for being successful in tendering to become program providers but also for demonstrating an ongoing commitment to our local community. This is solid proof, once again, of the value of government, private enterprise and community organisations working together to provide improved services to the community.I will be supporting this bill because it delivers on the promises made to the Australian people by the Prime Minister during last year's election campaign. The measures it seeks to implement will provide more not only for the defence of our nation and the protection of the Australian people but also for the foundations for our long-term prosperity. I commend the bill to the House.22:10:003004Grierson, Sharon, MPMs GRIERSON00AMPNewcastleALP00—I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2002-03 that has been a shock for most people in Australia. The 2002-03 budget was not just a fiscal failure for Australia but also a failure for the people of Newcastle, who I represent in this House. After 10 years of economic growth, a low inflation rate and decreasing national unemployment figures, the best economic performance the Treasurer, Peter Costello, could achieve was a $1.2 billion deficit. To create a surplus in the coming financial year, the government will overlook Newcastle, regional Australia and sound fiscal management and will expect those who can least afford it—the aged, the chronically ill and those with disabilities—to help them out of their financial mismanagement.This government would like us to believe that, because of new security threats, tough decisions were needed to get the economy back on track. No-one denies that this is the right time to make sure our defence and security forces are well resourced and well equipped, but securing the country and securing our future economically and socially should go hand in hand. It seems that this government only makes tough decisions after an election, but it is happy to squander our future on election sweeteners—elections sweeteners that it is now obvious we could not afford.Costello and Howard intend to save $2 billion on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and $350 million by toughening up the eligibility criteria for disability payments. Every health card recipient will now pay $1 more each time they fill an essential prescription for the first 52 prescriptions—one prescription a week, every week of the year. Thankfully, our veterans escaped this increase. But, if you are not on a benefit, you will need to find $28.60 per prescription—an extra $6.20 each time. We will all pay more, but this measure will particularly affect families with several members needing regular medications.In Newcastle we have a particularly high rate of respiratory disorders, and there is now very real fear that families will cut back on preventative medication because they will just not be able to afford it. The potential human suffering that could result is one our local doctors look on with dread. So everyone will pay more, whilst our pharmaceutical companies refuse to lower the prices of prescription drugs and pass on the money they saved when sales tax was removed and exemption from the GST allowed them to make even greater profits.To top that off, the Costello budget will make it tougher for people to receive disability support payments. If they are assessed as being able to work just 15 hours a week, they will be forced on to the lower unemployment assistance payments—a reduction of up to $52 per fortnight—and they are expected, of course, to look for work. Last week in the parliament I named a constituent of Newcastle who in the last two years has applied for 175 jobs and remains unsupported by the Job Network system, and if we follow this budget we are going to put more people in this position.Newcastle has the second highest level of disability payments in the country—not only a legacy perhaps of our industrial past, but also a direct consequence of people needing to be close to special disability support services and health care that Newcastle, the regional capital, offers. Many people with disabilities will now be expected to join the other 10 per cent of our local population competing for jobs—all for the cold comfort of knowing that the government is saving $350 million and that the Treasurer, Peter Costello, thinks that these measures `will improve their self-esteem and self-reliance'.But there is no corresponding boost to employment and training programs or any major changes to the Job Network system. Although Job Network agencies will now have to spend a minimum of $850 per long-term unemployed person to help with their job-seeking costs, this is made possible because they failed to spend $214 million of the intensive assistance funds allocated last year. That money was not spent, because the Job Network agencies did not reach their outcome targets and did not actually put people into real jobs. So in Newcastle 22,000 people will still be looking for employment.Another 8,500 Work for the Dole positions Australia-wide over three years and a modest bonus system for employers to take on apprentices are very poor substitutes for job creation projects, which would have been most welcomed in Newcastle. The reality for the people of Newcastle is that, for every 100 people on a Work for the Dole project, only eight will actually gain a job. Of course, while they are working for the dole, they are not undertaking training courses that perhaps could equip them better for the employment market. In an area of high unemployment with high numbers of mature age unemployed, there was no funding in this budget for regional job creation schemes targeting local needs. Incentives for business growth seemed to come from small gains in existing innovation and export programs, but support for strategic industry development is left for the states, apparently.There was also no funding for regional infrastructure or capital projects that could boost our local economy and create much needed jobs. So the football stadium that, as Andrew Johns would say, we so dearly need—and I would agree—joins the many capital infrastructure projects on the Hunter wish list that the Howard government expects the state government and the community to pay for. There is no funding for a national transport plan to make sure regional Australia has access to the best freight and transport links. There is no funding for port development in Newcastle and there is no funding of partnerships to deliver high-speed broadband and telecommunication links to the people of Newcastle.Budget support for regional aviation extends to the Gold Coast and Canberra, apparently, but not to Newcastle. But the Newcastle tax office may pick up some of the jobs it lost last year, with the expansion of compliance and taxation recovery units so that small and large business can be pursued for tax avoidance. It is quite ironic that small business looked forward to some gains to compensate them for the burden of GST collection that they have to bear.As for big business, Newcastle's major employers, health and education, missed out completely. It appears no accident that financial support to these vital areas continues to decrease under the government as they pursue their mean-spirited policies that divide Australia into those who can afford private health care and private education and those who will be left with access to a far diminished public health and education sector. These measures to diminish education and health care must and will be resisted by those of us on the opposition benches. We will not stand by and allow the government to dismantle a public education system and a public health system that were the envy of the world. But each successive budget of the government makes our task so much harder.On a first reading of the budget, there seem to be some extra GP places and higher Medicare rebates for lower income patients. But these appear to be only for GPs in outer metropolitan areas of capital cities, not regional cities. In fact, Newcastle may have to provide service to assist the capital cities when we too face challenges in retaining enough GPs for Novocastrians. It is also unlikely that any of the six new regional facilities for radiation oncology are meant for Newcastle, but we are well served in that area. However, we would have liked to have seen some support for our burgeoning medical research industry. After this budget, aged care remains seriously underfunded and access to dental care for those on support payments and low incomes has not been reintroduced. Intergenerational change apparently means that as you get older the government will do less for you unless you are fortunate enough to have benefited from high income tax subsidies during your working life. Match those omissions in health spending with no increased investment in schools, TAFEs or universities and you may understand that this government is dodging its real responsibility for securing our future.If securing the country from terrorism and asylum seekers is the real agenda in Costello's budget, then what will Newcastle gain? Nothing, it seems. One year's expenditure to complete the upgrade of facilities at Williamtown RAAF base is very pleasing, but hours after the budget was released Senator Hill quietly announced that his government would favour new partnerships to rationalise defence shipbuilding. This effectively would mean that a region like Newcastle with a strong and proud shipbuilding heritage would now be outside the naval shipping contract process. So the Newcastle based ADI facility that delivered the minehunters on time and on budget need no longer apply. For this mean--spirited and short-sighted government, New South Wales shipbuilding industry and high-tech jobs in Newcastle are apparently quite dispensable.In the budget, there are some rewards for the more fortunate. The 15 per cent surcharge on superannuation contributions by higher income earners will be reduced over the next three years to 10½ per cent and the age for personal contributions will be raised to 75. If you have spare cash, you can contribute to a child's super fund without it affecting your entitlements and with no requirement that you use your superannuation as a pension—a saving system for the rich. The reality that this policy ignores is that since superannuation was introduced the take-up of the age pension has not diminished in a correlated way. So, instead of introducing measures that assist more people to save for their retirement, this budget assists the most wealthy to avoid taxation.For intending mothers, the baby bonus sees higher earners receiving more to care for their babies, although all mothers know that babies come with the same costs irrespective of the family's income. The First Home Owners Scheme also continues without any means test being applied. If investment is your aim, then you might prepare to buy more Telstra shares, planned for release perhaps as early as next July as we see the National Party ready to sell out rural and regional Australia. But it is worth noting that the increased consumption and monetary flow that result from measures like the home owners grant have already contributed to an increase in inflation and an upward pressure on interest rates. With national and credit debt at an all time high, these bonuses may very soon turn into mortgage nightmares for many Novocastrians and many Australians.This budget disregards the needs of the people of Newcastle and, in doing so, it robs Australia of increased economic prosperity. Newcastle is a clever city that contributes significantly to the national economy. With planned strategic support from the federal government and encouragement of focused partnerships with the private sector, major economic, social and environmental dividends could be achieved. But this budget does not reflect clever thinking or a willingness to work with regions like Newcastle to maximise economic performance. So it falls on me as the representative of the people of Newcastle in this House to give some guidance to the government. The following is a Hunter and Newcastle wish list that we would like to see advanced through strategic federal policy that targets regional and urban development, promotes public-private partnerships, invests in regional infrastructure, encourages cooperation across all tiers of government and delivers genuine economic growth and community prosperity. The wish list for Newcastle would include funding support for the following projects and programs: a new international standard football stadium; local employment programs that provide local jobs for long-term unemployed and disadvantaged job seekers; increased resources for our schools and hospitals in Newcastle; support for a multipurpose shipping terminal to expand the port of Newcastle—the most economic and efficient port in Australia; efficient and competitive regional aviation services at Newcastle airport, and perhaps we here understand that, at the moment, regional aviation has not been delivering efficient service; support for a new clean steel industry in Newcastle; support for the provision of broadband services to Newcastle and the Hunter; expanded defence presence in the Newcastle and Hunter region; higher funding levels for Newcastle university, so it can reduce its lecture sizes and increase its face-to-face teaching and its research programs; increased GP training places at regional universities such as Newcastle; higher rebates to GPs for low income patient groups; family support packages that target early parenting, child care and early learning; sufficient funds for the delivery of quality age care in residential facilities and at home; reinstatement of the Commonwealth dental program; support for the construction of the Hunter Medical Research Institute Centre; a new Federal Court building in Newcastle with accommodation for our Family Court, which suffers under great pressures at the moment; expansion of the new CSIRO energy centre as a centre of excellence in national energy strategy and environmental sustainability. Perhaps some top-up funds for the Social and Community Services employees award in New South Wales would also stop programs from ceasing in Newcastle. We would also have liked to have seen some increased staff levels in Commonwealth departments, like Centrelink. In our office we have dealt with 500 cases in five months. With three Centrelink offices we know the pressures that those people are working under. We would also like to see some relocation of Commonwealth departments back into Newcastle. Perhaps our unemployment rate would decrease as well. The list is a very long one, but so much could be achieved if the Howard government supported investment in regional cities like Newcastle. Unfortunately, budget expenditure on short-sighted and exclusive policies that ignore local needs, like we have seen in this budget, will fail to deliver for the people of Newcastle.I also support the amendment proposed by the opposition. The opposition's amendment condemns the Howard government for its failure to deliver a budget surplus; for its failure to deliver a budget surplus without breaking previous commitments on defence, roads and working credits; for its false claims that cuts to health and welfare payments are needed to fund border protection and the war against terrorism; and for wasting $5 billion of taxpayers' money by gambling in foreign currency markets through cross-currency derivatives. The losses in defence spending because of our foreign exchange risk not being managed has been sorely felt by this country. It is a budget of failure. It has failed to consider the fairer options that we have put forward to offset the harsh measures that it imposes on families, the sick and the disabled. This budget fails in its strategies to deal with the ageing population, fails in positioning us for the knowledge future, and it certainly fails the people of Newcastle. Fortunately, Newcastle has always been a region that backs itself—with the callous disregard shown to the people of Newcastle and the Hunter region by the Howard-Costello government through this budget—and it is just as well. We will need much resolve and much determination to recover from this budget. We deserve better and we will continue to assert that in this House.Today we had a visit from the Lord Mayor of Newcastle and the general manager, working with two other regional cities— Geelong and Wollongong—to put forward strategic policies for regional cities. I would hope that, through their efforts and the community efforts of Newcastle, we see in the next budget some recognition of regional Australia and some policies that target regional development, that equip regions to compete effectively in this economy and that provide the infrastructure and capital projects that they need to prosper.In conclusion, this is a budget that fails Australia. It is a budget that is fiscally irresponsible. It is a budget that fails Newcastle. In targeting the people who can least afford it—the chronically ill, the disadvantaged, people with disabilities and families perhaps struggling with illness—it certainly dodges the responsibility to build prosperous and harmonious communities.Adjournment300810000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being almost 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.300822:29:003008Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—On the 26th of this month, my son Julian will celebrate his 16th birthday, which is great news. Unfortunately, not so great news is that he will be eligible for his learner driver plates. Of course, self-interest is the best interest when you try to take notice of issues and you want to do something about them. So, in that interest, I have looked at the issue of novice drivers, particularly in my home state of Tasmania, and the statistics related to novice drivers. It is an area of concern for two different but related reasons, and I would like to share these reasons with the House.First of all, I do not wish to say that novice drivers cause all the road crashes, but the statistics do indicate improved novice driver safety would result in a substantial road safety benefit. The second is that currently in this country we do not have specific codes such as exist in New Zealand and the UK related to motor vehicle advertising, and it is an area of concern. All that exists are some very general statements in section 2 of the equally general advertising standards guidelines, so general in fact that one could—excuse the pun—drive a semi through them. Many motoring bodies throughout Australia and concerned community groups have tried to rectify the situation, and slowly the car industry is beginning to move on the issue. A self-regulatory code has been produced, initially without much consultation but, hopefully, that is being addressed now—although I notice that the Australian Automobile Association has accused the proponents of the code of being `tardy and dismissive' in establishing the code. I will, along with many other interested parents and concerned citizens and organisations, watch these developments closely to ensure that we do not have advertising which contradicts the basic road safety message that `speed kills' both on—and I would add—off public roads and even in family driveways. Despite Australia having the highest fatality and injury statistics for driveway accidents involving children in the world—an appalling statistic—we have a TV advertisement of a car weaving through toys in a driveway with a youngster looking on with glee and enjoyment. I am sure, Mr Speaker, you will attest that I am no stick in the mud and I can laugh with the best, but what is the message in this advertisement? I noticed in a recent discussion of this matter in the Australian newspaper on 23 May 2002 that a spokesperson for the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries—questioned, I must add, by non-industry people—said:... under the agreed proposals ... no fines will be administered to offending carmakers but any ads deemed to contravene the code will need to be modified or dropped.I certainly hope there is a renegotiation of this pretty insipid proposal. Self-regulation is not an excuse to pussyfoot around. It is a means to deal effectively with an issue without the need for external regulation—and I emphasise the word `need'. I can assure everyone interested in this matter that insipid or dismissive self-regulatory practices will result in sustained political and community pressure to dramatically change the situation. I know there are many, both on my side of the House and on the other side of the House, that will not allow this insipid self-regulation to take place, if that is what they intend. I note the work of Senator Boswell in trying to advance this matter and I hope Minister Anderson provides some determined leadership to support his efforts.I was going to introduce some more sobering statistics to share with you, Mr Speaker, the House and my son Julian, but I will do that when I get home and particularly on his birthday on the 26th of this month. Happy birthday, Julian.300922:33:003009Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I have recently been receiving a large number of calls in my electorate office from concerned parents and friends of the Burraneer Bay Public School. These parents are calling out of sheer frustration about the state of the school's facilities and the state government's unwillingness to meet its responsibilities in this area. Unsurprisingly, this frustration recently boiled over and resulted in an article appearing in last week's St George and Sutherland Shire Leader. The article points out the school's crumbling toilet blocks have broken seats and in some cases no seats at all as well as no hand-drying facilities. There are no shaded or covered outdoor areas for pupils to eat or play under. This is an indefensible situation when you consider how much effort has been put into lowering the incidence of skin cancer in later life.The school has no permanent library or any assembly hall whatsoever. These are the most basic of facilities. Disturbingly, the article also notes, the one area in the kindergarten class that is close to water also has a power point nearby, which is of concern. I am appalled that a primary school in my local area can have been neglected like this, particularly as the staff and the P and C committee of the school have been agitating the state government for years about these facilities.In 2002 it is estimated that overall the Commonwealth will provide about $1.9 billion in direct funding to schools in New South Wales. In the last financial year the federal government increased funding to government schools in New South Wales by 5.2 per cent to around $736 million, while the Carr government's spending on government schools increased by only 2.5 per cent. If the New South Wales government had increased their funding at the same rate as we did, the government school sector in the state would have been $146 million better off, providing even more money for schools in desperate need of facilities. Even worse, this neglect comes after the state government has been the beneficiary of an unexpected $1.5 billion boost on anticipated stamp duty receipts as a result of Sydney's booming property market.Where is all this money going? I am sure the parents and teachers of Burraneer Bay Public School would like to know why some of it has not been put towards meeting their requests. As the representative of the federal government in the area, I would like to know where the Commonwealth funds are going and how a school can be left to disintegrate to this state. The sad fact is the Carr government is abrogating its responsibilities in this area, and Burraneer Bay suffers as a consequence. The latest education funding comparisons show that New South Wales is actually the second lowest spending state in Australia when it comes to government schools. Its expenditure was shown to be 7.5 per cent lower per primary government school student than the national average. This figure translates to $6,092 a head. New South Wales primary school students are being dudded by $6,000 each by the very government that is supposed to be looking after their interests.Looking at investment by government in school capital infrastructure, which is clearly what it is needed at Burraneer Bay, New South Wales was also found to be slacking. Our state falls short by $252 per student in this area, almost 25 per cent less than the average of other states. The federal government on the other hand continues to provide extensive funds for capital works in schools, which still have not been seen in Burraneer despite their long campaign. $76.6 million is to be provided by the Commonwealth to New South Wales this year specifically for this purpose. Why is Burraneer Bay Public School missing out on all this additional money? I hope it is not because the school is located within the relatively safe Liberal seat of Cronulla. On behalf of the pupils, parents, friends and teachers of Burraneer Bay Public School I call on the state government to meet its responsibilities and make some of this extra money available to a school that really needs it.I have personally been to Burraneer Bay Public School. I am appalled at the standard. It is basically a collection of demountables, ignored and overlooked by the state government. When we look at where they are spending the money, they are spending it in the marginal seats and they are spending it in their own Labor electorates but they are ignoring the rest. The way in which this school is being treated with contempt is a disgrace. I join with the parents of Burraneer Bay Public School and call on the state government to review this situation and address the facilities that are so badly needed in the school.301022:38:003010Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I know that you are aware, Mr Speaker, that in isolated communities the postal service is vitally important. It is a lifeline to the outside world for many people who live in isolated areas. It may surprise you to know that, although my seat is a very urban one, part of my seat is Lord Howe Island. Lord Howe Island depends very much on the postal service for its connection with the mainland, even to provide services that we take for granted. It is impossible to get books unless they are ordered from the mainland, and art supplies and any number of specialist goods and services are only available through the post. It pained me when I went to Lord Howe Island recently for Anzac Day and was there for a marvellous Anzac Day service to then go to the post office and be told of some of the problems that they are having with their postal service. They are extremely serious problems. Due to the weight restrictions on the aeroplane that usually brings the mail, most mail is brought by sea. Australia Post on the mainland sometimes advises people who are posting items to Lord Howe Island that it take three to four days. This is very seldom the case; it is more likely to take three to four weeks for an item to reach Lord Howe Island. This causes all sorts of problems for people who may be travelling to Lord Howe Island perhaps with special dietary requirements and are told by their local post office that they can post things three or four days before they leave. Most often items get there three or four weeks after the person has left to return home and the post office on the island is left to deal with some very angry customers of Australia Post, as well as the problems faced by the people who are actually there who do not get their items.People who live on Lord Howe Island permanently are constantly dealing with this problem. I will give one example from last year. I will run through a week. 15/16 December: no letters for Lord Howe Island but did receive letters for Malaysia, Iran, South Africa and Iceland. Monday 17th: no letters for Lord Howe Island but an eight- kilogram bag of letters for Nauru. Tuesday 18th: one bundle of letters received, 12 of which were for Lord Howe Island and the other 300 grams for Belgium. Wednesday 19th: normal amount of letters for Lord Howe Island. That is one day out of the week. Thursday 20th: no small letters for Lord Howe Island. A4 letters, express post and small parcels received. One letter for Fiji. Friday 21st: the plane arrived but no mail. Weekend 22nd and 23rd: a nine-kilogram bag of letters for the Solomon Islands. Monday 24th: a seven-kilogram box of letters for the USA with a Lord Howe Island label on the outside of the box. That is just running you through one week, Mr Speaker, of the sorts of errors that people are faced with every week. What is really of concern is that, if foreign letters are arriving by mistake on Lord Howe Island, it means that letters bound for Lord Howe Island are somehow being directed somewhere else. Residents of Lord Howe Island do not know where their missing mail is going but every resident will tell you that they have had a piece of mail go missing at some stage. Quite often mail arrives damaged after a four- to six-week journey on the boat. There are solutions to this. The first solution that the Lord Howe Island post office proposed is that there should be proper advice that goes out to all post offices around Australia reminding Australia Post staff that Lord Howe Island is part of Australia and does not need to have an international sticker placed on it every time the mail is sorted. Another solution they have recommended is that mail not be sorted with international mail as it is currently. That would certainly go some of the way to alleviating some of problems that people are facing on Lord Howe Island. It is very important to address these problems immediately because we are dealing with people who every day of every week are experiencing the sorts of muck-ups that I have evidence of here. One letter that was bound for Indonesia, where there is also, by coincidence, a Lord Howe Island, has been to Lord Howe Island three times, Jakarta once and South Africa once. Another letter has been mis-sent to Great Britain and to Malaysia before arriving on Lord Howe Island. Another letter that was addressed to the Cocos Islands ended up on Lord Howe Island. Another letter addressed in pictographic writing to the People's Republic of China ended up on Lord Howe Island. Another one to the Solomon Islands again was sent by mistake to Lord Howe Island. The list goes on and on, Mr Speaker, and this matter must be addressed. (Time expired)301122:43:003011Farmer, Patrick, MPMr FARMER00AMOMacarthurLP10— Tonight I would like to address the House in regard to a group of people in the Claymore community, which is a suburb in the electorate of Macarthur. For most of us a telephone is something that we take for granted. It is a tool we need to use in our everyday lives and it is something that just seems to be there whenever we need it. For many people in my electorate of Macarthur, especially those living in areas like Claymore, access to a telephone is not as simple as walking through to the lounge room and simply picking up a handset.Claymore has a high level of welfare dependence and is made up entirely of public housing. Many families in Claymore rely on Centrelink benefits and they simply cannot afford a phone in their own home. These people rely on public telephones. There is already one public telephone in Claymore but for those people living on the opposite side of the suburb it is an awfully long way for them to walk to make a call to try and stay in touch with people. There is a real need for a second public telephone in Claymore to help those people who do not have a phone in their home. I have been approached by a group of residents from Claymore and we are now working together to try and get an extra phone installed for the local residents. While this might seem like a very simple thing, Mr Speaker, I can tell you that it is a very big thing for the people of Claymore. They feel very isolated. This is an area that is constantly being knocked for its high levels of unemployment and crime. Only a few weeks ago it was featured in the Sydney press for all the wrong reasons. But here we have a dedicated group of people who are committed to the area in which they live. They are taking a pride in their suburb and are working to make it a better place. They are helping themselves, and they do not just expect results without putting in hard work and effort. These people are proud of who they are and where they come from. I am proud to be helping the people of Claymore, and I am proud to represent them in this House. It is with this type of commitment that I will help to turn around their situation and the problems that they are facing. Hopefully many people will learn from their example and push on to work for themselves to make their own areas a better place. I hope that people elsewhere in this country and, indeed, in many other suburbs can follow the example of the people of Claymore and band together to work for their community. I applaud their efforts, and I will do everything in my power to make sure that they get their second phone.301122:46:003011Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Last week, I made some comments about what seems to be the demise of Blue Mountains District Hospital and I would like to continue those remarks. As I indicated then, for a number of years specialist services have been reduced or removed from Blue Mountains District Hospital at Katoomba. In spite of assurances to the contrary by the Wentworth Area Health Service, and in spite of assurances to the contrary by the New South Wales government, the latest sad tale in this saga of the demise of this hospital is recent announcements about the reduction in maternity services. We have had for some time a gradual reduction in obstetric services, partly because of the failure of the state government to attract support anaesthetist services to the hospital. There does not seem to have been enough effort on their part to get the obstetricians and the anaesthetists that we need to support those services. The latest development has been an announcement just two weeks ago by the health service that for the next six months maternity services will be totally suspended from Blue Mountains District Hospital—no maternity services in the upper mountains for the next six months. This is an appalling situation and a total neglect of the needs of families in the upper Blue Mountains. The plan then—if you could call it a plan—is that, at the start of next year, the services will be partly resumed on a midwifery basis with no resident obstetrician. This raises, as I said last week, a number of very serious problems. What happens in the next six months? Over the next six months, every woman in the upper Blue Mountains who is about to give birth will have to travel to Nepean Hospital, a trip that would take an hour on a good day. With traffic congestion, as is frequently the case on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon, or in poor weather conditions, when it is fogbound, particularly during winter, the same trip could take an hour and a half to two hours. So we are asking women who are about to give birth to travel for up to an hour and a half or two hours to Nepean Hospital. There is no guarantee, with an early onset of labour, that they will be able to make that trip in time. The second problem is that Nepean Hospital is often overcrowded and too full. There is no guarantee that, in fact, if they get to Nepean, they can be taken care of at Nepean Hospital. I started reading last week an email from a constituent who is in this exact position. His wife, having had two caesareans already, is due for a caesarean later this year. She can no longer have that caesarean at Blue Mountains District Hospital and has tried to book into Nepean Hospital. She cannot get in there and has to travel to Bathurst to have her child. This constituent in this email quite rightly makes a number of comments and asks questions. He states, `Across New South Wales, birthing units beyond those in major hospitals are being pressured to close,' that the closure of birthing units is not only a women's issue but a family issue, a father's issue, a men's issue, and that it is clearly evident that economic rationalism is driving health policy under the rhetoric of networking specialist services. Unfolding now is the downgrading of rural hospitals, including Blue Mountains District Hospital—even though technically this is a metropolitan hospital—to meet the heartless agenda of a social policy that sanctifies cost savings as a priority rather than communities and human lives. The constituent goes on to ask these questions: `Where is the evidence for rationalisation of these services; why hasn't any evidence been presented to this community; why has the community not been informed about these changes to its maternity unit; why are we a community, birthing our children, being forced to abdicate control and anticipate a perilous and dangerous journey down the mountain?' These are very valid questions. The Wentworth Area Health Service and the New South Wales government are badly failing the residents of the upper mountains. To expect them to make a trip of over an hour to have their child delivered is totally unacceptable. The second question is: what happens next year? They are saying, `We will resume birthing at the Blue Mountains District Hospital next year, under a midwifery based model.' What happens if unexpected complications occur during childbirth? Somehow help will have to come from an hour and an half away or, if complications occur during birth, they will have to get the mother and child down to Nepean Hospital. That is just not safe for the mother, and it is not safe for child. Also, it is not fair to the residents of the upper Blue Mountains. I ask that the New South Wales government and the Wentworth Area Health Service take their responsibilities seriously. (Time expired)301322:51:003013Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The current level of concern about global warming and climate change can be said to have arisen from a conference held in Berkshire in the UK in May 1990. At that conference, hundreds of scientists gathered to put the finishing touches to the first scientific assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the IPCC, as it has come to be known. Set up in 1998 by the United Nations General Assembly, the mission of the IPCC was to pool the opinions of as many scientists and policy experts as possible. It was to come up with a consensus report on the science of global warming, the probable impacts and the required policy responses. Margaret Thatcher attended that conference, and here is some of what she said:Today, with the publication of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we have an authoritative early-warning system: an agreed assessment from some three hundred of the world's leading scientists of what is happening to the world's climate. They confirm that greenhouse gases are increasing substantially as a result of man's activities, that this will warm the Earth's surface with serious consequences for all of us.It was, she said, a report of historic significance.Margaret Thatcher started her career as an industrial chemist. While the IPCC seemed like bad news, it could in fact have been much more frightening. Some conference members wanted the report to include worst case scenarios, including the possibility of a runaway, unstoppable greenhouse effect and the rapid melting of the polar ice caps, resulting in the flooding of the continental margins. Supporters of this view at the conference argued that governments routinely adopt this worst case strategy when dealing with defence budgets. Is this not the case in Australia at present, when the Treasurer claims that the sick, the disabled and the pensioners should be required to pay for defending our shores against the supposed hordes of illegal immigrants? Is the Treasurer not arguing from the worst case scenario in attempting to justify his budget? Why shouldn't we do the same thing for climate change? Surely it is a far more real threat than boatloads of desperate refugees.In 1990, as a result of the IPCC report, the Labor cabinet committed Australia to a 20 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. Under intense pressure from the Business Council of Australia, which was dominated by mining and oil industry companies, the government was forced to retreat from its progressive position. In 1991, the World Council of Churches issued a statement, which said:Concern for the protection of Creation is growing rapidly in the churches with global warming being a high priority.The churches said then that there was an urgent need for the industrialised nations to set specific targets and schedules to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. By 1996, and with the advent of the Howard government, Australia was leading the opponents to greenhouse gas emission reductions. The situation remains unchanged today, with the exception that Japan, formerly a staunch member of the so-called JUSCANZ group— Japan, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—has changed sides and is now supporting the reduction of emissions. Perhaps the group will soon be reduced to the US and Australia.We are all aware of the mess that this government has made of the Australian insurance industry. How much worse will it become when the impact of global warming starts to affect Australia more directly? When Hurricane Andrew hit Florida in August 1992, the insurance bill topped $US16.5 billion, and then, in the same month, Cyclone Iniki hit Hawaii and Cyclone Omar hit Guam. Significant industry wide reinsurance price rises resulted. These increases have flowed on to the Australian insurance market and, no doubt, have been partly responsible for the recent insurance company failures. The insurance industry has been feeling the effects of climate change for more than 10 years now, yet this government has done nothing except complain about the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Insurance has already been withdrawn from parts of the Caribbean and the Pacific Islands.What should I say to one of my constituents if, after having their property destroyed in some wild storm, they find that their insurance company has either withdrawn its cover or collapsed because of the demand on the insurer's resources caused by climatic catastrophes? Will the government be prepared to bail out home owners trapped in this situation or will they be left in the same kind of limbo that now faces the medical profession? Australia's future prosperity will come not from a hole in the ground but from the efforts of hard working and dedicated people who are prepared to give their time and effort to developing new technologies, despite receiving almost no support from this government.301422:56:003014Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I, along with the international human rights groups around the world, call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister and this government to act to at least put Australia's view more forcefully and more firmly about the problems we are encountering in the Middle East. People may think, because it is no longer taking the first story on all our televisions, that nothing is happening and everything has subsided. Well, it has not. Mr Speaker, you have visited that area and you would know full well some of the problems that have been encountered by the Palestinians following the bombings that Israel has persistently continued to do over many months.I remember well in the previous parliament that we on the foreign affairs committee carried out a Middle East inquiry into what the problems were. One of the recommendations was that, within the near future, perhaps we as a country, along with other countries around the world, would have to recognise the rights of the Palestinians and perhaps grant, or work towards, them becoming an individual state in their own right.I think what we have witnessed over the last 15 or 18 months has been absolutely appalling. The old city of Nablus, which has something like 3,000 years of history, has been bombed and destroyed, and the city of Bethlehem—where I have had the opportunity of walking through the Nativity scene and the areas of peace—has been destroyed. More particularly, I think what affected me most—as I am sure it affected many other people who have had the opportunity of visiting the area—was to see the refugee camp in Jenin destroyed. I had gone through that area and sat down and spoken to doctors and teachers in the particular area. A doctor told us that, at one stage, he had something like 100,000 people with only him to look after them. Needless to say, the facilities he was using then have all gone because they have been completely bombed. We also talked to some of the teachers in the schools trying to provide education to the children in the refugee camps. They told us that they had to use the school for three sessions a day because there was no other way in which they could even try to educate to a minimum standard the children in those particular camps.I think it is appalling that those people are the ones who are suffering. It is like all disagreements between countries that have the might, the tanks and the helicopters: those that use rocks, like the Palestinians, are the ones whose children, mothers and fathers are the innocent victims. They are the ones who have suffered through all this outrage. I believe that this country and this government should stand up and join the opposition in saying, `Enough is enough.' We should be united in what we are trying to do, and that is to see peace prevail in that area—but a peace that will be a long-lasting peace, a peace where the mighty do not get victory because they have overcome or downtrodden those who do not have the ability to fight back.I, along with everybody else, was absolutely disgusted when we read about some of those bombers in different areas who disguise themselves and then go in and hit and kill innocent Israeli victims. There is no excuse for that. There is no excuse for murder of any description. But, at the same time, there is no excuse for a country as mighty as Israel, with the forces that it has behind it, to step through the Palestinian people and destroy them in the way that it has. To take away a man's pride is bad enough. To take away his home, to take away the food out of the mouths of his children, and then, more importantly, to destroy the schools, the hospitals and everything else that kept the community together, needs to be condemned. I think we as Australia, as a nation, need to stand up more forcefully, more vocally and condemn the actions that have occurred in the Middle East.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:003015House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices3015The following notices were given:IK6Lloyd, Jim, MPMr Lloyd to move:That this House:(1) notes the passing of Australia's last Anzac Gallipoli veteran, Mr Alec Campbell, and records its sympathy to his family:(2) acknowledges the service and sacrifice of all Gallipoli veterans;(3) notes the increasing number of young Australians who attend Anzac Day dawn services both in Australia and overseas; and(4) encourages all Australians to ensure that the Anzac legend continues to be recognised and honoured. KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr Andren to move:That this House:(1) recognises that there is no Constitutional impediment to Commonwealth regulation of insurance claims procedures and the magnitude of insurance claims;(2) recognises that the Commonwealth has the power to prescribe conditions upon which any person may carry out insurance business of any kind and establish any mechanisms for the supervision of such person and corporations and to regulate their affairs, under section 51(xiv) of the Constitution;(3) recognises that the Commonwealth uses this power to regulate the Insurance Act 1973; the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Contracts Act 1984;(4) calls on the Commonwealth to order an inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission into the feasibility of a Commonwealth legislative scheme for the insurance industry; and(5) calls on the Commonwealth to ensure that such an inquiry evaluate:(a) whether the existing State-based scheme for negligence claims provides the most effective and efficient legal framework for the operation of such claims, in particular whether a Commonwealth-based operating structure should be provided for negligence claims;(b) whether a Commonwealth-based operating structure could provide a uniform national insurance claim standard, with particular reference to:(i) lump sum payment caps;(ii) specific criteria for assessing disability;(iii) standardising damages claims under all types of insurance including public liability, medical indemnity and compulsory third party;(iv) the particular discrepancies that arise, especially in regard to damages awards, in different jurisdictions for similar injuries;(v) whether existing types of negligence need to be amended, including moving from joint and severable liability towards proportional liability; and (vi) whether it is possible for such legislation to apply to all insurance companies regulated under the Insurance Act 1973, the prudential legislation under the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority;(c) the regulation of medical defence organisations as insurance companies;(d) any constitutional limitations on implementing a Commonwealth-based regulatory structure;(e) the costs and benefits of capping legal costs associated with negligence claims funded out of insurance policies; and(f) the costs and benefits of changing the mode of insurance claim payment from lump sum to income stream, annuity or structured settlement, including consideration of any taxation issues and appropriate remedies.Answers to Questions in Writing3016The following answers to questions were circulated:3016(Question No. 107)1073016Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 February 2002:(1) With respect to the independent review of CASAs public relations performance during the Easter grounding of the Ansett 767 fleet that was announced by the then Chairman, Dr Paul Scully-Power in the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport legislation committee on 4 May 2001, has the appropriate public relations consultant been appointed; if so, who is it; if not, why not and when will the appointment be finalised. (2) What criteria did or will CASA use to determine the appropriateness of the selected consultant. (3) What is the timeframe advised to the consultant to complete the review. (4) What are the terms of reference. (5) What is the value, and particulars, of the contract with the consultant. (6) Who will receive a copy of the consultants analysis and recommendations. (7) Who will determine which recommendations will be implemented. (8) Will the draft consultants report or the final report be released to the public, if so, how and when. (9) What is the process to provide input to the review. (10) Will public submissions be called. (11) Will he have any involvement in the review or its implementation. 3016Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has advised the following:(1) Gavin Anderson & Company has been appointed as the public relations consultant.(2) At the request of the Board, CASA conducted a tender process to select a consultant to review CASA's public relations performance with respect to the recent Ansett incident. A selected tender process was used whereby a number of potentially suitable firms were invited to submit proposals. Each proposal was evaluated for suitability against a matrix of the following four criteria; personnel, risk, adequacy of methodology and relevant experience. From this evaluation, the successful consultant was chosen. (3) The CASA Executive accepted the report in January 2002. (4) The Terms of Reference for the review were contained in the selected tender process, and are reproduced as follows—The Civil Aviation Safety Authority wishes to appoint a suitably qualified public relations firm to review its public relations performance during the recent events with Ansett. The review will seek to identify ways in which CASA's performance could be improved on an ongoing basis, particularly in similar circumstances to the Ansett matter.The review should analyse the content of media statements by CASA and Ansett and the commentary of the media, to determine the appropriateness of CASA's media stance in contributing to the maintenance of public trust and confidence in Australia's system of aviation safety.The review should include an assessment of the adequacy of CASA's public relations resources, the reporting lines and the positioning of CASA's Executive.As a result of these reviews, a recommended public relations policy for CASA should be developed for managing similar issues in the future. The policy should have regard to the appropriateness of developing protocols with CASA's regulated entities relating to the release of information to the media.(5) Funding allocated to the project totals $45,500-$47,500. The particulars of the agreed contract between CASA and Gavin Anderson & Company are Commercial-In-Confidence. CASA therefore does not believe that it would be appropriate to provide these details.(6) The analysis and recommendations were provided to the CASA Board, the Director of Aviation Safety and the Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Promotion Division. (7) The CASA Board, in consultation with the CASA Executive determined which recommendations will be implemented.(8) It is not anticipated that the draft consultant's report or the final report will be made available to the public. (9) Gavin Anderson & Company is interviewing a group of key stakeholders including Board members, senior management staff, aviation writers, political commentators, ministerial senior advisers, opposition spokesperson, industry and passenger representatives will be undertaken. These interviews are being conducted on a non-attributable basis with the aim of facilitating open and frank discussion. (10) CASA does not anticipate that public submissions will be called. (11) The review and its implementation is a matter for CASA.3017(Question No. 113)1133017Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 February 2002:(1) Further to his election funding commitments to the Scoresby Freeway and both the internal and external upgrades of the Hume Highway at Albury Wodonga, how many kilometres of the Hume Highway between Albury and Gundagai remain single carriageway.(2) What is the cost to upgrade these sections to dual carriageway standard.(3) How many trucks and cars travel on these sections each day.(4) How many accidents, specifying any fatalities and injuries, have occurred in these sections in each of the past 5 years.(5) What is the timetable to fund and complete the National Highway works required to upgrade these sections of the Hume Highway to dual carriageway standard.3017Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 105 kilometres of the Hume Highway in NSW is unduplicated. This comprises 88 kilometres south of the Sturt Highway junction through Albury to Wodonga, 1 kilometre at Gundagai (Sheahan Bridge) and 16 kilometres at Coolac, which is north of Gundagai.(2) The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) has estimated the cost of fully duplicating the Hume Highway at around $854 million. However, since there is limited planning along some sections, this is a strategic level estimate only and may be subject to significant change when further planning is undertaken. (3) South of the Sturt Highway junction near Tarcutta, traffic levels average between 4,500-6,500 vehicles daily along the Hume Highway corridor. North of the Sturt Highway junction to Gundagai traffic levels are around 6,300-7,000 vehicles. (4) Road traffic accidents are reported by local government area. Accidents and fatalities along the Hume Highway in the Gundagai, Wagga Wagga, Holbrook, Hume and Albury City Council areas for each of the past 5 years to 2000 (the latest data available) are:AccidentsInjuries Fatalities199616693319971629541998186132819991991114200020212712Total91528731(5) The Federal Government is committed to duplication of the Hume Highway in line with overall traffic needs, available funds and competing priorities. The Government has made $0.2m available in 2001/02 for the RTA to further investigate the needs of the southern Hume, in light of local concerns about safety along certain sections of the Highway. Planning is also in progress for a dual carriageway bypass of Coolac and duplication of the Sheahan Bridge at Gundagai. 3018(Question No. 346)3463018Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 14 May 2002:(1) In how many cases did the Migration Agents Regulation Authority caution or suspend migration agents in cases that clearly had no prospects of success.(2) Are there regulatory requirements on the migration agent to tell the consumer whether there are grounds for success regarding an application; if so, what sanctions does the Authority have to prevent migration agents from lodging false or unfounded applications.(3) Have complaints been made to the Authority about such cases; if so, (a) how many and (b) how long does it take the Authority to hear such cases.(4) Has the Authority taken disciplinary action against migration agents that have not acted in good faith by falsely representing a case.(5) In how many cases did migration agents avoid being sanctioned or prosecuted by de-registering themselves.(6) Does the Authority publish the names of the agents that de-register; if not, why not.(7) What measures are available to consumers in cases where an agent has de-registered.(8) Of the 79 cases reported at page 23 of the Authority's 2000-2001 annual report as having no further action, (a) how many were subject to agents de-registering and (b) what advice is given to clients in these circumstances.3018Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HardgraveCK6MoretonLPMinister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Since its inception in March 1998, the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) has cautioned two migration agents and suspended one migration agent for their involvement in cases that clearly had no prospects of success.(2) Registered migration agents are required by s.314(2) of the Migration Act 1958 to comply with the Migration Agents Code of Conduct that forms Schedule 2 of the Migration Agents Regulations 1998. The clauses that refer to the grounds for success regarding an application and the lodgement of false or unfounded applications are clauses 2.6, 2.7, 2.9 and 2.17. These state:2.6 To the extent that a migration agent must take account of objective criteria to make an application under the Migration Act or Migration Regulations, he or she should be frank and candid about the prospects of success when assessing a client's request for assistance in preparing a case or making an application under the Migration Act or Migration Regulations.2.7 An agent who is asked by a client to give his or her opinion about the probability of a successful outcome for the client's application should not hold out unsubstantiated or unjustified prospects of success when advising clients on applications under the Migration Act or Migration Regulations.2.9 While a migration agent cannot be responsible for misinformation provided by a client, an agent must not make statements in support of an application under the Migration Act or Migration Regulations, or encourage the making of statements, which he or she knows or believes to be misleading or inaccurate.2.17 If an application under the Migration Act or the Migration Regulations is vexatious or grossly unfounded (for example, an application that has no hope of success) the agent:(a) must not encourage the client to lodge the application; and(b) must advise the client that, in the agent's opinion, the application is vexatious or grossly unfounded; and(c) if the client still wishes to lodge the application—must obtain written acknowledgment of the client of the advice given under paragraph (b).The Authority may issue sanctions against agents who fail to comply with the Code of Conduct. Those sanctions include a caution, a suspension, a cancellation or a refusal of the agent's re-registration application.(3) (a) 139—since the MARA's inception in March 1998. (b) The current average time being taken to finalise complaints is 87 days as complaints are not finalised until any appeals to either the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) or the Federal Court have been finally determined. This is because the Authority, under s.305 of the Migration Act 1958, can only publish a statement about the suspension or cancellation of an agent's registration once any such appeals have been finally determined. (4) Since its inception in March 1998, the Authority has cancelled the registration of one migration agent, suspended the registration of two migration agents and cautioned one migration agent for making false or unfounded applications.(5) Since the MARA's inception in March 1998, 20 migration agents have `de-registered' themselves or allowed their registration to lapse while complaints against their conduct were being investigated (this includes some agents who were subject to multiple complaints at the time).(6) The Authority's publication powers do not extend to the publishing of the names of the agents who allow their registration to lapse or who `de-register' themselves. Most migration agents who `de-register' do not do so to avoid sanction and the Authority would not want to imply that a negative connotation should be drawn towards them for `de-registering'. The creation of a listing of previously registered agents may also create confusion in the minds of consumers about the listing of currently registered agents.(7) An agent who has `de-registered' or allows their registration to lapse, becomes an `inactive' agent. Where the Authority knows the name of an affected client, the Authority can request the inactive agent (under s.306D of the Migration Act 1958) to provide a copy to the Authority of the client's documents:(i) that are or were connected with the giving, or anticipated giving, of that immigration assistance to those clients; and (ii) if the documents relate to the affairs of that client. Penalties can be applied under s.306H for non-compliance with such a request. Where a migration agent has `de-registered' and seeks to be re-registered, any outstanding professional standards matters that had lapsed with their registration can be re-activated.The Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2002, which was reintroduced into Parliament on 14 February 2002, contains provisions that are aimed at preventing migration agents from avoiding the disciplinary provisions of the scheme by simply `de-registering' or allowing their registration to expire. If this Bill is passed, the Authority will be able to investigate complaints about `de-registered' migration agents, unless a complaint is received by the Authority more than 12 months after the registration ceased.(8) (a) None of the 79 finalised complaints involved migration agents `de-registering'. Three complaints against agents who `de-registered' while subject to investigation by the Authority were deliberately not finalised to allow investigations to resume if the Migration Legislation (Migration Agents) Bill 2002 is passed. (b) Clients are advised that complaints will be reactivated if the migration agent seeks to be registered again or if their complaint could be reactivated if the Migration legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2002 is passed. In addition, clients are currently advised that the Authority is not the only channel available to an individual to correct any perceived errors regarding advice given by a migration agent and that they may wish to consider seeking legal advice about other avenues.