2002-06-054012REPS311502002-06-05—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills3115R15683115Bill presented by Dr Nelson, and read a first time.311509:31:003115Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This government is committed to creating an environment that encourages investment in the education and training of young Australians, in updating the skills and knowledge of the work force, in generating knowledge through research and in translating these ideas into economic activity that benefits all Australians.Despite Australia's total investment in higher education already being above the OECD average, the government is currently delivering a significant injection of funding through the Backing Australia's Ability initiatives and other measures such as the 2001-02 budget measure to provide additional places to regional universities. As a result of these initiatives, by 2004 annual Commonwealth funding to universities through the Education, Science and Training portfolio, including the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, will be $480 million higher than in 2001 at around $6.3 billion—in non-cost-adjusted terms—and there will be at least 8,300 more fully funded undergraduate places in 2004 than in 2001.Many of the key indicators for the health of our higher education sector continue to be very positive. Revenues are at record levels and growing. Higher education participation is at a record level and increasing. Graduate employment outcomes are improving. Graduate satisfaction is at record levels and our educational exports are more successful than ever.Nevertheless the government is not content to sit back. Over the coming months I am undertaking a review of the higher education sector and have invited public discussion on the future policy directions for higher education in Australia. We want to bring institutions, students, the general community and even the opposition, if they are willing, on board to work with us to create the best higher education system we, as a nation, possibly can. I am sure that all members would agree that this task is one of considerable national importance and one that should transcend political divisions.A well-educated and skilled work force that embraces lifelong learning is essential for Australia's economic growth. As part of its commitment to lifelong learning, this government announced the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme in 2001 as part of Backing Australia's Ability. The scheme, which commenced this year, encourages increased participation in education and helps Australians update and acquire new skills. It is also an important equity measure ensuring that no prospective postgraduate coursework student is prevented from studying by an inability to pay up-front fees. Early indicators suggest that the scheme has been extremely successful in increasing the number of Australians undertaking postgraduate coursework qualifications. For example, early estimates data show a 20 per cent increase in postgraduate coursework enrolments in 2002 over 2001.This bill provides for the extension of the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme—or PELS, as it is known—to four additional institutions: Bond University, Melbourne College of Divinity, Tabor College in Adelaide, South Australia—with which you are very familiar, Mr Speaker—and Christian Heritage College, as promised in the election and announced in the recent budget. This gives students at these institutions access to postgraduate study loans on the same basis as other students, but does not make the institutions eligible for public funding.The extension of PELS to these four institutions levels the playing field for competition in fee-paying postgraduate coursework degrees and further extends opportunities for institutions to provide and students to undertake fee-paying postgraduate coursework.The bill also updates the funding amounts provided for in the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 which is currently before the House. In doing so it provides additional funding for the establishment of a graduate diploma in environment and planning at the University of Tasmania with six associated scholarships. This honours an election promise and implements an initiative from the recent budget. The varied amounts also contain further supplementation for indexation purposes, in accordance with the latest Treasury parameters and reflect a revision of the estimated HECS liability in various years.The bill also adjusts funding levels in the Higher Education Funding Act and the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to permit the Institute of Advanced Studies at the Australian National University to access the competitive funding schemes of the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. This measure is part of the ongoing efforts of this government to create a more strategic and internationally competitive research system in Australia.Finally, the bill provides for an additional funding cap for the Australian Research Council competitive research schemes in 2006, consistent with the current budget forward estimates, so that the minister can approve ARC grants for a period of four years. The purpose of this measure is to reduce administrative work and to give grant recipients greater certainty in relation to their funding.There is a technical amendment to correct a previous drafting error in HEFA.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Cox) adjourned. Bills3116R15693116Bill presented by Dr Nelson, and read a first time.311609:38:003116Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992 appropriates funds to support vocational education and training, provided to the Australian National Training Authority, ANTA, for distribution to the states and territories and for national projects.This bill will increase the amount previously appropriated for 2002 by $24.348 million in line with normal price adjustments, giving effect to the government's commitment to maintain base funding in real terms under the Australian National Training Authority Agreement 2001 to 2003.As a result, total funding for 2002 will be increased to $1,055.506 million, including $76.725 million in growth funding, matched by the states and territories under the terms of the ANTA agreement.The bill appropriates $1,094.020 million—well in excess of $1 billion—for vocational education and training in 2003. The total figure includes an amount of $12.381 million provided under the Australians Working Together initiative of this government and a first instalment of $4.545 million to deliver new training opportunities for people with a disability under the Recognising and Improving the Capacity of People with a Disability initiative.This record level of funding provided to the states and territories for their vocational education and training systems in 2003 is a demonstration of the Commonwealth's commitment to a strong national vocational education and training system. This government believes it is essential to develop a highly skilled work force to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry and to enable individual Australians to fully realise their potential.It is also essential that our vocational education and training system provides opportunities for all our young people who decide to embark on careers that do not involve university study. Young people's decisions need to be respected and nurtured.It is very pleasing to see that participation in vocational education and training in Australian schools continues to grow. An estimated 170,000 students participated in vocational education and training in schools in 2001. The ANTA funding provided in the bill includes $20 million per annum to assist with the implementation of vocational education and training in schools.Our commitment to training is further demonstrated in the 2002-03 budget.Under measures announced in the budget we will be providing $33 million over three years, commencing in 2003-04, for vocational education and training to assist people with a disability. This is in addition to the $72 million for vocational education and training provided under last year's Australians Working Together package, $24 million of which was to provide additional places for people with a disability.In this year's budget, the government has provided $54 million over the next four years for additional New Apprenticeships incentives to encourage employers to employ and retain young people in school based New Apprenticeships as well as to encourage employers in the field of information technology and other emerging highly skilled occupations to take on new apprentices.The sustained expansion of New Apprenticeships is clear evidence that they are delivering the types of training that respond to the needs of businesses and are opening up opportunities for more Australians in a wider range of occupations than ever before. The latest figures from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research show that there are a record 333,000 new apprentices in training.In an important lifelong learning initiative, the budget also provides for IT training for older workers—people over the age of 45. Up to 46,000 older Australians will be assisted through this four-year, $23.2 million initiative. The IT Skills for Older Workers program will provide training valued at up to $500 to help develop skills to a level that will allow effective participation in today's work force. The training will be aimed at people aged 45 years and over who are in the labour force and are welfare dependent but who have no previous post-school qualifications in information technology. This measure will enable them to turn on a computer, to word process, to send and receive an email and to be able to use the Internet. That is a measure that one would hope all members of the House will be supporting.These measures, together with the funding that the government provides to the states and territories under the ANTA Agreement 2001-03, are helping to provide new vocational and training opportunities for many more Australians.The increased Commonwealth funding provided to the states and territories through ANTA in 2003 will help ensure that emerging issues, such as support for new and emerging high technology industries and the training needs of older workers, can be addressed.Together with the reforms to vocational training that the government has led, this new funding provides a sound basis for the vocational education and training sector to develop in the year ahead.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Cox) adjourned.Bills3117Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bill:Financial Corporations (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Amendment Bill 2002Bills3117R15533117Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Mr Anthony:That this bill be now read a second time.09:46:003117Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—The Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2002 that we are debating today has come about as a result of a decision announced by the government in the 2002-03 budget that it would double the minimum grant amount under the Export Market Development Grants Scheme from $2,500 to $5,000. The government also announced an increase in total EMDG funding of $0.4 million each year until 2005-06. Both of these provisions were coalition election commitments. I indicate at the outset that Labor will not be opposing this particular legislation going forward, but I will be moving an amendment at the end of my contribution this morning to highlight what I think are some of the issues which the government needs to address in respect of its trade policy.I am delighted that the Minister for Trade is in the chamber today to hear my comments. I offer them not only in part as criticism perhaps of some of the aspects of trade policy at the moment but also in a genuine attempt to add some points for discussion on trade policy, because everybody in this chamber is wedded to the view that, for Australia's economic wellbeing and for the enhancement of our economy, we must have a strong trading environment. I put it up-front now that the Australian Labor Party has had the long debate about free versus fair trade. I can give that commitment to the minister, because I know that he did raise it in question time the other day. Certainly from my perspective and from the Labor Party's perspective, free trade is something which our platform specifies, and it is free trade that we will be pursuing, and any policy that I develop similarly is going to be embracing of that particular issue. My colleague the member for Rankin, the shadow minister for industry and innovation, would concur with that view and will be lending his support to that at the time.It is interesting, when you reflect on the particular scheme that we are debating, that it was introduced by a Labor government. It was introduced by the Whitlam government in 1974. It is administered by Austrade and provides financial assistance to businesses seeking to develop export markets. Assistance is delivered in the form of a taxable grant as partial reimbursement for expenditure on export promotion. The target market for the grants scheme is small and medium enterprises, and that is an important point that I will return to in a moment. In 1997 the Howard government amended the act and imposed a $150 million cap on the total amount of funding available. The administration of the EMDG Scheme is also funded from this appropriation to a maximum level of five per cent. As a result, real funding levels actually have declined by 37 per cent.The number of successful EMDG applicants is also in decline—from 3,712 in 1995-96 to 2,956 in 2000-01. In fact, the document which was tabled in parliament yesterday gives a very extensive list of people that were successful receivers of those grants. Clearly, as well, the charts at the back of that document indicate the strong emphasis that grant recipients have placed on the markets of North-East Asia, South-East Asia, the Americas and Europe, whilst they have not placed so much emphasis on the markets of the Middle East, the Indian Ocean or certainly the South Pacific. That in itself tells something of a story, and it is equally a telling point in terms of policies of both sides of this parliament that engagement with Asia is a priority; at the same time, as other markets emerge and can be developed, they should not be neglected.In order to be eligible for a grant, a company or a person must have incurred at least $15,000 in export promotion expenses and have earned export revenue of less than $25 million. They are entitled to recover 50 per cent of expenditure above the $15,000 threshold, less $7,500. Even if this recoverable amount is less than $2,500, the applicant will receive the minimum payment under the EMDG Scheme, currently $2,500, but after this bill goes through that will be $5,000. At face value, an increase in funding for the EMDG is a good thing, and it probably is. But the funding increase announced in this year's budget and delivered in the amendment bill that we are debating actually will not encourage more Australian companies to export.I will go to the reasons why I say that. The government's bill doubles the size of the minimum grant, and that is welcome. But it does not seek to increase the number of companies which can access the scheme. These are not my words, nor are they conclusions that I have drawn independently. They, in fact, come from no better source than the Department of Finance and Administration. That department's costing of the coalition's election commitments—doubling the minimum EMDG grant—will have no effect on the number of small businesses accessing the scheme. DOFA has actually looked at this and said that it will not increase the number of small businesses accessing the scheme. In fact, the DOFA analysis concluded that only around 250 small businesses receive EMDG funds each year. That is not a great number when you look at the thousands that apply.Doubling the minimum grant level will not increase the number of small business recipients. Based on the current take-up rate, we can expect just 58 new small businesses to enter the EMDG Scheme next year. That is 58 compared with a total of 2,956 recipients for the 2000-01 growth year. It would therefore take an extra $770,000 per year in EMDG funds just to pay the new minimum grant amount to the same number of small businesses. In this budget, we see that the amount of money that has been allocated to this is $400,000. So we are short already in terms of what DOFA have assessed, on the election commitment of the Howard government, to reach their target of increasing the number of small businesses that can access the EMDG Scheme. If we are serious about giving small businesses a chance to grow and to get into the export market, surely this imbalance is an issue that the government must take up over the next couple of years. In other words, the bill does nothing to help Austrade grow the exporter community—an issue and a mantra that the government has been chanting for some time—and of course that is the agency's assigned task. The EMDG pie might be marginally larger but it is not going to stretch to any more companies. In fact, the number of small businesses able to access the scheme will fall. Over the last six years, the Howard government has made much of its commitment to small business. If you are trying to get small business into the export market area, you have to give them the wherewithal to do it, but even the government's own Department of Finance and Administration, in costing this matter, has indicated that it is not going to achieve that aim at all. We have seen the very poor way in which this scheme has come forward. Yes, the election commitment has been met, but at the end of the day it is not going to see any small businesses enter into export enhancement.In introducing this bill on 15 May, obviously on behalf of the minister responsible, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs did not even attempt to claim that it would increase the size of the small business exporter community. Rather, he said that it would:... make the EMDG Scheme more attractive to small business, increasing the incentive to apply and ... ensure that the benefit of the grant received always outweighs the cost of preparing and processing the application.It begs the question: how much does it cost to prepare an EMDG application? If it takes an extra $2,500 to make the process worth while, those costs must be pretty hefty.As we have indicated, the bill brings into question the government's commitment to the small business community. It is also instructive to look at another issue which I made mention of in my amendment—that is, the TradeStart and Austrade issue. We have seen an announcement by the government to allocate 10 new TradeStart offices, which will be important for the small businesses that want to enter the export market and to get advice. The allocation of these 10 new TradeStart offices tells you all you need to know about the government's commitment to small business. TradeStart is the shopfront program which encourages businesspeople to walk through the door and discuss their export goals with experts. The Internet is great, and access on the Internet to a lot of advice and information from Austrade and the department is excellent. Indeed, I have been on it many times myself, accessing information and seeking information. However, there is no substitute for face-to-face contact, particularly on complex issues, if you are to encourage a small business person who does not necessarily have a good grip on what they want to do in a market. They know they want to be there, but they want to know how they are going to do it.We have seen the new TradeStart offices being handed out like some sort of prize in a coalition raffle with just one exception, the 10 that were announced—surprise, surprise!—all go to coalition seats. The list I put out in a media release on 21 May indicated that the seats were in the electorates of Parkes, Lindsay, Hughes, Maranoa, Forrest, Mallee and Grey. Somehow, thanks to the great work of the honourable member for Corio, Gavan O'Connor got one for his electorate, and so I commend my colleague for that. This is clearly an opportunity that the government have taken to try to ensure that only specific areas that meet the criterion of being a coalition seat will get the benefit of this. In the last election, we saw the government pledging to allocate new resources to rural, regional and outer urban areas to provide specific assistance to small business to help them become Australian exporting successes. They probably should have added `only, of course, if you are a coalition seat'.When we talk about the EMDG Scheme and the broader issue of trade policies, I think it is instructive to look back over the last six years of the present Howard government to see how they have approached this. I went looking for the coalition's policy on trade in 1996, when they were in opposition. It is always instructive to do that. They always go and trawl through statements and look for things that we might have said in a past life, and it is always instructive when one does that. I remember that at the time there was an incredible amount of angst about what the then opposition, now government, thought about the approach of the then government, now opposition, to trade policy, specifically looking at multilateral forums and towards Asia, our closest neighbours.In 1996 the coalition released a document entitled Meeting the challenges: the new global economy: Liberal and National Party trade strategies for the future. It covered a number of different aspects of where they thought it should go. They said that it was important to break it down into a number of `tracks', that policy should look at a number of tracks. At the time, the Uruguay Round had been successful and the WTO was about to be created, and they said, `We shouldn't put all our eggs in the one basket. The WTO is not going to be the panacea for the world's trade problems. What we have to get involved in is the domestic track, the multilateral track, the regional track and the bilateral track.' The bilateral track was the one that the opposition of the day said was underemphasised by the Keating government and by Labor governments generally. The interesting thing is that over time their emphasis has changed. I have to say that I actually agree with the Minister for Trade: he has been out there championing the cause of multilateralism. He has been out there championing the cause of a successful outcome of the Doha Round under the WTO, and we are right beside him; we are as one on that.SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr Vaile—You can come too next year.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—I will look forward to it, Minister. The fact is that a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of the WTO will bring a clear focus to the membership of the WTO on the need to have trade barriers removed across the whole of the trade environment, not just in specific sectors. This is where we see a little bit of contradiction within the government as to how they tend to approach this, because in recent times we have tended to hear a lot about bilaterals and much about free trade agreements. Free trade agreements are an interesting beast in their own right, and in fact the government when elected in 1996 went out and said free trade agreements were going to become one of the most important elements that they were going to pursue. They said, `We've got to stitch these things up,' and I thought: I have been hearing that for some time. 83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—For six years?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—In fact for 63 months I have been hearing that they were going to have an FTA that was going to emerge between Australia and someone—anybody. What it has come down to now is virtually that anyone out there who wants a free trade agreement with Australia can put their hand up.83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for Rankin! I have never known the member for Cunningham to need a prompt, and I am sure he can manage now.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—Absolutely right, Mr Speaker, and thank you for your protection. I went looking to see whether or not these issues of FTAs had been given much publicity in the past and—surprise, surprise!—I actually did find that. What are the ones that we have heard much about in recent times? We have heard about an FTA, a free trade agreement—and, incidentally, a free trade agreement must be ratified by the WTO—being talked about variously with Singapore, Japan, the United States and Thailand, and something like it with China.What exactly would that FTA be? I think we would all agree that a free trade agreement means that trade barriers come down between Australia and the country that we are trying to negotiate with. Firstly, it should be in agriculture, because at the end of the day Australia is a major agricultural exporting nation. Secondly, it should be in services. Thirdly, it should be in manufacturing. In fact it should be across all the sectors of the Australian economy, and I know that the Minister for Trade by his nodding across the table agrees with that, because that is what he has been saying: he has actually been out there, on behalf of Australia, saying that an FTA must include all of this. In fact it was on the Sunday program recently, Minister, that you talked about a free trade agreement when asked about the impending visit by the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Koizumi. We all remember that before he left Japan he was out there talking up a free trade agreement between Australia and Japan: it was going to be the next best thing—SU5Vaile, Mark, MP8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—As the minister said, he was. But all the media had picked it up and had started to use the language of a free trade agreement: there was going to be open access for everybody's products and so on. The Minister for Trade went on the Sunday program and, I think, was very honest when asked about this, particularly about agriculture, because he understands, as a member of the National Party—but, more importantly, as the trade minister—how significant agriculture is for us. He actually said on that program that, unless agriculture is part of that free trade agreement, it really is not a free trade agreement—and he is right.I would hope that that is a message which he and indeed the Prime Minister might like to get out a little more into the community, because subsequent to the visit here of the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Koizumi, when the memorandum or communique was actually issued there was no mention of an FTA. There was mention of getting together a bit more closely to talk about how we might integrate our two economies but not of an FTA. We know that the basic stumbling blocks include not only that the Japanese economy is not travelling all that well and Japan needs to reform itself but that there are questions about access to agriculture.But it did not stop there because, immediately before we talked about the Thai free trade agreement—which we did as recently as last week—and immediately before the Prime Minister of Thailand arrived here in Australia, the government had released a scoping study about the free trade agreement that could be struck between Australia and Thailand. According to independent consultants, as the news release of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade went on 7 May, the FTA would increase Australia's GDP by some $12 billion and Thailand's by $46 billion over a 20-year period—a very worthy aim, one would think. So an FTA done properly and including all the sectors would do that. I was therefore intrigued by the Prime Minister's view.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—What did he say?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—The Prime Minister went out there and talked firstly about a closer economic relationship agreement with Thailand and Australia. That is a new term: a CER, a closer economic relationship, is something that we have with New Zealand—but that is fine and that is working quite well. But the Prime Minister initially talked about a closer economic relationship agreement and then described it as `free trade agreement-plus'.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—Not minus?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—No, a free trade agreement-plus. The Prime Minister said at his press conference at the time:... I mean the importance of it being a closer economic relationship is that it's more than just a free trade agreement. It's a broader thing. It includes things like services.Minister, you had better tell the Prime Minister, when you are talking about free trade agreements, that agriculture is in, services are in, the manufacturing sector is in and a whole range of things are in, and so the Prime Minister is a bit loose there. But he went on to say:We won't wait until every single thing that is on the table has either been agreed or it's been pushed right off the table. If you do that that's a recipe for doing nothing and we would like where we can reach agreement to announce that and where we haven't well we move onto something else.That is the fundamental flaw with talking up the language of a free trade agreement. I say to the Minister for Trade that the concept of having these enhanced economic relations with our partners, like Thailand, Singapore, the United States and so on, is dead right and the concept of providing access for Australian manufacturers, farmers and so on into those markets is dead right. But I think we have to be a bit more genuine with the Australian community and a bit more genuine with those people who actually write this stuff up in the media, and indicate that, when we talk about a free trade agreement that is all embracing, that is not what we are getting. If we are leaving something out, if we are going sector by sector in the case of Thailand, the Prime Minister cannot say that this is actually a free trade agreement-plus. It is not; it is a free trade agreement-minus. If you leave something out and it does not get on the table, it is a minus. That brings me, of course, to the United States. We have had the minister in this place over the last couple of question times—and, when he was away at the APEC ministers meeting recently, his colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs—trying to create some wedge between the Australian Labor Party and the commitment to a free trade agreement with the United States. As we have said time and time again, we think that it is a great idea, provided it is done fairly, justly and in Australia's economic interest. We have said that, while ever the United States takes decisions like imposing 30 per cent tariffs on the import of Australian steel into that economy to protect their own inefficient producers, and while ever they put a farm bill on the table that is going to last 10 years at a cost of $300-odd billion, we do not think that that playing field in the United States is level. The minister will get up later in his summation and say that, `I'm out there; I'm batting pretty hard for Australia. I'm over there talking to Mr Zoellick, the United States—SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr Vaile—I can tell you about it in a month's time.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—He is going to tell me that he has been back—and he has. He has been out there batting, but the fact of the matter is that in an article on the weekend, Paul Kelly from Harvard talked about having spoken with Bob Zoellick—he is a sort of minister for trade in the United States, but they call him the trade representative—who is in the Bush administration. He was talking to Paul Kelly at Harvard about this whole concept of a free trade agreement, and what he said was quite instructive. He said:... once the TPA is won—the Trade Promotion Authority that the United States President is seeking to get out of the Congress—the bilateral agendas can be pursued.So everybody has been talking about how keen the United States is to do this. Interestingly—in mentioning my good friend Paul Kelly—when I looked back over the years I found an article by Paul Kelly that talked about free trade. In March 2001 he talked about—guess what!—a free trade agreement between Australia and the United States, and about Minister Downer having been over there talking about it. Back then Paul Kelly said:The prospect is firming that in mid 2001, when John Howard meets President George W. Bush, they will strike an in-principle agreement to launch negotiations for an Australian—US free trade agreement.Except it has not happened. That simply did not happen—and they are still talking about it. So we move on from March 2001 to last weekend with Paul Kelly, the same author, saying:Zoellick says that once the TPA is won, the bilateral agendas can be pursued. Free trade deals with Singapore and Chile, begun under Clinton, are first. Zoellick's plan then is to seek negotiating approval for a geo-strategic package—sounds very American—of FTAs with the Central American nations, an Arab nation, Morocco, the five nations of the South African Customs Union and Australia.Australia is last on the list. Yet we have had the Prime Minister very excited over the weekend saying that he will go to the United States next week and see George Bush. Incidentally, I understand from today's media that he still has not organised to get together with him and have a bit of a chat. `PM vows blunt words with the US on free trade', cried the Australian Financial Review of Monday. `PM to push alliance with the United States', said the Sydney Morning Herald on the same day. So we have had the Prime Minister saying that we have got to get out there and talk very tough and very sensibly with the United States. He said, `We're not going to sell out the farmers, of course, in any of these deals.' Then, of course, we have had Mr Anderson, the Leader of the National Party, saying, for example, that the farm bill was outrageous. The Prime Minister told the ABC:We contribute enormously. Our troops are there beside the Americans at the very sharp end of the fight against terrorism. And I'll be arguing ... that there's an economic dimension to it and promoting, not surprisingly, the benefits of a freer and more open trade between our two communities. He said a free trade agreement was now a lot closer. Mr Anderson said that the farm bill was outrageous and:Look, just recognise what impact this has on your allies. Let's get serious about some sort of trade agreement that might give us some access.Dead right! Hear, hear to the Deputy Prime Minister! I am looking forward to the Minister for Trade going over there next week. No, it is the Prime Minister going. The Minister for Trade has just come back. I cannot keep up with your travels, Minister. You are out there for fighting for Australia, and that is good. We do not disagree with that.While the Prime Minister is over there and they have sat back and congratulated themselves and the United States on the steel decision, saying that 85 per cent is better than nothing, he might also like to remember that there is still a 30 per cent tariff applied to 15 per cent of Australia's steel exports into the United States. These are the champions of free trade, mind you. It is at the high value end of the market. We now find that, in the United States, steel is in short supply, thanks to the US government. According to today's Australian Financial Review, a survey conducted by the Institute for Supply and Management discovered that manufacturing output had grown in May, but that: ... the survey also found that steel, a vital manufacturing component, was in increasingly short supply since the Bush Administration applied punitive tariffs to steel imports.Dead set! My steel workers at Wollongong knew there was going to be an outcome like this; so I would hope that the Prime Minister, when he is over there next week, does not talk to George Bush and the administration just about the farm bills but about steel and about a genuine free trade agreement. The fact of the matter is we have not seen much of that to date. It is a two-way street.In terms of Singapore, again, this was an agreement that we were supposed to have stitched up years ago. But have we got there with this government? No, we have not. In fact our officials are only talking about it again now after a six-month hiatus. Guess what? In Singapore, agriculture is not even on the table. So we cannot even get a free trade agreement with Singapore on issues like services and everything else. I simply say to the minister: we endorse the approach that the government has taken but we want to see a bit more transparency and a bit more honesty with the community, saying we are not actually getting an FTA to its full extent but we are going to look at sectors and try to get some good deals.I might also say to the minister: I would like to have seen the outcomes and objectives statement that he released this year done in the parliament, perhaps, rather than at the National Press Club, and we might have had an opportunity to talk about some of the issues. But that is something I am sure he will take on board. I understand that his government does not want to sit too much, so I can understand why time is precious here. But it would be a good idea if we could actually do that here. In conclusion, I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that:(1) the $150 million funding cap on the Export Market Development Grants scheme has led to a 37 percent decline in the level of real funding; (2) Australia's prosperity and economic security depend on increasing the number of Australian companies engaged in exporting;(3) the Government's aim of doubling the number of Australian exporting companies by 2006 has not been accompanied by the necessary resources for implementation;(4) the Government's consistent failure to develop a coherent strategy for Australia's trade policy gives Australian business owners no cause to hope for adequate assistance in reaching their export goals; and(5) Australia's prosperity is under threat because of the Government's failure to deliver on its commitment to trade, as evidenced by (a) its capitulation to the United States Government over steel tariffs; (b) its unwillingness to influence the United States Government to overturn the new provisions of the US Farm Bill; (c) its inability to secure a Free Trade Agreement with any country; and(d) its neglect of the Cairns Group at such a critical time in multilateral trade negotiations.”(Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.10:16:003124Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise today to support the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2002. On behalf of Dr Martin I apologise for those who are not aware that we are debating the bill about the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, a scheme that is so good the Labor Party claim it as their own. The succession of enhancements that have been introduced under the coalition government that have made this scheme increasingly attractive to its target market is something overlooked by those members opposite. More interestingly, though, I did not actually hear a word against what is proposed in this bill today but more or less a free-ranging hen conversation about broader trade issues. As interesting as it was—and there is an opportunity for the minister to respond to those matters—what it did overlook was that things are improving and that this measure we are debating today is another step in that direction.The Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2002 actually brings about a further simplification of the bureaucratic requirement to obtain these grants. Austrade and its officials and those working through DFAT have gone through the nomination and eligibility process to see whether steps are required of businesses seeking to obtain the grant that actually add no value to the evaluation process. These measures seek to ensure that important material about cash flow and evidence that supports the genuineness of a business's efforts to export are available and are provided to support these grants, and that some of the other requirements that have existed in the past but do not actually add to the application enhancement process are put to one side. These grants entry test changes that we are discussing today make sure that we get the bona fides of the small businesses clear to ensure their participation in the scheme without needlessly imposing requirements of documentation that do not actually add to, let us call it, the `sifting process' to identify those that are genuinely committed to developing export opportunities and expanding market opportunities for their businesses.The other part of the bill we are discussing today relates to the threshold grant that is available for small participants entering the scheme. Under the calculation arrangements that apply for the scheme, there was a chance that you could be quite serious in terms of your export efforts and expend somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 and have a fairly modest amount of encouragement from the government. In the past that minimum grant was $2,500. The bill before the parliament today will increase that minimum grant to $5,000, and that will directly benefit those applicants spending between $15,000 and $25,000 on eligible promotion activities during the grant year. Why is that important? There are a number of reasons for supporting this initiative today but it is important also to recognise it is a small part of the government's overall trade and export development strategy. You have heard those opposite talk about the terrific work the Minister for Trade is doing opening up market opportunities. That is important because we can have these export market development grant programs and other forms of assistance through Austrade but, if we cannot actually get our products into the markets that we are targeting, a lot of that effort is wasted energy. What we are trying to do at a `metapolicy' level through trade agreements—not just the Asia-only outlook of the previous government but the Asia-plus outlook of this government—is to open up trade opportunities through bilateral arrangements, while actively driving multilateral arrangements such as the next round of the World Trade Organisation's negotiations or, as has been outlined by the members opposite, the number of bilateral trade agreements that Minister Vaile is pursuing. That is about making sure that we have a market to target. It is of little benefit being an outstanding producer, export ready, if we cannot actually get our goods and services into the marketplace. What is supporting that, though, is the very positive economic environment that the government is overseeing. Through that stewardship we are not only pursuing market opportunities but also making sure our local businesses have the wherewithal and a positive domestic climate to be able to invest in export activities to enter into those market opportunities. Small business interest rates are part of that picture and the interest savings at the Commonwealth level through reduction of debt take pressure off interest rates. Even the new tax system takes taxes off our exports. That is $3½ billion of indirect taxes that our exporters used to pay. It is quite ironic. I once described it as having our athletes turn up at the Olympic Games to the starting line: we have proven that they have trained well and are the best athletes in the world. Under the old tax system we used to put lead in their saddlebag and say, `You might be as good as all the other athletes, but our tax system is actually going to make it harder for you to compete against those from other countries.' That is a mindless way to promote an export culture and to expand export opportunities. The new tax system has taken that lead out of the saddlebag of our exporters and removed $3.5 billion of taxes on our export goods and services. (Quorum formed)During that brief interlude while we were waiting for members of the House to come in here, I was recognising how this stinging critique of Dr Martin's criticism of our trade policies prompted the member for Kingston and the member for Rankin to seek the shelter of a quorum call. It just shows you that the two leading economic minds of the Labor Party just hate the truth when it knocks them over.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. If it is such a stinging critique, why are his colleagues all leaving now?10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—I am sorry that this contribution is being interrupted by such petty points of order by those opposite. The central point is that the opposition were criticising our trade performance. The simple fact is that in 1996 our trade performance was $99 billion a year; in 2001 it is $154 billion a year. All the hyperbole that you hear from the members opposite seems to overlook the basic fact that that is a substantial enhancement in Australia's trade performance. What we also fail to hear from those opposite is that there are 1.8 million Australians employed in exporting goods and services from our country, and that has been facilitated by this vast improvement in our trade performance. One in five jobs in Australia depends on exports, and in the rural areas of Australia one in four jobs is dependent on exports. The opposition trade spokesman was criticising the government's initiative to implement Tradelink offices around Australia. The reality is that Tradelink offices are where the trade activity is. The criticisms that are levelled at the siting of those offices mask the fact that the Labor Party does not hold seats in some of these most productive areas of our nation. Clearly there is an understanding within those productive electorates, where one in four in the rural community is employed in export activities and one in five across Australia is employed in export activities, that it is the coalition government that is facilitating that expansion in export effort. As I mentioned earlier, it meant $99 billion of export value goods and services from Australia in 1996 and up to $154 billion in the year 2001. What we also should recognise is that only a small proportion of our employers and our enterprises is currently engaged in export activity. So we have this opportunity to expand the number of businesses involved in export, and that is also what this measure is about today. While we have seen that remarkable 54 per cent increase in our export performance since the government was elected, we still recognise that there are only about 25,000 Australian companies involved in export activities. That is four per cent of the total number of enterprises in our country, so there is clearly an opportunity for us to enhance our export performance by bringing more of those firms that are globally competitive, that are prosperous here in Australia, that have the wherewithal to compete internationally, into the export effort, and that is what this measure is doing today. It is encouraging the promotion of that export culture that is so important to generating jobs. If those opposite are not convinced about the facts, they could listen to their own colleague. The member for Chifley in a press release dated 20 March lauds the efforts of the Export Market Development Grants program and praises the support it is giving to Western Sydney. He talks about the success in achieving an export culture and that linking Western Sydney to the global market means more jobs for local people. That is what Mr Price, the member for Chifley, has said. We look at the criticisms levelled by the opposition trade spokesman on where these Tradelink offices are going. One is going into the electorate of the member for Hughes, and we already have Austrade and DFAT staff out in Parramatta, so we have got the personnel on the ground available to support the kind of promotion of export culture that the member for Chifley, Roger Price, talks about in his press release when he is lauding local businesses for being involved in this area of activity. Another thing that is worth reflecting on is that there are a lot of local businesses in the Dunkley electorate that are participating in this scheme, and it gives you an insight into the spread of activity that these programs can support. We have local schools and educational institutions in the Dunkley electorate going through, and working with, the Export Market Development Grants program to promote our educational services to markets right around the globe. To give an example, I called some of these local businesses in my electorate to get their thoughts on this subject. Martin Massey from the Peninsula School reflected on the export of education to overseas students which was achieved by students coming to the Peninsula School. He said:The grant has encouraged us to get out there into new markets. We would probably not have gone as far without the assistance ...We have expanded into India, China, Hong Kong and Russia.His view was that this all helps the Australian economy. But there are even software manufacturers in my electorate that benefit from this program, as well as tourism operators, people exporting legal services; people exporting food—fine foods as well as pet foods—and people exporting pollution abatement technology. All of this, supported by the Export Market Development Grants program, is happening in the electorate of Dunkley, and on the Mornington Peninsula. It is worth reflecting on the fact that there have been some mixed views about the effectiveness of this program. I know that some argue that Austrade overstate their effectiveness. I would like to defend Austrade today because it is not their assessment. They are not the ones making the assessment; they are the ones working with the program to ensure that it is effective. The House may be aware that Professor Ron Bewley, Professor of Econometrics at the University of New South Wales, with the assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers, carried out an independent analysis of the scheme's benefits. Their conclusion was that, for each dollar invested through this program, there was $12 worth of additional exports. A one to 12 return is excellent. But subsequent to that, the Productivity Commission said, `No, that is overstating it.' The commission went through a far more negative and stripped down analysis, but they still came out with a $6 benefit for each dollar invested. So either way, we are getting substantial multiples of benefits for every dollar invested in this program. The dispute only seems to be about the magnitude and significance of the benefits that are derived from it. There is no dispute, though, that for each dollar invested in the Export Market Development Grants program we get multiple returns. In the electorate of Dunkley, as I mentioned earlier, there are a number of firms participating in this program. We are happy that their feedback is positive and encouraging. In respect of the specific measures before the House today, some of the paperwork requirements have been identified as being areas where we could improve the scheme. That is precisely what we are doing. My office contacted Iman Irhimeh, from Crescent Chemicals, a local business in my electorate. We were hoping to talk to the managing director of this small family firm, but he was overseas doing exactly what the grant program is there to do. The feedback from that business was that the grant has helped them a great deal, especially at the beginning—`It gave us a major boost,' was one of the comments. There were other contributions about the effectiveness of the program from Mindata Australia. They said:We are quite happy with the program. The concept is good. However, sometimes applying is more trouble than it is worth.We spoke to them about the changes that are being made to the administration, and they have recognised those changes will be positive and beneficial. That is the feedback on the ground in the electorate of Dunkley, Mr Deputy Speaker. To give you an idea—and to give those listening an idea—of the kinds of activities that have attracted support in an outer metropolitan area such as the one I represent, we have computer hardware and software suppliers, people involved in pharmaceuticals, retail participants and publishing and media people. We have industrial machinery being exported; we have the tourism industry we have dairy products, confectionery, clothing, jewellery and seafood; and we have energy technologies. As I mentioned earlier, we even have a substantial effort in the export of education. We also have technical engineering services and publishing, right through to business accounting and legal practice technology going into markets where our legal practitioners are valued.This is a substantial step forward for a program that seems to have bipartisan support in an area of endeavour that both sides of parliament seem to be behind. The thing that distinguishes the coalition's performance from the Labor Party's performance is that we are actually getting results. That 54 per cent increase in exports since the government was elected is an enormous tick to the policies of this government. We have seen the participation in the Export Market Development Grants program and that is increasing. There has been a five per cent increase over recent years, so we are getting more businesses recognising the export opportunities around the world. We are also seeing that the assistance is real. It is substantial and in particular it is responding to the concerns that smaller firms have identified about the way in which they apply for these funds. It is particularly encouraging that those smaller enterprises that were attracting the minimum grant are also getting encouragement with an increase in their minimum grant to $5,000 a year. My final point is that these programs, important as they are, are but a part of the bigger picture, a bigger picture that relies upon a strong domestic economy and upon bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations that open up markets for the exports that we are supporting today. In the electorate of Dunkley we have many local businesses taking up that challenge. I would like to reassure them of my continuing vigilance to make sure the environment within which they operate supports expansion into export markets. I was prompted to inquire about where the Scoresby Freeway fits into this. You would be certain to know it has a place because, through the Scoresby Freeway, local businesses can get better access to ports and aircraft operations to get their goods and services overseas. That is another example of how an infrastructure project like the Scoresby corridor can help at many levels, particularly in supporting export activities. It is not much good being a Frankston based business making the best electronics in the world if you are then having trouble getting that equipment and that technology out of your local area to the ports and transport nodes that take it to the rest of the world. That is the link and that is why the Scoresby Freeway is very important. That is why I support this bill and encourage the House to get behind it, which I think it does. We will deal with some of the hyperbole from those opposite on another occasion.10:37:003128Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2002 doubles the minimum grant under the Export Market Development Grants Scheme from $2,500 to $5,000 and, as such, Labor supports the bill, but we seriously question whether it will greatly help in increasing the number of exporting businesses. The reason that we pose that question is that, under the arrangements, the same number of firms could get a larger grant since the Export Market Development Grants Scheme—the EMDG Scheme—was capped at $150 million by the present government in 1997 and, just now through the budget, the EMDG Scheme is getting an additional allocation of only $400,000 a year. So while we support the legislation, we are very unsure as to whether it would achieve a great deal in terms of increasing the number of exporting businesses in Australia.We also support the second reading amendment moved by Doc One—that is, the member for Cunningham—because it reveals the weaknesses in the government's export promotion strategy, about which I will have a lot to say in the time allocated to me. High value exports are vital to Australia's future. I will indicate today where Australia is placed at present in exporting such high value goods and services. I want to talk about the challenges confronting policymakers today and where I believe the Australian economy should be heading over the next 20 years. In developing a 2020 economic vision for the Australian economy, I need briefly to look back especially on the manufacturing sector's journey over the last couple of decades and assess where the sector is today. It is only by appreciating where Australian manufacturing has been and is now that we can chart a course for the future.During a period of escalating import restrictions for manufactured goods under the Fraser government, where effective rates of protection for motor vehicles reached 138 per cent and for textiles, clothing and footwear they reached 156 per cent, manufacturing employment in Australia actually declined. Between the mid-1970s and the early 1980s, manufacturing employment fell by 200,000. The TCF industry lost 31,000 jobs, or one-quarter of its work force, and the motor vehicle and parts industry lost 18,000 jobs, or one-fifth of its work force. So protection failed to protect jobs, it encouraged Australian manufacturing to focus on a small, fragmented domestic market, and it imposed extra costs on consumers of clothing, footwear, motor vehicles, white goods and many other products.By the early 1980s, Australian manufacturing was in deep trouble and the steel industry was on the brink of closure. These endemic problems in the manufacturing sector arose from a series of deliberate government policies. From long before Federation and through four-fifths of the 20th century, Australia chose the path of exporting mainly unprocessed primary products, while competing at home against low value, labour intensive manufactured imports. By heading down that path, Australia became exposed to steadily declining prices for our exports relative to the prices of high value imports that arrived on our shores largely uncontested by Australian business. Australia as a lucky country came to a shuddering halt in the mid-1980s when primary commodity prices collapsed. The folly of government policies promoting Australia as a farm, a quarry and a producer of low value manufactures was exposed in the form of a balance of payments crisis. Australia needed to change from a lucky country to a clever country.The Hawke government was well aware of the structural weaknesses in the Australian economy and had already begun the process of strengthening the economy through a program of microeconomic reforms. The most influential of these reforms were the floating of the dollar, deregulation of financial markets, reductions in industry protection, competition reforms and enterprise bargaining. The yield from those reforms has been a doubling of Australia's productivity growth through the second half of the 1990s, compared with the average of the previous 30 years. In fact, in recent years, Australia's productivity growth has been faster than that of almost all developed countries, including the United States. One of the lessons of the 13 years of Labor reform is that it takes some time for the benefits to flow through the economy. Yet at the very time when a new dose of reform is needed, the Howard government has gone missing. Labor had recognised that almost all the differences in the wealth of nations could be traced to differences in the rate of productivity growth. Today's productivity growth is tomorrow's prosperity as Australians work smarter through the development and application of new ideas. While Australian productivity growth from the early 1990s has been very strong, there is no room for complacency; yet the Howard government is complacent. Since Australia is performing well in quickly and effectively absorbing enabling technologies that have been developed overseas, the government seems to consider that no major new policies are needed to hasten Australia's transition to a knowledge society. This was confirmed by the Prime Minister a couple of years ago when he told this parliament:... the measurement of whether an economy is in the current language `old' or `new' is, in my view, overwhelmingly determined by the capacity of an economy to use the benefits of technology, particularly information technology.That is, to use or absorb overseas technologies. That is what the government considers the main game, but Labor disagrees. We say the government's argument about effectively absorbing overseas technologies is wrong. We consider that Australia must be globally competitive in at least some knowledge intensive industries in our own right and that we must boost our overall R&D effort to achieve this. If we rely on present policy settings and the rapid absorption of overseas technologies, we might get lucky again. The rate of overseas innovation might be sufficient to maintain Australian productivity growth for some time, but the Productivity Commission cautions against this. In a report of the year 2000, it said:... part of Australia's productivity surge appears to stem from a process of catching up to the production standards of other countries. As these standards are approached, it is probable that the rate of growth of productivity will slow somewhat from the high rates witnessed in recent years.So just as it was foolish to rely for too long on Australia being the lucky country, so it would be foolish for the federal government to wait until Australia's luck in absorbing overseas innovations runs out.Australian productivity has failed to benefit from any home-grown revolution in technology and innovation, as has happened in the United States. We have experienced the first phase of a productivity step-up from opening up the economy but we are yet to take the next step to be derived from the diffusion of technologies and the production of new technologies at home. What a tragically wasted opportunity it will have been if the leader of Australia has to declare later in this decade that the nation is once again in deep trouble because governments in the late 1990s and the early 2000s had failed to support the vital sources of productivity growth—innovation and education. But, by the government's own admission, this scenario looks increasingly likely. In its Intergenerational Report, which was released with the federal budget, the government has forecast that productivity growth will slump to its mediocre long-term 30-year average by the middle of this decade. That is an astonishing admission by the government that it has failed to invest adequately in productivity-enhancing education and innovation. Our new industry minister is in on the act. In the Australian Financial Review of 29 January this year he declared:... we've got the balance pretty right for R&D.The balance is pretty right, is it? The government has cut support for R&D, the latest episode being the freezing of the R&D Start program. Consequently, business expenditure on research and development as a share of GDP has fallen in each and every year of the Howard government, at the very time when the OECD is lifting its game. That is what the minister says is about right—that the balance is pretty right. If that is the right balance, we are headed for a lot of trouble in the years ahead. By the government's own figuring, it expects to have spent less than 20 per cent of the funding allocated for its innovation statement, Backing Australia's Ability, 3½ years after its release. Industry department funding is forecast to fall by 30 per cent over the next four years—the biggest cut for any spending departments—and staffing is expected to be cut by almost 10 per cent. The government has no interest in innovation. It is relegating Australia towards the tail of the field in the global race to become a knowledge economy. In the 21st century we in Australia can choose our own destiny. The choice is between struggling at the back of the field by cutting labour costs on traditional primary commodities and standardised manufactured exports, or moving towards the front of the field by becoming a high-skill, high-wage knowledge economy. But if we are to move through the field it is vital that Australians share a vision of where Australia should be in 20 years time. The Howard government's 1997 Mortimer report into industry assistance stated:When business talked about being able to meet global challenges they raised a wider range of issues well beyond the scope of a review of business programs. Their main concern, however, was to draw attention to what they have for some years seen as a lack of direction or `vision' for Australia's economy and the lack of a cohesive industry policy.The Mortimer report was right in 1997: in 2002 there is still no vision for the Australian economy coming from this government. The government's Chief Scientist has warned that Australia stands at the crossroads: it can continue to do what it has done in the past and continue to slip behind other countries or it can take a bold step and move to a knowledge society. Knowledge and the innovation that translates knowledge into economic growth have become the most important determinants of the wealth of nations, and much more so than natural resources, labour and physical capital. For a country like Australia with abundant natural resources, a clever country means not only creating new industries, such as in biotechnology and information and communications technology, but also adding value to natural resources through the development and application of innovations. In other words, it is not a choice between the `old' and the `new'. In the words of the opposition leader, it is about embracing the industries of the future while using technological changes to make the old new again. A clever country means a strong, viable and expanding manufacturing base and the production of high-value services. I advance this vision of the Australian economy in the next 20 years: in 2020 Australia is a true trading nation and a successful exporter of high-value manufactured goods and services that provides secure and rewarding jobs to those who produce them. Declining employment in our traditional Australian manufacturing has been used as an argument for Australia to become a new economy producing weightless services and dispensing with manufacturing. To follow that path would be utter folly. Australia can be a pre-eminent location for high-value, export-oriented manufacturing. Our abundant mineral and energy resources will ensure an ongoing comparative advantage in the production of steel and non-ferrous metals like aluminium, zinc and magnesium. By continuously innovating in production, inventory management and marketing, Australia's manufacturers of ferrous and non-ferrous metals should be able to maintain their position well down the global cost curve. As long as Australian manufacturers of base metals continue to innovate and adopt leading technologies they can expect to remain viable through cost minimisation strategies. They will not be able to obtain an advantage on the pricing of their output, since those standardised products have their prices set in the global market.In contrast with those businesses, producers of high-value manufactured goods will need to innovate continuously to add value to those goods. It is our experience that when a manufactured good loses its content of knowledge over time and becomes standardised, Australian producers tend to lose their competitive advantage to other countries that are better able to compete on wage costs and on the basis of economies of scale and proximity to final markets. There are numerous examples of successful Australian manufacturers of high-value products who have established themselves in world markets on the basis of an innovation and who recognise that their commercial imperative is to continue innovating.Just as in the postwar era the imperative for Australia was to `populate or perish', so in the 21st century the imperative for Australian business is to innovate or perish. That is my 2020 vision of the Australian economy—an innovative, high-skill, high-wage economy producing high-value goods and services destined for export markets and providing rewarding jobs for those who produce them. But that vision is a long way off under the policies of the present government.Compared with other small industrialised countries, Australia does not export a large share of its production. According to World Bank figures, in 1999 Australia's exports of goods and services accounted for 19 per cent of GDP. Let us contrast that with Ireland's export to GDP ratio of 88 per cent, Belgium's of 76 per cent and the Netherlands' of 61 per cent. Even New Zealand has a higher ratio with its exports of goods and services accounting for 31 per cent of GDP. Yet Australia's ratio is only 19 per cent. Only four per cent of Australian small and medium sized enterprises are in the export business. That is a very low figure compared with other small industrialised countries. For example, 68 per cent of small and medium sized enterprises in Austria are in the export business while the percentage is four per cent in Australia. It is 65 per cent for Greece, 58 per cent for Finland, 57 per cent for the Netherlands, 43 per cent for Denmark and France and four per cent in Australia.The low export participation of Australian small and medium enterprises reinforces the need for schemes like the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, a scheme that was introduced by the Whitlam Labor government and augmented and improved by the Hawke and Keating governments, so we do support this legislation. Exporting is good for regional Australia. In rural and regional Australia, one in four jobs relies on the export sector. Encouraging small firms to get into exporting is good for regional development.I want to use this opportunity to emphasise the importance to manufacturing in particular of what have become known as born globals. Born globals are small firms that accept that their destiny lies in overseas markets and actively export within two years of starting up. Born globals are the way to the future. They are the way to the vision that I have articulated today of the Australian economy—businesses setting up at the outset with the objective of exporting. Schemes like the Export Market Development Grants Scheme are needed to encourage those born globals from their birth to orientate their business opportunities to the export market.The government has adopted the goal of doubling the number of Australian exporters by 2006. That requires an increase in the number of exporters from 25,000 to 50,000. Austrade has suggested that, if we take away the normal growth that would be expected based on historical trends, that would require creating 13,000 net additional exporters. The policies of this government leave us well short of any capacity to achieve 13,000 additional exporters in the coming years. The Export Market Development Grants Scheme has been capped at $150 million. There has been a very small supplementation of that in the current budget but overall, philosophically, this government does not believe in the importance of innovation in Australia. The Prime Minister is on the record as saying that the main game is effectively absorbing overseas technologies. My point is that it was folly for Australia to rely on being a farm and a quarry. That folly was exposed for all to see with the balance of payments crises of the mid-1980s. Now Australia has a Prime Minister who says that it is good enough for us to absorb overseas technologies and it is not important for us to have home-grown technologies. The government lacks any real commitment to innovation. The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources has said in the media that he does not know why innovation is included in my shadow portfolio. He has no interest in innovation. He has frozen the R&D Start program. He has cut his own department's funding by 30 per cent over four years—the biggest cut of any spending department. He has cut staffing in his own department by 10 per cent. The minister is affectionately known as `Chainsaw Macfarlane'. It is pretty obvious that there is a new reason for that and it is that he is the Al Dunlap of Australian politics. In just six months in the job, he has cut innovation, he has frozen the R&D Start program and he has taken a chainsaw to his own department. Why? Just to appease his mate, his factional ally in this parliament, the Treasurer, for his future career. (Time expired)10:57:003132Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise with great pleasure today to support the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2002. I have been in the chamber for some time and I have been listening to the members for Rankin and for Cunningham both supposedly speaking in support of the bill. They say they support the bill, but they spent all their time criticising what the government has done to support small and medium enterprises in Australia and to support those businesses to increase their exports around the world. While they claim to support this bill, their words were really very hollow.This bill delivers on the government's election promise to increase the minimum grant available under the Export Market Development Grants Scheme from $2,500 to $5,000. The Export Market Development Grants Scheme is important because Australia relies very heavily on exports. We are a major exporting nation. According to the government's 2002 trade outcomes and objectives statement, Australia's export performance has excelled over recent years. In 2001, we exported $154 billion worth of goods and services. That was an eight per cent increase on the previous year and a 54 per cent increase on 1996.We have had quite a wide ranging debate on this amendment bill. I would also like to take the opportunity to remind honourable members, particularly those on the other side of the House, and to remind the Australian community of how far we have come since we took government in 1996 and of the difficulties that small and medium sized businesses experienced under a Labor government. Labor governments in the previous 13 years really decimated small and medium sized businesses in Australia. Since 1996, the coalition has been innovative and has worked very hard and reformed many areas to assist small business to export and to create jobs. Firstly, we had to address the Labor Party's deficit. We have paid back some $61 billion of Labor Party debt. That saves the Australian community and the business community more than $4 billion in interest.We have reformed the waterfront. What is the point in supporting Australia's small businesses and medium sized businesses who want to export if we do not have a competitive and well run waterfront so that people can export their goods? When we came to government, the crane lifts on the Australian waterfront were something like 17 crane lifts per hour. Our waterfront was one of the worst in the world. Through the industrial relations reforms and reforming the waterfront, those crane lifts have now reached about 26.4 crane lifts per hour and our waterfront is finally up to world standard. That gives our exporters a real chance to be competitive on the world market.We have reformed the industrial relations laws, making it easier for businesses to employ people. There is much more to be done, particularly in the area of unfair dismissals, but those reforms that we want to introduce are continually blocked in the Senate. The government will continue its push so that we can make it easier for small and medium sized businesses to employ people. We have introduced tax reform, which had to be done. That takes the burden of many of the wholesale sales taxes and other charges off our exporters and it again makes Australian companies more competitive on the world stage.It is very important that we keep reminding the Australian community of the difficulties that small business had back in the 1980s. Over the last few days we have heard the opposition crowing that interest rates are on the rise. (Quorum formed) Obviously, the Labor Party do not like being reminded of their role when they were in government and the effect they had on small and medium sized businesses. Interest rates were up to 22 per cent. In the last few days we have heard them in the House crowing about interest rates going up. They want to see interest rates go up. We have interest rates of six per cent and seven per cent—interest rates that mean small business can get on with the job of creating jobs and increasing exports. That is what the export market development grants are all about. It was useful to remind the opposition of the difficulties they created for small business and the disruption that they created for the community—for example, unemployment rates were more than 11 per cent.As I mentioned earlier, Australia is a major exporting nation and we need to encourage many small businesses to become exporters. I listened to the member for Rankin. Earlier, he was saying that only four per cent of Australia's small to medium sized businesses export. He gave facts and figures for European countries, saying that in many of the European countries 48 per cent or 50 per cent of the businesses export. Commonsense would tell you that Australia is a relatively isolated nation. To export from Australia is a major undertaking. It is difficult. It involves the transport of goods over thousands of miles. If you happen to be in France or Germany or any other European country, to export goods can mean a half-hour truck trip across the border. So of course there will be many more businesses in European countries exporting to neighbouring countries. In Australia, it is a major undertaking to compete on the world stage and that is what the government is all about. It is assisting small and medium sized businesses to access these grants, which will assist them in accessing world markets.Late last year, the coalition released its trade policy—at least we have policies on this side of the House, unlike the Labor opposition—Australians Exporting to the World. The centrepiece of that policy was our aim to double the number of exporters by 2006. That is a very important aim that we plan to ensure is achieved by 2006. (Quorum formed) I am very pleased that the opposition is so concerned that we did not have a large enough audience. But I can assure the opposition that the Australian community are listening to what I have to say, and I am sure they are not impressed by the disruptive tactics of the Labor opposition. I listened earlier to the member for Cunningham, who made a wide ranging speech on what was supposed to be the export market development grants and ended up talking about free trade agreements. The coalition government has set about finding new markets for our companies to export to. An example of what can be achieved can be found in China, where our exports have doubled in just less than three years, from $3.7 billion in 1998 to just over $7 billion in 2001. Wool and iron ore have been standout performers. In 1998, wool exports to China stood at $550 million and in 2001 had more than doubled to $2.1 billion.We have convinced many more Australian businesses to export, and we are using our economic standing and global influence to continue to create new market opportunities. Last November, in Doha, the 144 member nations of the World Trade Organisation agreed to launch a new round of trade negotiations. This outcome enabled the coalition government to deliver on its No. 1 trade policy. Beyond the World Trade Organisation, we have embarked upon aggressive and ambitious regional and bilateral trade policy agreements. In 2001, Australia, New Zealand and the ASEAN countries endorsed a closer economic partnership, which is a significant achievement in Australia's relationships within our region.The member for Cunningham mentioned free trade agreements. We are continuing to pursue a free trade agreement with the US. An Australia-US free trade agreement would remove trade barriers, attract new investment, forge commercial links and minimise any competitive disadvantage we face as a result of US agreements with other countries. Of course, this is a very big undertaking and there will be hurdles along the way, and we will continue to talk with the US.President Bush's announcement on 6 March of measures to protect the steel industry certainly was not well received by many Australian manufacturers. The opposition was critical of this. But the Australian government was able to secure an arrangement that will preserve the bulk of our steel exports to the US. This is the very first time that Australia has been able to turn around a US trade decision without resorting to WTO legal action. That is a clear demonstration of the close and honest working relationship between our two governments. In any free trade agreement, we will be working hard to protect Australia's agricultural exports and to overcome the damage that has been done by the US farm bill. We are strengthening economic relations with many other countries—Japan, Korea and China. The coalition government will leave no stone unturned to ensure that Australian manufacturers, Australian businesses, have the opportunities to continue to seek out new markets and to increase exports.Even in my own area of the Central Coast of New South Wales, exports by small and medium sized businesses are vital to our economy. In our area, we have a huge work force that travels out of the area to Sydney each day—some 35,000 people travel out of the Central Coast area for work. Certainly, one of my objectives has been to ensure that we have more small and medium sized businesses relocating to the Central Coast so they will employ more people locally.One of the ways they can do that, and increase their sales, is to get into exports. Over the last few years the coalition government has been able to assist small businesses on the Central Coast of New South Wales to access export markets. Back in 1998, I was very pleased to be able to open a new TradeStart office in Gosford. That TradeStart office has been a great success in assisting small businesses not only to access the export market development grants but also with the many challenges they face in accessing export markets.Recently, in May this year, I announced that a further three local businesses had received $147,120 in export market development grants. This is just a small example of the number of companies in my area that have been assisted with those export development grants. These grants are very important because they assist companies with overseas representations, market visits, communication costs, product sampling, trade fairs, literature, advertising and marketing consultants. As I said earlier, it is a very large undertaking for a company to start to think about exporting.In the few minutes that I have left, I will address a couple of the points in the second reading amendment moved by Dr Martin, the member for Cunningham. The first point of the amendment says:the $150 million funding cap on the Export Market Development Grants scheme has led to a 37 percent decline in the level of real funding.The scheme provides an important incentive to Australia's small and medium enterprises. The government capped the scheme back in 1996, and that was a part of addressing the Labor Party's deficit—their black hole—which we had to do to bring interest rates under control. It introduced a split payment mechanism to ensure that available funds are distributed equitably. Dr Martin's amendment also says:the Government's aim of doubling the number of Australian exporting companies by 2006 has not been accompanied by the necessary resources for implementation.I find that hard to understand. This government, unlike the Labor Party, has a goal and a vision. We announced during the 2001 election campaign that we aim to double the number of exporters by 2006. We have that vision. The Labor Party claim that we are not committed to resourcing this. We have committed $21.5 million to continue to expand TradeStart and the Export Access Program. We have committed a further $1.6 million to the EMDG Scheme to make it more accessible for small business. Even the state Labor governments have recognised that this is a worthwhile vision.Labor opposition speakers get up and say that they support this bill, and then they criticise the government. They have no vision for small business. They do not understand small business; they do not care about small business. We on this side do care about small business, we care about creating jobs and we care about the future of Australia. (Time expired)11:17:003135Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I am pleased to be able to speak on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2002 because it provides increased opportunities for Australian business. This morning as we woke and read the newspapers, we were confronted with some headlines that said that the Australian dollar is on a 21-month high, soaring above 57c; that the increased Australian dollar would perhaps have negative ramifications for exports; and that if it continues to rise over 60c that will place pressure on our export performance over ensuing months. Of course, some sectors in the Australian economy and in business welcome an increase in the Australian dollar, but others who look at it from the point of view of the effects that it may have on our export potential may not.As the Australian dollar does increase, it is one of the reasons why a nation that is governed by a government that is economically responsible and delivering on export opportunities needs to be supported. This government has been on the ball. Throughout the last seven years, we have been very much out there through successive trade ministers, opening new markets and batting for Australian industry.The member for Cunningham, the opposition shadow minister on trade, spent 25 to 30 minutes of his speech basically criticising this government for not going far enough, for perhaps not moving fast enough on free trade agreements and for what he perceives as Australia's negligence in the area of US steel and the US farm bill. He did, however, acknowledge the good work of the Minister for Trade. He said that this minister has been out there batting for Australian industry. I assure the member for Cunningham and all of those opposite that this minister, like his predecessor, not only is committed and dedicated to going out there and batting for Australian industry but also is scoring runs. He is opening up marketing opportunities.We saw that only this week with the agreement that was reached between Australia and Thailand and with the praise that the Australian government received from the automotive industry. The President of Toyota, Ken Asano, commended the governments of Australia and Thailand for their joint initiatives towards developing closer economic relations between the two nations. We saw it with Ford Australia's recommendations to the Productivity Commission that Australia continue to focus on selective negotiations of early free trade agreements that incorporate automotive trade with countries such as Thailand. We have big businesses and small businesses out there acknowledging the good work of this government and of the Minister for Trade. He is scoring runs and I am sure that, perhaps much to the member for Cunningham's chagrin, the Minister for Trade will probably be scoring fours and sixes, to use cricketing parlance, over the next few months.This bill is about honouring the election commitments through the coalition's policy. (Quorum formed) I thank the member for Melbourne Ports, who called for the quorum, for ensuring that I have an audience. I notice that, for a bill that the member for Cunningham spent 25 out of 30 minutes criticising, the opposition had only two speakers on their side speaking on this bill. That shows their level of interest in Australia's exports; there is very little interest at all. Their lack of interest in Australian industry and business has been shown time and time again, and this is just more evidence of that.The EMDG Scheme, since its inception in the 1970s, has grown to substantially affect the wellbeing of small and medium enterprises Australia-wide. Since the election of the Howard government in 1996, there has been a concerted effort to improve the access of small business owners to the scheme. The EMDG Scheme has been designed to strike a partnership between small and medium sized businesses and the government. The goal is export growth. Looking at the headlines in today's papers, I say to small businesses out there, particularly those in the electorate of Deakin, `Rest assured that you have a government that has its eye on the ball, that is out there developing markets and supporting you through schemes such as the EMDG.' The goal is export growth. Export growth means economic growth and, as we know, that in turn means jobs, which are at the heart of a lot of our policies.Back in 1997, we took steps to reduce the minimum expenditure required to gain access to the scheme from $30,000 to $20,000. Last year the scheme was extended for five years, and the proof is in the pudding. As previous speakers have outlined, in 2000-01 about 2,900 grants were provided and those grants averaged $46,000 each. The businesses that received the development grants generated $4.4 billion in exports for Australia. They are businesses from right across the spectrum, not just in rural and regional Australia but also in the suburbs, the cities and regional centres throughout Australia. I know that a lot of good businesses in the Deakin electorate have been recipients of this and have seen their businesses grow, and I will highlight some of those businesses in a moment.Of course, $4.4 billion in exports from Australia is good news. It is fantastic news and it does not stop there. As a direct result of the provision of the EMDG, 52,000 Australians were employed. So 52,000 Australians were directly employed because the businesses that they work for received an EMDG. The businesses had the confidence in themselves as organisations to go out there and develop their markets, to put on people and provide opportunities. This bill coincides with the need for us to broaden the attractiveness of the grant scheme to these small businesses, and we have done that through the simplification of a lot of the paperwork. Fundamentally, the bill increases the minimum grant from $2,500 to $5,000 for claimants spending between $15,000 and $25,000. This doubling of the floor in the scheme encourages small businesses to think laterally in their operations.We are all reminded almost daily of the struggle of being a small business owner. Many on this side have run their own businesses, and they know that struggle all too well. We have countless examples of them on this side. On the other side, however, you would be hard-pressed to come across anyone who has run a small business, although I do note that the partners of one or two members on the other side run a small business. There is certainly no escaping the fact that owning and operating a small business is not easy. However, the complexities of running a small business would be compounded if you wanted to export your product yet you did not have the resources to do it. Sixty-six per cent of all EMDG recipients are small business operators. As a result, we have seen them grow into great local models for other businesses in the area. I will refer to a couple in my electorate. The first involves a company called Frameco Pty Ltd, based in Mitcham. Frameco has a market niche—very much a market niche: they produce picture framing tools. Early this year, I was informed that Frameco had received a grant of $79,000 under the EMDG Scheme. That $79,000 has been most welcomed by the Frameco organisation. When my office rang Frameco, we could not speak to the managing director. Why couldn't we speak to the managing director? Because he was overseas with his general manager conducting trade negotiations. Isn't that fantastic? That is the sort of response I would like to hear when I ring small business: `The manager can't talk to you, Mr Barresi, because he is overseas conducting trade negotiations.' That is good news. It means that there is movement in those businesses to continue to grow and develop their businesses. This is precisely what the EMDG Scheme was intended to do. Frameco employs 10 employees based in Australia and has two maintained offices overseas in the United States and the United Kingdom. When my office spoke to Kylie Lette, the daughter of the Managing Director of Frameco, she said this about the EMDG Scheme:Our ability to go overseas and explore new markets is exciting. Without the grants we simply would not have been able to do what we're doing.I am pleased by that reception by an organisation such as Frameco. It is commonplace that export market development grants are provided in phases. This enables firms to target specific needs in the export market development of an industry. The grants are capped, yet, as Frameco realised, the impetus that grants provide over the scheduled period of time allow for considerable focus on commercial operations and planning. Quite simply, the grant awarded to Frameco is being used as a mechanism for structural change within the company. This structural change is brought about as the company moves slowly towards global expansion with the confidence that the federal government is right behind it. So, while some may lament that manufacturing is in decline in Australia, we see others seizing the opportunity, redefining and restructuring themselves for the incredible opportunities that are now available through globalisation. As I mentioned, courtesy of the grants, Frameco does a lot of its business in America and Great Britain. The company's management has security in the knowledge that it has a paid representative in both of these countries. The consistent support that the Howard government has given to the EMDG Scheme induces great confidence in such small businesses, particularly in their ability to think outside the square as they grow their business and provide increased employment opportunities.Another small to medium enterprise in Deakin is a company called Forgecast Australia, also based in Mitcham. It has also been a beneficiary of this government's drive to open up export opportunities for small businesses and provide tangible financial support as these businesses look outside our borders. In speaking with the company, the immense benefits to the Australian economy of supporting the seeking and exploitation of new markets were highlighted to me, and this is not a politician speaking; this is Forgecast itself saying these words. Forgecast is more developed than my previous example of Frameco in that it recently received its final grant, so it has been right through the entire process. The recent grant means the government has now allocated to this organisation just short of $200,000, which has provided considerable assistance in the development of its American branch.The company manufactures and supplies sliding security locks, and its operations and exports have grown to the point where 70 per cent of the firm's business comes from the US market. As a direct implication of the federal government's assistance, the company acquired a factory in Mexico right alongside one of its largest competitors. So not only have we provided it with an opportunity to look for markets outside; we have also provided it with an opportunity to open its doors right next door to one of its largest competitors and to be able to mix it with them on an international scale. The factory in Mexico is actually used as a base for operations and also as a distribution point. However, as the company grew and the export market in the US grew, the company had the ability to place a representative in San Diego and in another distribution point. It has managed to convert that Mexican plant into a manufacturing plant, and no longer is the company limited by geographic proximity: goods can be delivered within the US at a far quicker rate than freight from Australia can.The degree of confidence that the EMDG Scheme has engendered is also evident in the plight of this organisation. The company has diversified away from originally dealing in building supplies and into the construction of security locks. When we spoke to Mr Alan Tyson, the Chief Accountant of Forgecast, he claimed:This transition was brought about in part by the support of the Federal Government. We aren't afraid to try new things.The very essence of his comments supports what we have been doing over the last seven years and also very much supports the initiatives by this government—through its budgetary measures announced so recently—which provide an opportunity for Australians to maximise their potential. (Quorum formed) (Time expired)11:38:003138Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10—After the budget was announced a few weeks ago, I had pleasure to announce that the government would be opening a new TradeStart office in the city of Dubbo, within the electorate of Parkes. For an electorate like Parkes, which is certainly centred on small business, the people it employs and everything it produces, a TradeStart office has possibilities which certainly excite the local business community, especially the local family small business community. The Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2002 continues to build upon the possibilities of exports for our region. Combined with the new TradeStart office in Dubbo, it is something that we are certainly very excited about.This bill is about promotional activities and making a return to those small and medium sized companies that spend a considerable amount of money on promotional activities. It reimburses the expenses that they incur in promoting their possibility for export. The level of support that exists with small and medium exporters or potential exporters is not surprising in an electorate like Parkes. It should be noted that the Export Market Development Grants Scheme delivered 2,900 grants in 2000-01, averaging $46,000 and totalling over $133 million. For an investment of a little over $133 million, there was a return of $4.4 billion in export generated income, which involved the employment of 52,000 people and the opportunity for more. This benefits not only Australia but also country, rural and regional Australia. Twenty-three per cent of those exports went to businesses in country Australia. Of the majority of firms receiving grants, 66 per cent have annual turnovers of less than $5 million. So we are talking about small business and, very much, we are talking about aiding family small business. I can assure you that family small business is certainly at the forefront in the electorate of Parkes and, I would say, country Australia generally. The demand for the Export Market Development Grants Scheme is certainly growing amongst small to medium enterprises. The other thing about this scheme is that it helps people who have not yet achieved export sales. It takes them through the learning process, in the same way that the new TradeStart offices will take them through the learning process. These TradeStart offices, in combination with this grants scheme, are going to be able to do incredible things. They will take people through the protocols and the possibilities and they will advise them at no cost of those things that are saleable and the countries that they work with. In short, they can show people who have no idea that they might possibly be part of and have a role to play in the Australian export industry. This scheme is about encouraging that.This government has a commitment to double the number of Australian companies exporting by 2006—the number of companies, not the production. I am talking about the number of people employed in running their business, especially family businesses. The benefits are very obvious. This continues the commitment that we as a government have always shown to small business. It recognises that, in a seat like Parkes, where such an overwhelming majority of businesses are small businesses and where the main industries involved are mining and agriculture, the export industry is such a predominant part of what happens in the region.I know that in my electorate, with the current export focus and the export focus that will be created with the opening of the new TradeStart office, the increase in the grant will be welcome. What this amendment is about is making it easier for small business to be part of Australia's overwhelming export drive. The changes involve lowering the amount required to be spent to $15,000 to receive the minimum grant of $5,000. The accountability has to be preserved. This government is about accountability and about ensuring that the community's funds are spent the way they are intended to be. But I think it is a small price to pay to fill in a few forms when the benefits are there not just for the business in question but also for everybody in the surrounding region and certainly for this country as a whole.Last year the agricultural industry was responsible for exports worth over $33 billion. That was the value to the Australian community. I think anything that enhances that by those outside the mainstream—the big business side—is something that we must continue to support to the utmost, and this government has a record of that. I think all of us on this side of the House are totally committed to it and very proud of what has been achieved.One of the great benefits of the scheme is that it supports virtually all industry sectors. The continuing and massively increasing diversity of production in an electorate like Parkes means that we are going to start benefiting industries such as agribusiness—which we have always done—tourism services, manufacturing, and innovative high-technology firms. We have firms in our region that are producing their own clinical chemicals. There is some very high-tech and innovative agricultural machinery around. For example, to handle the new goat industry that is ever expanding around the world, small family businesses have some incredible innovations going on. Some incredible opportunities have opened up in South Africa, which has been running goats for far longer than we have. South Africans are coming now to the seat of Parkes to find the implements needed in that industry, which is becoming very big.This is a program that the government has not stood still on. It has kept improving it over the years. In 1997 the Export Market Development Grants Scheme reduced from $30,000 to $20,000 the minimum expenditure necessary to access the aid. It gave the tourism sector access to the full 50 per cent grant. In 2001 the government extended the scheme for five years and reduced the minimum expenditure from $20,000 to $15,000. In 2002 we are doing more because the success of the scheme and the success of the improvements are being built on. Really, we are talking about a benefit to the family small business operator. At the end of the day, the Export Market Development Grants Scheme is simply one of commonsense. As the representative of an electorate that prides itself on innovation and commonsense, all I can do is congratulate those who have improved the scheme over the years. I think I speak on behalf of an electorate and a business community in the seat of Parkes that see this and the opening of a TradeStart office as the promise of better things to come.11:48:003139Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is good to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2002. It is a bill which provides real assistance, real encouragement, real incentive to the exporters of Australia. It is also an incentive to those who may not currently export but who are contemplating it in the future. It is about getting them into the marketplace. Certainly I believe that the trade minister deserves great congratulations because the performance of Australian trade has been outstanding. The value of Australia's export of goods and services increased by eight per cent during 2001 to $154 billion. This builds on the record 25 per cent growth recorded in 2000. Our strong performance saw a $2.7 billion trade surplus last year. There is particularly strong growth in our exports to China, the EU and the United States—a phenomenal, outstanding performance. If we went through the records to find an increase of this magnitude, we would have to go a long way back until we saw increases of this quantum. People might argue that is all to do with the exchange rate. It has a lot more to do with the efficiency of Australia's manufacturers and of the incentives that are provided. Of course a lot of the credit is due to the outstanding leadership of the Minister for Trade. It did not happen under a Labor government; it happened under the coalition government. It happened under the leadership of Minister Mark Vaile, who has shown strong leadership not only in forging through the cabinet these promotional opportunities for Australian exports by increasing the Export Market Development Grants Scheme but also in taking part in multilateral negotiations as part of the current Doha Round in terms of providing assistance. (Quorum formed) I am delighted that my colleagues could join me in extolling the performance of the Minister for Trade. What he has done in leadership, in trade negotiations and in providing real incentives for Australia's exporters has meant that we have the type of performance where in 2000 we had a 25 per cent increase and in 2001 we had an eight per cent increase in exports. This does not happen by chance. As I said, it has happened under the strong leadership of Minister Mark Vaile. I am very pleased to see that it is the government's intention to double the number of exporting companies in Australia within four years. My own electorate has benefited significantly from the expansion of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. We not only have traditional exporters but the scheme has been widened by this government to include the tourism industry as well. Tourism is the largest provider of jobs in the country and is the biggest single export industry. In 2001 tourism earned Australia $13.6 billion in export income, and it has grown by 25 per cent in five years—real incentives for real companies provided by this government. This is what the Export Market Development Grants Scheme is all about. In my electorate, for example, exporters have received over half a million dollars of federal government support over the last year. They include Australian Plastic Profiles, based in Caringbah, which exports plastic products to the US, Senator Seafood in Sylvania Waters, Manta Surfing Products in Cronulla, Podravaka International in Caringbah and So Natural Foods Australia in Taren Point. My electorate has a small but extremely vibrant exporting community. Located so close to the airport, it has attracted a lot of those with a strong export interest. It is pleasing to see so many of them taking advantage of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. An October 2000 report by Austrade and the University of New South Wales found that on average exporters pay their staff around $18,000 more each per year than non-exporters do. This is an amazing figure. It highlights the way in which this scheme has been successful. Given the leadership of this minister, it is particularly interesting that the opposition second reading amendment talks about capitulation to the United States government over steel tariffs. It is this minister who successfully negotiated that we get 80 per cent of our steel into the country. I find that criticism unbelievable. If you looked at the record of the previous government, you would not find a level of success similar to what this minister has achieved in direct negotiation with a major power such as the US. It is a great achievement by this minister. The temerity of the opposition to come in here with an amendment that criticises this government and this minister is amazing. It is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. The Export Market Development Grants Scheme provides $150 million per annum to support export promotion, partially reimbursing expenses incurred in the promotion of exports. New South Wales companies received around $53 million worth of export market development grants in the 2000-01 financial year. The average grant around the country was $46,000—significant assistance, particularly for smaller businesses. Most firms getting the grants are small businesses: 66 per cent have annual turnovers of less than $5 million. That is what it is all about: it is about encouraging small firms into the market. The BHPs and CRAs of the world obviously do not need the provisions of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme; it is more the small operators who do. The costs involved include the expense of travelling overseas, the expense of finding distributors and the expense of surveying the market. During my years overseas as a trade commissioner, I found it is the small guys who need the assistance most as they try to break into the market. The success of many of them as they grew and expanded following their ability to negotiate with wholesalers and distributors was significant. The Export Market Development Grants Scheme has been brought to a new level under this government and this minister. Seven hundred new businesses commenced in the scheme in 2000-01. I would have assumed that the opposition wholeheartedly, without reservation, without qualification, without one scintilla of opposition, would have supported the bill and said, `Hear, hear. Well done, Minister. Well done to the government for bringing this in.' The basis of the bill is to raise the minimum grant from $2,500 to $5,000 at a cost of well over $1 million a year. It provides assistance to small operators to get a lift in the amount they are able to get in relation to this grant. It makes the scheme more attractive to small businesses. Now a first-time EMDG applicant need only spend $15,000 over two years—$7,500 each year—to receive the minimum grant. This continues the streamlining of the scheme by the government for small business. Since 1997, the minimum expenditure required to receive the grant has been progressively lowered from $30,000 to $15,000. So while the minimum grant has gone up, the actual threshold has gone down. So this overall assistance has been significant. It assists more and more companies to get into the market, and the result is that we see our balance of payments improve significantly in respect of the level of exports. This is the reason why we had a 25 per cent increase in 2000 and an eight per cent increase last year. It is a significant part of encouraging operators to get into the market.The other major reason for this legislation is that it ensures that the benefit of the grant received always outweighs the cost of preparing and processing the application. Some people find the grant process prohibitive in terms of the time it takes, so this provides a real incentive to go out there and apply for it. The bill also brings into being a simpler application process for first-time applicants, increasing the incentive to apply and making the whole process of transforming into an exporting company much easier. Some points have been made by the opposition which I find very hard to accept. They have been attacking the minister about the scheme and claiming that this is not going to provide the assistance that we would want. They are really saying that they are not interested in assisting the small exporter. They are critical on one level that we are not doing enough with respect to multilateral negotiations with major importers such as the United States, despite the fact that the minister has had such a significant result. In paragraph (5)(b) of the amendment, the opposition highlight their unwillingness to influence the United States government to overturn the new provisions of the US farm bill. I would like the shadow Treasurer, who I think is leading the charge, to point out to the House and itemise the years and the commodity in which they achieved a major turnaround in exporting agricultural products to the United States. When did that happen? Tell us all about it. If you are basing yourselves on great achievements whereby you managed to turn around the whole access for Australian products during your time in government, whereby you convinced the American administration on the strength of your arguments and your international connections that you were able to achieve this, then fair enough. But according to the research that I have done, such a record is not there. Your criticism of the government is a joke, particularly in the light of the incredible results that the minister has had in relation to steel imports. In paragraph (5)(c) of the amendment, the opposition talks about the government's inability to secure a free trade agreement with any country. Where is the list of free trade agreements that were negotiated during those long years that Labor was in government? I am struggling to find it. So could we have the list, please? It would be particularly interesting and illuminating to see one. It would be amazing to see Labor's list of free trade agreements. The opposition also says that the government has neglected the Cairns Group at such a critical time in multilateral trade negotiations. Again, this is ridiculous because the minister has been leading the charge with respect to these negotiations, and he has taken a very central role in the Doha Round of the WTO. This bill will give real incentives for the exporters of Australia, for small manufacturers, for small tourist operators, for conference planners and organisers, for those who organise package tours for overseas visitors and for those who have small commodities, such as wine or opals or even ug boots, which are the basic level of Australian trade. These people will be provided with real incentives to go out and look for new markets. This bill will double the amount that is provided as the minimum. The government has already lowered the qualification amount that needs to be spent, so you can now spend as little as $15,000. These are incentives and real gains. This is a government that has achieved incredible success in terms of export markets—a 25 per cent increase in the year 2000 and an eight per cent increase last year, bringing Australian exports to an all-time high. This is a government and this is a minister that should be congratulated by all members of the House. The second reading amendment that is being proposed is nothing short of ludicrous, given the track record of the previous government in the area of trade compared with the great successes that have been achieved under this government and this minister.12:05:003142Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I acknowledge the interventions by the member for Cook, who just spoke. With his background and his experience in the tourism industry and prior to that as a trade commissioner, he recognises the importance of government support, assistance and facilitation as far as our exports are concerned, and of encouraging exporters to get into the international export marketplace. The Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2002 is a very important piece of legislation that continues the commitment of the government to assisting our exporters in this regard. Since 1996, the government has continually made the Export Market Development Grants Scheme more accessible and more attractive to small business. In 1997, we reduced from $30,000 to $20,000 the minimum expenditure required to access the scheme, we gave the tourism sector access to the full 50 per cent grant rate, and we limited the scheme to firms with annual turnovers of under $50 million in order to better target EMDG funds to small business. Last year, we extended the scheme for five years, committing a further $750 million and, after a thorough review, made it even more small business friendly by allowing small businesses on limited budgets to access the scheme by reducing from $20,000 to $15,000 the minimum expenditure required to access the scheme. We have cut the red tape by removing the requirement that intending first time claimants must register with Austrade before applying for a grant. We have also increased the scheme's relevance to our tourism industry by giving professional conference organisers, and similar businesses that engage in foreign delegate boosting, access to the scheme. That is all aimed at improving and increasing our bottom line as far as our export industries are concerned. That has happened, and it has happened in significant proportions. These changes, along with the economic management that our government has conferred upon Australia, have helped Australian exporters obtain the bumper export figures that the member for Cook just indicated in his contribution.In 2001, Australia exported $154 billion worth of goods and services out of this country. Almost 20 per cent of the GDP of Australia is from the export of goods and services. Last year, that was an eight per cent increase on the previous year. The member for Cook mentioned that in the year 2000 we had an increase of 25 per cent. So, from that high base, we increased it another eight per cent last year. Significantly, we should compare that to where it was in 1996. The shadow minister, in his contribution earlier in the debate, referred to policies, that we proposed in the 1996 election campaign, before coming to government. He criticised those policies but those policies have taken our export effort from $99 billion in 1996 to $154 billion in 2001—a 54 per cent increase. That is not too bad at all. Any business in the private sector would be very happy with that sort of growth. That has been underpinned by the economic management of our government and also by the trade policies that we have embarked upon in a very ambitious and broad trade strategy. But it is probably more important to note that behind these big numbers are real people and real businesses—businesses that are entering export markets, winning sales and, most importantly, creating jobs for Australians.The EMDG Scheme is a key plank of the government's strategy to encourage small businesses into the export marketplace and it is playing a major role in delivering on our commitment to double the number of Australian exporters by 2006. The Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2002 further increases the contribution of the scheme to these goals by increasing the minimum grant from $2,500 to $5,000. So while the increased minimum grant will be available to exporters in all years of the scheme, it will be of particular benefit to smaller firms that are claiming EMDGs for the first time. Small businesses often find themselves in a difficult situation. They usually have very limited budgets and are not in a position to spend much on overseas travel and other export promotion activities. With this amendment, a first time EMDG applicant will need to spend only $15,000 over two years in order to receive a minimum grant of $5,000. Then they will receive further grants of 50c for every export promotion dollar they spend above $15,000.The bill should be commended to the House. I understand that the opposition will support the bill, but an amendment has been moved, which the government obviously will oppose. Some of the allegations made in the amendment moved by the member for Cunningham are without basis. In his contribution to this debate earlier today, he was critical of the government in one of our other key policy areas as far as developing our trade strategy is concerned domestically—and that is the TradeStart offices that we have established in partnership with other agencies and organisations across Australia to help provide and facilitate the pathway into the export marketplace for particularly small businesses in regional Australia. The member for Cunningham was critical because the locations of a lot of these TradeStart offices are in government electorates. It just so happens that they are focused in regional Australia because there are already TradeStart offices, state and regional development offices and Austrade offices in all the major capital cities in Australia. We wanted to extend those to regional Australia. It just so happens that we won the last election and we won it by winning most of the seats in regional Australia. That is why a lot of these offices ended up in our seats in regional Australia.Just for the record, the roll-out of these offices is not a discriminatory program. A number of these offices happen to be in Labor Party seats and Independent seats: Rockhampton, in the seat of Capricornia; Tamworth, in the seat of New England; Bathurst, in the seat of Calare; Ballarat, in the seat of Ballarat; Bendigo, in the seat of Bendigo; Alice Springs, in the Northern Territory; Launceston, in the seat of Bass; and Geelong, in the seat of Corio—and I am sure that our good friend the member for Corio would appreciate having the assistance of that office.In the latest roll-out, there has been more criticism from the Labor Party. In the expansion of this program, with the announcement of a further 10 offices, we have allocated one of the TradeStart positions to a sectoral organisation—the all-important and emerging Australian wine industry, which has been doing such a magnificent effort in terms of exports. Last year, the wine industry exported about $1.6 billion to the world off its own bat, and it has been one of the fastest growing Australian export industries. We have allocated one of the TradeStart offices to work specifically with the wine industry, and particularly with the boutique end of the wine industry, to help them get into the markets of the world. There is still one more to be announced and we are consulting with Austrade and seeking a recommendation on where that 10th office will be located—either regionally or sectorally. The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources is here, and it is all-important that we focus strategically on our export market promotion efforts in linking the Australian wine industry and the Australian tourism industry together. Both of those industries have been absolutely committed to the agenda that we have been pursuing as a government. We aim to continue to work with both of those industries. The wine industry, which is one of the fastest growing and emerging export industries, and the tourism industry, which is Australia's largest export industry, should be recognised. The minister often reminds me of that.I need also to comment on some of the issues that the Australian Labor Party have raised in the amendment, which we will oppose, and I will go through the issues in order. I have already mentioned the significance of the capacity of the export markets that we have developed in Australia and what that means to the Australian community: $154 billion worth of export industry income last year sustaining one in five jobs throughout the Australian work force; and, in regional Australia, which I know is of interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, sustaining one in four jobs. That is the significance. It is far more important in the Australian economy than in most other developed economies in the world. In America, for example, only one in 10 jobs relies on an export industry, whereas the figure is one in four in regional Australia. It is little wonder that we want to focus our energies on facilitating and developing more small businesses, particularly out of regional Australia, to get into export marketplaces. In this amendment the Labor Party have attempted to be critical of the government's position in the steel case with the United States. I do not recall the Labor Party in government ever being able to negotiate their way out of a difficult circumstance in a safeguard action without having to resort to the legal structures of the WTO. We did in this case. Eighty-five per cent of Australia's exports—83VEmerson, Craig, MPSU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILE—Yes, we are still working on the other 15 per cent. We are still in consultations on the other 15 per cent. But I can tell you that that happened one week after the announcement by the Bush administration of the impact of that safeguard action and the tariffs that were going to apply, which we have strenuously opposed in all the councils of the multilateral trade organisations around the world, because, unfortunately for them, the United States have a very poor record in these safeguard actions. In the last seven years the United States of America have challenged six safeguard actions in the WTO and they have lost every one. The most recent one happened to be a challenge from Australia on lamb. They lost that case in the WTO, and it was No. 6 that has been lost. We have continued to say to our colleagues in the US administration that the criteria which underpin these measures that they review with the International Trade Commission and on which they make recommendations to the administration need to be reviewed, because they lose each time.Again, in the steel case we argued that, by their specific nature, the products that we were exporting to the United States were not in direct competition with products being produced in the east coast steel mills. Certainly, that argument ultimately got through, because product exclusions have been achieved as far as Australia's steel industry is concerned. We worked rather harmoniously with the steel industry and the unions involved in the steel industry in that regard. On that point I ask the unions involved in Australia's steel industry to give that industry a bit of a break in terms of industrial action and to give it the opportunity to get through this difficult process at the moment. It will be difficult in the international marketplace for a number of years. There will be a lot of displaced product floating around the world that we in Australia need to be vigilant about, and we are vigilant. We have set up a monitoring task force to make sure that we can identify any product that may be coming to Australia that is being heavily subsidised, in case we need to take some sort of antidumping action. The amendment states:... its unwillingness to influence the United States Government to overturn the new provisions of the US Farm Bill ...A number of points need to be made. The first is that at all stages in our lobbying effort with the United States we made it abundantly clear that if any element of this new US farm bill contravenes their international obligations under the WTO it will be challenged. They have a legal limit set out of the Uruguay Round of $19.1 billion that they can go up to. This bill mandates the expenditure of up to that amount of money. It also has in it a trigger for the US Secretary of Agriculture to pull back on the support being provided if it is going to go over that amount. Let us remember who negotiated the outcome of the Uruguay Round that set these levels: $19.1 billion for the United States, $30 billion for Japan and $60 billion for the EU. This farm bill mandates what was actually spent with extra appropriations out of the last farm bill. We do not like it; it is bad policy. We have told the Bush administration that it is bad policy and that we aim to continue to rail against it in all the forums that we can. The critical point is that we can go bilaterally and argue the case as strongly as we like in America that the way to deal with this issue structurally is in the multilateral system but I think that both sides of politics agree that the place to argue this out is in the multilateral system. That is why we worked so hard in Seattle and in Doha to make sure that we got those critical three pillars of trade negotiation on agriculture in the declaration in terms of market access, domestic support and export subsidy. That is the place we will deal with this, and we are dealing with it quite aggressively. Last week in Mexico I participated in the APEC ministerial for this year, and we sent the very strong message of the commitment of the APEC ministers to our ambassadors in Geneva to get on with the job and to stop getting bogged down on process, so that we could get onto the substantive negotiations. Australia led those discussions at an official and ministerial level. I can confirm that here today. We got our way in the declaration that came out of APEC. I know that the key tenets of that will be carried forward in the leaders meeting later this year. The next element of the amendment talks about the government's inability to secure a free trade agreement with any country. Guess what—at least we are a government who is prepared to have a go! At least we are a government who, after the failure of Seattle, was not prepared to stand still and move at the pace of the slowest common denominator in global trade. We wanted to push the agenda at a pace with other countries that were prepared to move at the speed of Australia. We were not prepared to sit and possibly wait for a decade, if we missed out again in Doha, to get improvements for Australia's farming community. So we said, `Righto, we are going to run a twin-path approach to trade policy.' Yes, the multilateral agenda is absolutely essential to address the key issues, particularly in agriculture, that we need to address, but we are prepared, where possible, to pursue free trade agreements with other countries that will deliver faster and deeper liberalisation for our exporters—and we have done so. We are well down the path in negotiating with Singapore. Prime Minister Thaksin of Thailand was out here only last week when he announced with our Prime Minister that we were going to embark on negotiations on—83VEmerson, Craig, MPSU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILE—Yes, a CER. The Labor Party has criticised the government about what we are calling this. We do not care what we call it; what we are doing is important. We are looking at improving the full breadth of the economic relationship so we eliminate the barriers to trade and to doing business and create an environment where our two business communities can get on and produce that. Guess what? The longest standing, most successful and purest free trade agreement in the world today is called the CER and it is between Australia and New Zealand, and it celebrates its 20th anniversary next year. It has seen business and trade between Australia and New Zealand grow by 500 per cent in that time.The last point I need to comment on with regard to the Australian Labor Party's amendment to the bill relates to the Cairns Group. The Cairns Group was established when the opposition was in government and it has been continued forward. However, we have not let the influence or strength of that organisation slip one iota. In fact, we have strengthened it. Australia is the permanent chair of the Cairns Group and, as leader, we have driven the agenda through the failure of Seattle; we kept it alive through the intervening two years until we got to Doha and we ensured that the Cairns Group agenda addressed the issues of agriculture and trade liberalisation that we failed to address out of the Uruguay Round. That was born out of that frustration, and the Cairns Group is still driving that agenda. We are constantly engaged with the other major players within the WTO, the United States, Japan, the EU and now China, and we have invited China to attend the next Cairns Group meeting as an observer so they can get a better idea of the architecture and influences at play within the WTO as we move through the negotiations and towards the fifth ministerial next year in Cancun in Mexico.Let there be no mistake that this government has absolutely strengthened our involvement and commitment as far as the Cairns Group is concerned. We have strengthened the influence of the Cairns Group in terms of multilateral negotiations. Last year there were two informal ministerials that led successfully to the launch of the round in Doha—one in Mexico and another in Singapore. In each of those, the Cairns Group led by Australia, played an absolutely vital role.To finish on one of the most important and salient points in terms of our trade perspective that we have led with since being elected to office in 1996: it is a pure, simple and unassailable fact that in 1996 this country exported $99 billion worth of goods and services; last year it exported $154 billion worth of goods and services. In large part, that is due to the good and sound economic management of our government and to the progressive, aggressive and ambitious trade agenda and trade strategy that we have embarked upon. Of course an integral part of that is the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, which we have continued to strengthen. I commend the bill to the House.10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Cunningham has moved as an amendment that all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.Question agreed to.Original question agreed to.Bill read a second time.3146Mr VAILE (Lyne—Minister for Trade) (12.26 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills3146R1547BillsR15463146Debate resumed from 16 May, on motion by Mr Slipper:That this bill be now read a second time.12:27:003146McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—The measures in the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 and the associated bill which deal with the very important issue of superannuation are not, in the main, very important. There are a lot of minor measures for which there will be bipartisan support. The bills nevertheless fail to address the significant issues and problems in the superannuation system and in the provision of adequate and equitable retirement income and enhanced national savings. The measures would require employers to make at least quarterly superannuation contributions on behalf of their employees. They would reduce the superannuation surcharge tax rates by one-tenth of their current level over three years. They would allow superannuation contributions to be made on behalf of children who would not otherwise have superannuation. They would increase the deduction limit for personal superannuation contributions made by the self-employed and increase from 70 to 75 the age up to which working members of superannuation funds can make personal contributions to superannuation.The measures are part of a broader package of measures which the government announced substantially before the election and, in some part, in the budget. The package includes two other measures to which I wish to make brief reference because they will be referred to in the amendment which I will move. They relate to the proposition that high-income earners should be able to split their superannuation contributions, effectively doubling the reasonable benefit limits from $1 million to $2 million for those people, and the closure of the public sector superannuation schemes. I will be moving an amendment before the conclusion of my speech which relates to these bills and to those two matters to which we are opposed. I will also be referring to the positive alternative proposition that the opposition has been putting forward, which the Leader of the Opposition outlined so well in response to the budget and about which we will continue to campaign over the remainder of this term unless the government sees the light.The first issue I want to turn to is the lack of equity in the surcharge reduction. As I said in my earlier remarks, there are a number of minor measures in this bill and, while they do not do much more than make marginal improvements to the superannuation system, they are of a type which we can support—for example, the measures about superannuation contributions on behalf of children, the measures about the deduction limit for personal superannuation contributions by the self-employed, the increase in the age up to which working members of funds can make personal contributions and the broad thrust of the proposition concerning quarterly superannuation contributions, although we would not support some of the detail of that proposed measure. I will refer to that in a moment. However, we will not support the government's intention to reduce the superannuation surcharge tax on contributions by 30 per cent over the next three years at a cost of some $370 million.The surcharge tax cut is a highly inequitable measure. It is stunning in a budget in which cuts are being made to services to some of the poorest Australians that the government is proposing a tax cut which only affects those on surcharge tax incomes of over $85,000 a year, a group that represents approximately three per cent of the working population. That is, the only tax cut in the budget is a tax cut for the richest three per cent of the working population. What an extraordinary proposition!What needs to be remembered is that the surcharge is the Liberal government's very own tax, which they introduced in 1996. It was one of those non-core promises that was broken in the aftermath of the 1996 election. The then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, promised this on 1 February 1996:We are not going to increase existing taxes and we're not going to introduce new ones. The Australian people, whom I normally regard as pretty bright, did not get the message. They thought that was a clear commitment that the Prime Minister was not going to increase taxes and was not going to introduce new ones. Just because he said that, they thought he meant it. But six months later the government announced a new tax on superannuation.At the time, the government justified the surcharge as an equity measure. They said, and this was in the Treasurer's budget speech of 20 August 1996, that the measures that they were announcing were:... designed to make superannuation fairer.At a subsequent point in the same speech:For high income earners the superannuation contributions will still be highly concessional but are more in line with concessions to middle and low income earners.In selling the budget, the Treasurer went on that most important of all Liberal Party forums, the Alan Jones program, and said:Well if they're paying 30 per cent on their marginal tax rate, they'll still get an 18 per cent break. Now I think that's pretty good, but I've got to tell you there'll be a lot of people out there quaffing their wines down in Pitt Street today that won't like it.There was the Treasurer saying, `I am taking on the top end of town. This is a big, tough measure.' But the problem is that if that was the case then, and to some extent it was, why is it being reversed now? With the fairness principles that underlie the surcharge, it is hard to disagree: let us impose this surcharge such that it has an equalising impact on the benefits of the lower rate on contributions.What has changed since the government introduced the surcharge as a fairness or equity measure that would make it suddenly so appropriate to slash the tax by 30 per cent over three years rather than extend the benefit of any capacity for a tax cut to all Australia's superannuation contributors? The evidence is clear: it is not the top three per cent of people who have a problem with adequacy of savings or adequacy of retirement incomes. Far from it. Those are the people, including all the people in this parliament elected as representatives, who the statistics show have adequate retirement incomes. But we are giving a benefit to those. Yet the statistics are clear that low- and middle-income Australians—right up to $60,000 and $70,000 a year; we are not just talking about the poorest of the poor here—are facing a struggle, even with the superannuation guarantee charge going to nine per cent on 1 July, to adequately provide for their retirement income and to adequately boost their savings and their contribution to national savings. The people who have a problem get nothing and the people who have not got a problem get the lot. That is very perverse. Why do you think that would be? It is simply that the people to whom the Treasurer referred in August 1996 as being `down in Pitt Street quaffing their wine' have pulled the government into line. They have said to the government, because they are substantially the government's financial and political supporters, `You're not supposed to be taxing us. We're your supporters. Why don't you cut the tax for us wealthy three per cent and leave the rest out?' And lo and behold, the government thought this was a terrific idea! I suspect one of the interest groups that lobbied them was the Liberal partyroom here in parliament. The Prime Minister said during his November 2001 superannuation policy launch:We recognise the need for some change and reform in relation to that surcharge and I believe that this will go a distance towards meeting the concerns that have been expressed throughout the community— I have to say throughout a pretty narrow range of the community, three per cent of the community—about certain aspects of the impact of that particular measure.There are two problems with the surcharge: one is that there are three per cent of higher income Australians who do not like paying it. I have to say to them: it is an equity measure. It is a contribution you should make. If we have the funds to reduce the taxes on superannuation—which is a proper issue to address—then we should focus that measure on all Australians. The wealthiest three per cent will get their share but all Australians should benefit, not just the wealthiest three per cent.But there is a second problem, which is more widespread, which is the administrative burden of the surcharge. It is a dreadful measure for the funds and the government to implement, but the problem is that reducing the rate of the surcharge does absolutely nothing to reduce the administrative problem. The administration is exactly the same. It is simply that the administrative cost becomes an even higher proportion of the amount of money raised, because we keep the administrative burden exactly the same but drop the rate. There will be no impact on the administrative burden for the funds or for the Taxation Office. What there will be is enhanced retirement incomes for the wealthiest three per cent of Australians.So where do we find ourselves today? We have the highest taxing Treasurer since Federation, yet all we can get this year is a budget deficit of $3 billion. This is notwithstanding the fact that we have the highest tax revenue in our history. The extent to which taxation on superannuation has escalated under this government is noteworthy. The tax on superannuation has virtually trebled, from $1.6 billion to $4.6 billion, under this government.There are two options for enhancing the retirement incomes for the overwhelming majority of Australians who get their superannuation through the superannuation guarantee charge: by either increasing the contributions or reducing the tax. If we are going to focus on reducing the tax, the most effective way to do that is to reduce the tax on contributions. That can be done. The Treasurer claimed it is incredibly complex. It is actually quite simple. It can be done. It is expensive. It is not easy to do. But the opposition outlined, in the response to the budget, plans to cut the contributions tax in a revenue neutral manner.That started off a flurry of controversy about the costings of our measure. I have been in public life for a long time—I have been in parliament for 14 years; I have been in public life in one form or another for longer than that—and I have never seen such extraordinary claims from such a senior member of the government as I saw when the Treasurer made a frantic attempt to discredit the costings of our measure and the savings. Finally, the estimates committee is starting to get to the bottom of those deliberately inaccurate remarks by the Treasurer. They were so preposterously inaccurate that they could not have been accidental. It was inconceivable that that series of statements could be made.EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr Stone—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order: I do not think referring to the Treasurer as being `deliberately inaccurate' is an appropriate way to refer to a Treasurer in this place.10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—I suggest the member for Fraser might rephrase that.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—With the greatest of respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, first of all, I did not say that he had misled the House; I am talking about his public remarks, and I am perfectly entitled to do that. It is perfectly within the standing orders. The problem is not that I called him deliberately inaccurate; it is that he was. I will not withdraw it. It is not in breach of the standing orders. What you are not entitled to do is say that someone has deliberately misled the House, and I am not saying that. I am saying that he deliberately misled the Australian people and, in my view, he did. He did not do it in here; he did it in a press release outside.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are taking something and now moving it a lot further with that latest comment.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—It is, nevertheless, still true—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Hang on, you are now making—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—and within the standing orders.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—No. Can I suggest to you that you are now making a direct accusation against the Treasurer here in the House, not where it was.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I will be very interested in having you subsequently point out to me where the standing orders' problem with what I am doing is. I would issue that invitation to the parliamentary secretary and to you to do that. But can I say that the facts in the statement were wrong, and they were so profoundly wrong that no intelligent person could have done it by mistake. That is the circumstance in which we find ourselves. I thank you both for highlighting my comment about that, because it was otherwise only going to be a passing remark. EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr Stone—You have to be careful when you accuse people of, in effect, lying.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I think you do have to be careful, but I think you have to be careful about what you say to the Australian people. It is our obligation to fairly represent the facts of the matters that come before us. The estimates committee is slowly unravelling this matter for us. We had the Liberal Party's key superannuation expert—and, while I have had disagreements with him over the years, I have a lot of respect for him—Senator John Watson, say during estimates last night that there is not a lot of difference in terms of the magnitude of the figures that we are talking about. In other words, he was saying that the difference between the Labor Party's costings and the cost of the government's measures was very small, which clearly contradicts the hysterical assertions from the Treasurer.The Treasurer started off talking about $500 million or $1 billion. It now appears that at the most extreme interpretation the difference might be $40 million. We think that $40 million is wrong but, when you analyse the information provided since the Treasurer's press release by the Treasury and the tax office, it appears the difference, taken at its face value—and we think the $40 million is wrong but it is a very minor figure in the overall scale of the changes we are talking about; it might be $40 million—the margin for error in the Treasurer's assertions is somewhere between 12½ to one and 25 to one. What have we found? Treasury officials this morning confirmed that the costings that were in the Treasurer's press release of 17 May 2002 were based on the following flawed assumption: a failure to take into account the savings opposing changes to the Public Service superannuation of a mere $780 million.This was not a secret proposition that we put; this was explicitly announced on budget night and during the election campaign. During the election campaign, it was costed by the department of finance, which confirmed the costing that we had made. In fact, there has been one slight modification to our figures since the budget: the savings are actually $40 million more than we claimed. But the figures were publicly available, clearly outlined and previously costed by the department of finance, but that assumption has failed to take them into account. It failed to take into account cost savings—which were clearly outlined on the night and were clearly costed, and the costings were taken from the government's budget figures—from opposing the splitting of superannuation for spouses.The Treasurer made an incorrect assertion that our measure would start a year before it was intended to. It is incredible that the Treasurer could seriously contemplate that, in relation to a measure that he started in one year, we would start our alternative measure 12 months before that—a preposterous proposition. No sensible person would honestly come to that view. It is just absurd to assume that we would replace a measure that was phased in by the government with one that was introduced all in one hit in the first year. Why would any sensible person assume that would happen? And we had made it clear that we would not do that. This could not have been an accidental error.A failure to include cost offsets from an increase in earnings tax was also assumed. I accept that it is possible that that is a calculation error. All the others I think could not conceivably have been mistakes; I think they were deliberate. This one, I accept, could have been a genuine calculation error: a failure to include cost offsets from an increase in earnings tax—as there would be more money going into the funds if the contributions tax is less. I do not put that mistake in the same category as the others, although it certainly distorts the final result. Also mentioned was a failure to properly allocate deductions against contributions tax versus earnings tax. Certainly the Treasury and the tax office would have been in a position to advise the Treasurer on this, and that should have been done.We have a clear and stark differentiation. Two things are shown. The government never attempted on any occasion since the budget, up to and including today, to debate on principle the difference between our superannuation package and theirs. There has not been one word of argument from the government to say, `It is a better proposition to give all the tax benefit to the wealthiest three per cent, rather than to spread it more equitably.' It has not been stated once. We have had a lot of question times, but it has not been raised. There has been no defence of this measure. When they talk about the measures that we are opposing in the budget, this one slips off the agenda, because it actually helps the budget bottom line. They keep talking about how they are going to oppose measures that are bad for the budget, but this helps it by $370 million. And, if they introduce our alternative, it makes it fairer. We have not heard a word. After the Leader of the Opposition's statements on the Thursday following the budget, on the Friday there were wild accusations, but since then there has not been a word. There have been lots of opportunities for the Treasurer to come in here and strut around like a peacock in question time, when all the cards are stacked in his favour—as question time is—and perform, and he likes to do that. When he thinks that he has the slightest hint of an advantage, he comes into question time and gets himself asked a question, but apart from that there has not been a word. If he believed all those allegations about how serious the errors were, don't you think he would be pursuing them here in parliament? But there has not been a word on the principle or on the costings.In 2001 the Treasurer was saying that it was impossible to cut the tax burden on all fund members. He said that it would be incredibly complicated to unravel now. That is clearly not the case. We can cut the contributions tax. The industry has confirmed on a number of occasions that it would not be difficult to do. Parliament has an opportunity to implement a fairer proposal which will improve the budget and boost retirement savings, but this chance will be lost if the government passes these unfair changes. We will clearly oppose them in the Senate. It is not totally within our keeping as to whether or not they are defeated; we can only influence how we vote. Our members will vote against this; what others do in the Senate is in their hands. If this measure passes, the money—the $370 million—will be gone. We cannot spend it twice. We will, therefore, have to re-examine what our proposals will be as they relate to retirement income. But come back to this issue of fairness and retirement income we will. The Treasurer said some years ago that the next big area of reform was superannuation. Now he does not want to talk about it. There are no major reforms proposed in superannuation. Nothing is targeted at increasing retirement incomes, notwithstanding the growing welter of data saying that we need to do something. There is nothing about the tax on superannuation and nothing about the equity of distribution of superannuation on retirement income. The Labor package for a fairer superannuation system was proposed as a revenue neutral package. It was proposed as a measure that would have cut the superannuation contributions tax for all Australians from the present 15 per cent to 13 per cent or, under the second option, cut it to 11.5 per cent for people aged 40 and over. It could have had a very major effect on superannuation.I want to turn briefly to two other measures that we are going to oppose. I will be brief because they are not in this package, but I will need to refer to them because our opposition to those is part of the funding of our alternative measures. They are measures the government announced in the budget; they are not in this legislation. We assume they will come forward in subsequent legislation, and we await that. The first proposition we oppose is that which allows the splitting of superannuation contributions and effectively doubles the current reasonable benefit limit of $1 million for pensions, or $500,000-plus for lump sums, to just over $2 million. It is clear who the beneficiaries of that are going to be, and it is not a measure that we will support.In addition, we will not support the expensive changes that the government has proposed to the Commonwealth public sector schemes. After the evidence presented by the department responsible for the changes to Public Service superannuation, there really is no other choice but to oppose these changes. They seemed to not understand either the current arrangements or the alternative that is being proposed. They did not seem to understand the comparative cost of the fees and charges of the Commonwealth schemes, which are presently nil to members, in relation to those of the general market. They had a self-confessed lack of understanding of and familiarity with the largely detrimental experience of UK public servants when their arrangements were privatised. They were unable to rule out a reduction in superannuation entitlements for public servants. It should have made frightening listening for any public servant.The government have one other measure, a measure which we support in principle but which contains an element of detail about which we are concerned. It relates to the proposal to require the payment of superannuation contributions on a quarterly basis; it comes with a sting in the tail. Labor have long proposed quarterly superannuation contribution payments. In October 2000 and August 2001, we introduced private members' bills that would have required quarterly superannuation payments, but the government refused to take up the proposition. At the last election, they suddenly decided that we had been right all along, but their proposal will not begin until July 2003. So the Labor opposition have reintroduced our private member's bill, seeking to get this measure to start from July 2002.Notwithstanding our disappointment about the target date, the principle of quarterly payment rather than annual payment is correct. But the budget document reveals that there is a sting in the tail. The government intends the minimum wage eligible for superannuation entitlements to go from $450 a month to $1,350 a quarter. On the face of it that sounds all right, provided you do not understand the way in which casual workers—part-time workers in general but casuals in particular—operate. For example, under the existing arrangements, a person who earns $1,000 in a fortnight with one employer but then goes to work for someone else for the same period at the same rate would get $90 paid into their superannuation fund for each job. But, under the government's change, they will get nothing because they have not earned $1,350 with any one employer.There is no reason for the change. We could make it a quarterly superannuation payment without a single change to the wage threshold, so this proposal is entirely unnecessary. We could keep the payment of $450 a month and simply change the frequency with which it was paid. It is not that it is now paid monthly and that we are going to reduce it to quarterly; it is now paid annually. We are going to increase it to quarterly, and that is a good change. There is no need to increase the rate, as it is going to be a serious blow to a lot of low-income Australians, many of whose retirement incomes and savings are the very least.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—You were whingeing about paperwork a minute ago.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—There is no extra paperwork. The government is proposing the quarterly change; we support that. It is the government that is proposing the quarterly payment, and we are agreeing to it—it is the $1,350 minimum that is the problem. There is already a threshold. They are not introducing a threshold; they are changing it. They are tripling it, and people on low incomes are going to miss out. In this same bill, we have increased superannuation for the richest Australians and reduced superannuation for the poorest Australians. It is a shameful measure. Labor will not be supporting the change to the minimum wage levels and we will be moving an amendment to strike it from these bills. I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to: (1) ensure that the proposed surcharge tax reduction to high-income earners, the splitting of superannuation contributions and the closure of the public sector funds do not proceed; and(2) provide for a fairer contributions tax cut that will boost retirement incomes for all superannuation fund members to assist in preparing the nation for the ageing population.I request that the government withdraw these bills, remove the unfair proposals and replace them with the ALP's fairer superannuation plan. If the government is not prepared to do this, I intend to move further amendments to the bills during the consideration in detail stage which will specifically oppose the reduction in the surcharge and changes to superannuation coverage. I urge the members of the House to support my amendments.10000Mossfield, Frank (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Is the amendment seconded?83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs Livermore—I second the amendment.12:57:003152Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I rise to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002. I am amazed at what the Australian Labor Party is doing to this budget. Despite commitments made by an incoming government at an election and movement towards the fulfilment of those promises, at the very first opportunity—at the first budget, which will fulfil promises of which superannuation is very much a part; all of the measures we are debating today were part of promises made during the election campaign—the opposition says that it will use its numbers to destroy the government's promises for which the Australian people voted and destroy, in the process, the balance of the budget. That is absolutely irresponsible.Surely the members of the Australian Labor Party do not fully understand where that may lead in the future. Surely they understand that this exposes the whole management of financial affairs to a prospect that we have never considered in Australia before. It takes us into the realm of the American budget, with the President drafting a budget, often uncertain of what has transpired with his previous budget. If the Australian Labor Party pursues this line, I predict that it will expose the whole financial management of future Labor treasurers—if the Labor Party is ever elected to government—to the same sort of activity that the Labor Party is imposing on the House and the Australian people now. It means that no elector will know for sure, when they are asked to vote for promises or commitments, what will actually pass through the houses. It will mean that the Australian public will never be able to make a firm judgment about the future of financial management in Australia. I think it is a most dangerous and stupid thing that the Australian Labor Party is doing. What it is doing is inviting—unleashing, in fact—retribution on itself. I cannot predict what it will be like. It will mean that any financial measure, any budget, is now subject to any whim that the Senate wants to take up.The shadow Treasurer stood here and made comments about superannuation, saying, `I disagree with it. Why don't you adopt the Australian Labor Party's policy?' The Australian people did not vote for that. They voted for these policies because they are a balanced approach to the whole process of superannuation. If you go through them one by one, there is something for people of low incomes, people of moderate incomes, families and high-income earners. It is a balanced approach to superannuation.Superannuation is difficult to understand and it is complex. The legislation does need to be straightened out. The government is in the process of an inquiry, and has made a commitment to attend to that over a three-year period. That is what Australians voted for. The specifics in this legislation are election commitments that have been brought forward in the budget. Now the Australian Labor Party says that in the Senate it reserves the right to destroy the budget and those commitments. I think the party will come to rue the day that such a decision was ever taken, because what it will do is bring down on them the criticisms that they justly deserve. It will also bring about the rejection by the Australian people of that type of political management. The Australian people want to be able to trust their governments to deliver. This is a sad lack of acceptance that an election was lost by the Australian Labor Party. The bitterness in that loss is translated here into the destruction of the budget and the commitments made by the coalition prior to the election.What does this legislation seek to do? It requires employers to make a quarterly superannuation contribution on behalf of their employees, instead of a yearly one. That is sensible, straight ahead, something for the workers to make sure that their super is always topped up in a continuing process. It helps safeguard against some of the problems that we have identified in the past, where employers have failed to make a contribution—whether or not it is the super guarantee levy—in a timely fashion, then the company has taken a dive and the employees have gone without their super. This legislation will safeguard, to some degree, against such a dreadful, unprincipled practice.The legislation reduces the superannuation surcharge by one-tenth of the current level in each of three years, from 15 per cent to 10½ per cent over a three-year period. It allows superannuation contributions to be made on behalf of children who would not otherwise have superannuation. It increases the deduction limit for personal superannuation contributions made by self-employed people, and it increases from 70 to 75 years the age at which working members of superannuation funds can make personal superannuation contributions. All of these measures seek to cover a range of people in the community who deserve to receive benefit, every one of them. Let me deal with the measures one at a time.The first is the quarterly contributions. Under the new regime, the super guarantee shortfall will be determined on a quarterly basis—simple, straight ahead. The current law does not provide for that. The new process is one whereby a penalty will be imposed, calculated at 10 per cent per annum of the charge, on employers not complying with this measure. This is a good and simple change, and should go ahead without interruption or inhibition. The next measure is the reduction of superannuation surcharge by one-tenth of the current level over a three-year period. This is justified. If there is any one thing that really prevents people in management from seeking to go ahead and do better, and to prepare for their retirement, it is the super surcharge. Because of the impact of the surcharge they look for all sorts of investment other than superannuation. There are a number of examples where the golden handshake has worked to the disadvantage of a highly skilled employee who should be investing these funds and using them up over a period as a superannuation payout. I have no doubt in my mind that this change is well warranted. If we are going to reduce everybody's capacity to earn to the same level, which seems to be the argument from the Australian Labor Party, there is no incentive for anybody to aspire to go ahead or to improve, or to create greater skills or more employment or innovation. Superannuation is very much part of that.The third measure, allowing the super contribution to be made on behalf of children who would not otherwise have superannuation, is a brilliant introduction and is long overdue. This will allow a child to have a contribution made by friends or parents from the date of birth. A constituent of mine, Mr Peter Drougas, was fascinated by the prospect of such a proposal well before it was thought of by the government. He started writing me letters about what would happen if we were to allow people to make a contribution for children from the date of birth. That was followed by a series of letters to insurance companies. According to a research paper on minors' eligibility to receive super contributions, which the Parliamentary Library did for me, the ability of a minor to receive a voluntary contribution depends on the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994, which require that:· The member has, at any time in the two years before acceptance of the contributions, engaged in full-time or part-time gainful employment ...That, of course, was the limiting factor on contributions being made for young people under the age of 18 as it applied to this point. From now on, people will be able to prepare for their children's retirement. In the old days, people used to buy life insurance packages for their children. Now they will be able to make a contribution up to a set limit to their superannuation, and that is a very useful proposal.Mr Drougas did some preliminary sums on the scales that he prepared. His sums were at the modest level of $300 per annum, whereas the government's proposals are $3,000 over three years or $1,000 per annum. Mr Drougas made the calculation that, if somebody started their contributions at birth and ceased them at age 60, the total outlay over that period would be $18,000. If, however, somebody began their contributions at the age of 20, their total contribution would be $12,000. It is a difference of only $6,000 but it is over a period of 20 years. At a nominal earning capacity of, say, seven per cent, which may be a little high, Mr Drougas calculated that the earning capacity of the contribution over the period of time runs into many thousands of dollars. His calculations indicate that it is possible for there to be a saving for that individual of $224,056 in a form of superannuation on $300 per annum. That is a huge benefit—$200,000 from a modest $300 a year. On retirement, that is the prospective investment on which annuities will be paid. It is a very fine decision, in my opinion.The decision to increase the age for superannuation contributions from 70 to 75 brings to my mind a dear lady who is the most dynamic worker I have ever met. Immie Medlyn has written to me for years, asking that this provision be changed. Immie would like to see it rise from 70 to 80 years of age because she is one of those brilliant, hardworking people. She even got Alan Jones to write to me saying: `What is happening? Why don't you guys do something to help a genuine person who is fit and well and who wants to work?' The fact of the matter is that there was a discriminatory factor based on age in superannuation and it needed to be changed, and we have changed it. I think it was long overdue. Not only have we changed it but we need to recognise that, of the teenage girls in Australia today, I am told, a third of them will live to be 100 years of age. The demographics are changing. People will have a longer working life. So, in my view, the decision that we have made in regard to this provision backs up a wonderful lady who worked for the Subnormal Children's Welfare Association and the Spastic Centre. She is just such a great, lively worker, and you would not know her age by looking at her. Immie Medlyn of Winston Hills, this is your amendment, in my opinion. The regulations mandated that you could not receive this benefit until these changes. They go a certain distance. I believe that they will have to be changed again in the future. I refer now to some of the writings on superannuation. The editorial in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald draws attention to the fact that Australians are not accumulating enough superannuation under the surcharge to have adequate savings to meet the goals set out by Vince FitzGerald in his inquiry a decade ago. That is true. On my calculations, there have been great improvements. Figures elsewhere indicate that the average person, whilst they may not reach the high level of absolute security and dependence on superannuation, will have a little less than $14,000 personal retirement income from the compulsory component of superannuation. This was the superannuation that was legislated for, workers of Australia, by the Australian Labor Party, because they said, `We will not give you wage rises. We will give you super. We will give pie in the sky when you die.' This government is doing both. This is covering the levy. 83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—That's what you think super is—pie in the sky!SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—That is a very interesting remark from the person opposite who was prepared to forgo wage rises for workers and who gave them superannuation instead—big satisfaction. This is the government that has provided real wage rises and superannuation for Australian workers and has continued to increase the superannuation surcharge. So much for that argument. The Labor Party should go back and do their sums and start to talk to a few real workers for a change, instead of the elite chardonnay set they mix with now.The editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald said that there is not enough there for people to live on in retirement. We have made a good start. The fact is that if you look over a 20-year working life there is not enough, but a 40-year working life does bring in closer to a livable income, plus a top-up from a pension. That is a big change, because this generation of Australians is being asked to prepare for its own retirement as well as paying for an increasing number of retirees. So there is a double whammy on the current generation: they have to pay for their own retirement and also, though taxation, for an increasing number of retirees who are going onto pension benefits. This is a period in Australia's history when there is a strain on the system. The editorial states:The recent report by the National Centre for Economic Modelling and the AMP found that 50- to 64-year-old Australians are worth, on average, just $240,000, half of it as equity in their houses. If they don't sell their homes, they could expect a retirement income—including the age pension—of less than $20,000 a year.That is not a particularly enlightening revelation, but one has only to look at the changes made in this legislation to see that people who have businesses are now going to be able to put money aside and prepare for retirement, and people who want to increase their contributions are going to be able to do so tax free. There is an increase in the deduction limit for contributions made by the self-employed and there is a deduction allowable for people making a contribution on behalf of their children. I think that some writers of editorials need to have a look at and take into account what is actually happening. The editorial further says:Immediately, the government needs to decide on a benchmark level of income for all retired Australians and then provide the incentives to help people achieve it.This is the government that legislated that the pension should rise to be no less than the average full-time male earnings and was prepared for the first time to legislate for those things. In general, I would have to say that the approach adopted by this government is one that covers the field of need—whether it be for families, whether it be for the elderly, whether it be for self-employed, or whether it be for people who are seeking to improve the level of their income prospects when they retire. (Time expired)13:17:003156Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 contains a number of provisions in relation to superannuation, and I want to comment on those. In the first instance, it requires employers to make at least quarterly superannuation contributions on behalf of their employees. In principle, Labor support this measure because it is our idea. I do not mind if the government picks up Labor ideas. Picking up this concept is in the national interest, but, with this government, there is always a sting in the tail, especially in relation to superannuation. The sting in moving to a quarterly basis—at least for businesses required to make contributions on behalf of their employees—is that there is a further provision, and that is to change the minimum wage eligible for the superannuation guarantee charge from $450 a month to $1,350 a quarter. Three times $450 is $1,350, so you might ask, `What is significant about that?' The answer is that, by moving from a monthly to a quarterly basis, it is bad news for casuals, part-time workers and seasonal workers who will—if this legislation is passed with this sting in the tail—slip out of the superannuation guarantee charge. They will not benefit from it. I think that this nasty little sting in the tail tells us a lot about the government's attitude towards superannuation. I certainly will be having a lot to say about that in my remarks today.Another provision of the legislation is that it reduces the superannuation surcharge rate over the next three years to an ultimate level of 10½ per cent. This is an incredibly unfair measure on the part of the government, and Labor will be opposing it. The legislation also allows superannuation contributions to be made on behalf of children who would not otherwise have superannuation, and Labor will support that provision; the legislation increases the deduction limit for personal superannuation contributions made by the self-employed, and Labor will support that provision; and the legislation increases the age limit, from 70 to 75, to which working members of superannuation funds can make personal superannuation contributions, and Labor will support that.As I said at the outset, this legislation—the odious parts of it and the sting in the tail—tells us a lot about the government's attitude towards superannuation. The previous government speaker described superannuation as `pie in the sky when you die'. If we go back to the attitude of the coalition in opposition, it is clear that that remark, `pie in the sky when you die', embodies a philosophy which is shared by the current Prime Minister and Treasurer of this country. In respect of providing superannuation for working families, the coalition, when in opposition, opposed every step that the Labor government took to spread the coverage of superannuation in this country.When Labor came to office, the coverage of superannuation in Australia was less than 30 per cent of the work force. During the period of Labor government, it increased to greater than 90 per cent of the work force. On each and every occasion, as Labor sought to spread the availability of superannuation throughout the work force, the government opposed our measures bitterly. Why? Because the government was quite happy with the 30 per cent. The 30 per cent who had superannuation were the affluent in Australia. They were already affluent and then they could benefit from taxation concessions as applied to superannuation. The coalition, now in government, thought, `This is great; it is consistent with Liberal and National Party philosophy, which is to entrench privilege and to ensure that those who need an opportunity to get a fair go in life do not get it.' That is why they opposed our measures. Superannuation is a good thing. Superannuation spread throughout the Australian work force is an even better thing. Superannuation closes the current account deficit because it increases the available pool of national savings. I understand that the pool of national savings made available as a result of the far-sighted policies of Labor governments has reached $577 billion. That is an enormous investment fund for this country which would not have existed had the coalition had its way and blocked every attempt by Labor to increase the coverage of superannuation through the work force.Superannuation provides for an ageing population. Labor governments over 13 years recognised the challenge of an ageing population in this country, well before the present government came to recognise through the Intergenerational Report that it might be an issue. Not only did Labor understand that the ageing population was an issue but also, around 13 years ago, Labor acted upon it. It is only now, with this Intergenerational Report, that the government expresses surprise and says, `Look, we have all these projections. This tells us that there's going to be a budgetary challenge associated with the ageing of the Australian population.' Labor has been saying that for a very long time and the government has only just woken up to it.Superannuation also provides, naturally, for a better standard of living in retirement. This is one of the key reasons why we have superannuation in this country and why Labor spread the availability of superannuation to more than 90 per cent of the work force. As a result of Labor's far-sighted policies, in four weeks time the superannuation guarantee charge will go to nine per cent, completing a 10-year program of reform. It is generally accepted that nine per cent is not an adequate contribution for a retirement income. Nevertheless, Australia's system of superannuation is the envy of the rest of the world. Labor would have achieved an adequate level of superannuation coverage because, in government, Labor had announced extra contributions for the superannuation scheme, with employees providing an extra three per cent, to be matched by the Commonwealth with another three per cent—not employers, but the Commonwealth. Three per cent from employees matched by three per cent from the Commonwealth would have meant a total of six per cent, plus the nine per cent that will come in in four weeks time. Three, plus three, plus nine is 15 per cent. Most experts consider 15 per cent to be a reasonably adequate level of superannuation to provide for a decent standard of living in retirement for an ageing population. That 15 per cent would have become a massive superannuation fund which we could have used to rebuild this nation.What did the coalition government do—the same coalition which, in opposition, opposed every attempt we made to spread superannuation through the work force? When the coalition got into government, it cancelled the six per cent in its 1997 budget. It is very difficult to imagine a more irresponsible or short-sighted policy decision by any government in this country—that it would cancel that six per cent which had been added to the nine per cent to give us 15 per cent superannuation. Labor's far-sighted policy would have addressed all the issues raised in the Intergenerational Report. Almost every week when the Treasurer comes into the parliament he boasts about how the government cancelled Labor's initiative of an extra six per cent superannuation. The seeds the government has sown through that cancellation are going to grow into a very large problem. The Prime Minister has discovered that Australia has an ageing population. What is his plan to deal with the ageing population? His plan is outlined in the Intergenerational Report. It says that, because of the inadequate provision of superannuation for an ageing population and a range of other factors associated with emerging medical technologies, there will be a big fiscal and budgetary challenge in this country over a 40-year period. Projections are that the fiscal deficit will grow to five per cent of gross domestic product or, in today's terms, $87 billion. I do not think anyone could imagine a deficit of $87 billion, but that is what is forecast in the Intergenerational Report.What is the government's response? It is not really to do anything in relation to superannuation, that is for sure, because this legislation does not go to the issue of adequacy across the range of the Australian workforce. It reduces the superannuation surcharge which applies to only three per cent of the population from a figure of 15 per cent down to 10½ per cent over time. That is one of the main purposes of this legislation.Labor has calculated—and I pay tribute to Senator Nick Sherry for this—a very well-costed, intelligent and, most of all, fair alternative. Senator Nick Sherry has put together an alternative, much fairer plan, which would be much better for the future of the Australian community. The alternative is to use the money that the government would apply in reducing the superannuation surcharge and a number of other measures, including in relation to Public Service superannuation schemes, to reduce the 15 per cent contribution tax.While the superannuation surcharge is a very inefficient tax, it is a tax that applies to the top three per cent of Australian income earners, but the 15 per cent contributions tax applies to everyone. It is an insidious tax because it stops the accumulation process in its tracks. When the money comes in to the superannuation scheme it is taxed on the way in, at 15 per cent. Would not the smart and the fair approach be to use this money to reduce the 15 per cent tax? Labor has calculated that it is possible with the money that is being spent on the range of measures in this package to reduce that tax from 15 per cent to 13 per cent. There is an alternative measure whereby the tax could be reduced even further for those who are over the age of 40. That is a very fair and a very efficient measure. It is efficient because it allows the nest egg to begin accumulating from the very beginning, rather than being diminished by the 15 per cent contributions tax on the way in. What is the government's attitude? It says, `You cannot do that. We do not think it is fair to provide a tax break to all Australian superannuation contributors. We think it is fair to provide a tax break only to the top three per cent.' Such is this government's concept of fairness. It says, in addition, that we cannot afford it. I have just located a media release from Senator Nick Sherry as a result of the current process of estimates committee hearings. It is entitled, `Costings for ALP super plan get Liberal tick'. Senator John Watson, who has been the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation since 1993, has conceded: There is not a lot of difference in terms of the magnitude of the figures that we are talking about. Yet the Treasurer came out publicly and said `Labor's costings are completely wrong.' It is the Treasurer who is completely wrong. Alarmingly, Treasury officials revealed this morning, in estimates, that the Treasurer's office specifically requested that they ignore the entirety of the ALP plan, including the full cost savings. This is political dishonesty. The Treasury, at least, has behaved with integrity in revealing this basic fact and the dishonesty of the Treasurer. The Treasurer and his office have instructed the Treasury to manipulate the costings of Labor's plan to show that it could not be afforded. All the chickens have come home to roost. The truth is out. The department has revealed today that Labor's costings are right and Senator Watson, the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation since 1993, has said, `There is not a lot of difference in terms of the magnitude of the figures that we are talking about.' So Labor's plan works. But the government, I fear, will not pick it up because of its concept of fairness—its concept that it is fair that the top three per cent of income earners in this country get a tax break—and its belief that Labor's policy to use that money for all superannuants in this country is wrong. I go back to the point that casual workers, part-time workers and seasonal workers are going to be disadvantaged by the government's provision to require employers to move to a quarterly basis in respect of their contributions. Many of these workers will fall out of the superannuation net. This provision reveals yet again the government's attitude to superannuation. Superannuation is a measure which can help secure the nation's future. The Australian people would benefit greatly from a comprehensive retirement incomes policy. Only Labor is committed to implementing a comprehensive retirement incomes policy. Instead of using the Intergenerational Report to identify the structural weaknesses in the economy and in our retirement incomes policy, the government has used it to justify cutting pension eligibility for the disabled and to increase payments by patients under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In this report it is very clear that the government has given up on economic reform. The report forecasts productivity in this country to slump back to its mediocre, long-term average by the middle of this decade, just three years from now. Instead of increasing the cost of pharmaceuticals and reducing the eligibility of the disabled for the disability support pension, the government should be investing in the future of this country. It should be investing in innovation and education. They are the drivers of ongoing productivity growth. With higher productivity, the government would not have to make these sorts of cuts. But the government has given up on productivity. It has no ongoing economic reform agenda. It has given up on a decent retirement incomes policy. At every opportunity it seeks to revert to superannuation being available for the privileged few and to withdraw the availability of superannuation for casual, part-time and seasonal workers. In the most irresponsible budgetary decision that I can remember, the government has cancelled the six per cent augmentation of superannuation that would have taken us from nine per cent to 15 per cent. This government is a short-sighted government. It is a government that has given up on economic reform and is once again proving that its whole philosophy is to provide for the wealthy, to entrench privilege and to deny opportunity to those who really need it. The only `intergenerational report' that the Treasurer of this country is interested in is the one that will be given by the Prime Minister on his 64th birthday.13:37:003159King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—May I commence by observing that, if the member for Rankin thinks that the government has given up on economic reform, including superannuation reform, then he has not been listening to pronouncements made by the government and the Treasurer, in particular, since 1998. What I propose to do in this address is to examine the background to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 and other current proposals before the parliament to reflect upon aspects of the legislation, some of which have been raised by my constituents during the last campaign and since, and comment briefly on Labor Party alternative proposals in order to show, as I believe has already been amply put in the other place, that this legislation before the House is highly beneficial for the Australian people, especially those saving for their retirement.The Australian superannuation system forms part of Australia's retirement incomes policy, and that has established a framework to enable people to have a better income in retirement than they otherwise would have under the age pension alone. This objective has been pursued through a three-tiered retirement system comprising a compulsory superannuation savings program, including through the superannuation guarantee—part of which is the subject of the proposed legislation—voluntary superannuation and other private savings and a means tested age pension and associated social security arrangements. The government's general policy framework, which I have just outlined, is one that has received endorsement by, amongst others, the World Bank, although not necessarily with respect to every aspect of the implementation of it. The general strategy is one that is thoroughly well known and approved. The age pension, I should mention, does provide a safety net for those who reach retirement age with low level superannuation provision, and the guarantee offers the opportunity for significantly improving retirement incomes of a larger section of the population. It is worth while reflecting briefly on an overview of the current position with respect to superannuation. The scale of the industry and its growth are, without doubt, impressive. The total superannuation assets, according to APRA, are now in excess of $570 billion and the total superannuation assets are increasing at about 17 per cent per annum. Ninety-one per cent of employees have superannuation, with only 36 per cent, however, of the self-employed having superannuation. That is an important consideration, having regard to one of the reforms that is contained in the package. The total benefit payments per annum up to 30 June 2000, which are the latest available figures, are about $27 billion in that year alone. There are some 21.7 million superannuation accounts for over six million workers. It should be noted in this overview that many people do manage their own retirement savings through self-managed funds, and these funds have grown in number from about 95,000 in 1995 to well over 200,000 in the current financial year.The legislation program currently before the House concerns tax concessions and taxation arrangements with respect to superannuation. These are provided to employers, fund members and beneficiaries at a cost to the government revenue which has been estimated in the 2000-01 financial year at approximately $9 billion. So we are considering very important measures in relation to encouraging contribution and participation in the system. The government, on the other hand, does raise considerable taxation revenue from super funds and the current budget contains estimates and projections of those revenues expected to be raised through the super funds. In the year 2002-03, that is expected to exceed $4.3 billion and approximately $4.5 billion in the following year.One of the aspects of this legislation which perhaps is worth commenting on by way of further background is the principles upon which the reforms proceed. There have been a number of different proposals put forward, and one more radical proposal is that the reforms be based upon the proposition that taxation of employer superannuation contributions occur at the member's marginal income tax rates. That is seeking to address, at the same time, a reduction in or even an abolition of the contributions tax and the superannuation surcharge tax. However, the other proposals I should mention come from the important players in this particular area, including the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia—ASFA, the peak body—the Institute of Actuaries of Australia, ACOSS and others. Amongst the various commentators, Ms Louise McBride, who is well known to me, has made the suggestion in the AustralianFinancial Review that reform of the superannuation system is a more difficult proposal than reform of the tax system. It must be said that facing the economic, fiscal and budgetary challenges of this country, which has always met with a certain reluctance and hesitation from the opposition, has never troubled this government. The record of achievement since 1996 is significant proof of that.In 1998, the Treasurer released the tax reform package and, at an address following the May 2000 budget at the Press Club, the Treasurer announced that the next great challenge after the tax system changes had been bedded down was that of superannuation. Subsequent to that, some of the industry players that I have already mentioned formed groups—in particular, one group—and articulated a declaration of principles for Australia's superannuation and retirement system. That added to the calls for further reform of the type that I have already mentioned.It was therefore very pleasing that, during the last election, the coalition issued a very detailed proposal for reform of superannuation, to ensure that the retirement incomes of older Australians are secured in a way that is best designed to ensure that they live in the comfort that we all aspire to in retirement.A Better Superannuation System, which was released on 5 November during the election campaign, contained five measures. I want to briefly mention those now because it is important to note that this government does deliver on its election promises. They were designed to enhance the overall attractiveness, accessibility and security of superannuation and, in particular, to require employers to make at least quarterly superannuation contributions on behalf of their employees; to reduce the superannuation surcharge rates by one-tenth of the current level over three years; to allow superannuation contributions to be made on behalf of children, who would not otherwise have superannuation; to increase the deduction limit for personal superannuation contributions made by the self-employed; and, finally, to increase from 70 to 75 the age up to which working members of superannuation funds can make personal superannuation contributions.Before addressing the detail of some of these proposals, I mention that, during the election campaign, I met a number of people who were very concerned to ensure that there was a thorough reform program. A resident in my electorate at North Randwick was very concerned because, at the age of 73, involved as he was in the education system, he could not make contributions effectively to any superannuation fund. These measures address that concern.Another resident in Bellevue Hill, a young lady, a student, was concerned that the contributions made by others could not have been made for her in her earlier years. She had been hoping to increase the savings available to her on her retirement but because of the death of someone in the family that had become impossible. These measures will address that problem. There were other complaints about the complexity of the system and about the effectiveness of it. Again, in the detail in the consequential amendments, there are measures that address those concerns. So it is with some pride that I warmly support the proposals that are before the House.The first one that I briefly mention is the quarterly payments proposal. This is supported by our political opponents and is, of course, a very important measure to ensure the satisfactory enforcement of the superannuation guarantee charge. In April 2001, the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services released a report on this matter. It expressed concern about the potential loss of investment earnings for employees, potential loss of entitlements in the event of insolvency, the increased loss of members, the impact on disability income protection insurance and less frequent contributions. The government made its consultations extensively with the industry and, in accordance with its approach in these matters, agreed that this was an appropriate reform, and it comes before the House today.Another important proposal concerns superannuation for the young and the aged. In this regard, I have already mentioned some examples from my own electorate where those deficiencies in the system to date had meant that there were real concerns about the effectiveness of the current system. I am delighted, therefore, that those issues are addressed.Other proposals include helping self-employed people access the superannuation system, and this measure was also foreshadowed in the policy statement A Better Superannuation System. I will make some brief comparisons to show the benefits that this law will introduce, especially to help self-funded retirees, of whom I have many in my electorate.Under the current law, the limit on the amount of contributions that are fully tax deductible to an eligible person is $3,000 and contributions over $3,000, if any, are 75 per cent deductible up to the age based limit. Under the new proposals, the limit on the amount of contributions that are fully tax deductible will be $5,000 and contributions over $5,000 will be 75 per cent deductible up to a total deduction equal to the age based limit. I suggest that this proposal is also very worth while in bringing a larger number of self-employed persons into the superannuation system, having regard to the fact that there are not as many involved as the figures, which I have earlier mentioned, disclose.The Labor Party has opposed a number of these measures. The opposition's spokesperson on retirement incomes and savings, consumer affairs, the Hon. Nick Sherry, told the Financial Review back in March:The ALP hoped to have a detailed policy (on Superannuation) to present before the next federal election.Then he said he would prepare a paper on policy options for the shadow ministry by March, after consulting industry and consumer groups. He said further:We're starting with a clean sheet of paper. I will be looking at every option.Those comments as recorded were initially made on 9 January. We have had, since that time, no such detailed policy paper and no presentation of that type. One asks what the ALP has in mind in respect of superannuation. Whilst the government is implementing wide-ranging reforms to improve superannuation for all Australians, the real question is whether the blank paper which Senator Sherry had in front of him earlier this year holds anything more for Australians who have retirement programs in mind.We did hear the Leader of the Opposition articulate, on 16 May, some cuts in relation to the superannuation surcharge tax and reduced superannuation contributions tax levels. What was proposed was a two per cent reduction in the contributions tax. According to preliminary accrual revenue assessments by the Treasury, this was going to cost the revenue some $2.075 billion. Further proposed was a reduction in the contributions tax for people aged 40 and over, to 11.5 per cent. This was going to add to those costs to $2.3 billion. Contrary to what was said by the member for Rankin in his comments earlier, the Treasury figures and the Treasurer's response did take into account the savings proposed by the opposition in their response to the budget, because what was contemplated was a saving of some $370 million by not proceeding with the surcharge phase-out as per the budget timing.When these points were made by the Treasurer in response to the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply, further hurried responses to find savings that would balance the books, such as withdrawing about $250 million every year from Commonwealth public servants and opposing the coalition's policy to allow superannuation splitting amongst couples, did not address the shortfall—the super bungle, if I can put it that way. They still left about $1 billion over four years in shortfall.The question still arises: where is the comprehensive policy that is going to answer the government's detailed program to improve superannuation and retirement incomes in this country? The answer is that it does not exist. The only program worth supporting is before the people and this parliament. It is the one which I have mentioned, and I warmly endorse it.13:56:003162McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I am pleased to talk today on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 and the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2002. Superannuation protection is becoming a more and more important issue as the number of Australian workers who contribute to superannuation continues to increase. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, in its publication APRA Insight, states that 88 per cent of all workers contribute to superannuation. Even though a massive percentage of Australian workers contribute to superannuation, understanding of the system remains low. The minister's issues paper `Options for improving the safety of superannuation' identifies this and makes the following quite alarming statement about the public's interpretation of the term `superannuation guarantee': Arguably the expression `superannuation guarantee' in the context of compulsory contributions may reinforce public perceptions of a Government guarantee.There is no government guarantee on superannuation, contrary to public perceptions. The paper continues:Prudential supervision does not guarantee that a fund will not fail, but rather tries to minimise the chance of that failure.This is why it is important to require employers to make superannuation guarantee contributions for their employees on a quarterly basis. My colleague the member for Wills first floated this policy in the last parliament, when he twice introduced private members' bills on this matter, in 2000 and again in 2001. The government let these bills lapse. The member for Werriwa also introduced a private member's bill, on 11 March this year, on this issue. Why did Labor introduce its own private members' bills on this issue? The answer is: Labor's commitment to the protection of workers' entitlements such as superannuation.Many Australians are familiar with corporate collapse and the loss of employee entitlements. The Australian community became aware of this issue when National Textiles, the company of the Prime Minister's brother Stan Howard, went broke and was subsequently bailed out by the government. Funnily enough, that company is the only one to have been bailed out so far with regard to employee entitlements. Under the existing provisions of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act, employers are currently required to make only one superannuation guarantee contribution on behalf of their employees per year. Given that the government's employee entitlement scheme does not cover super at all, workers have no protection if their employer fails to pay their superannuation contributions. If a company goes broke, the employee could lose all their superannuation payments for the whole year or even the life of their employment.There have been examples of non-compliance with the super guarantee legislation over a number of years. My colleague the member for Wills, in the excellent speech he made in October 2000, outlined many examples. Back in 1999 I spoke about the experiences of a constituent of mine, Mr Marcus Ogborne. His unscrupulous employer had not paid over $5,000 into his super fund. This employer was at the time the president of the industry association for the industry he worked in. Mr Ogborne was lucky. He applied through the ATO to chase up his superannuation, and after waiting about 18 months he finally did receive his money. What Mr Ogborne missed out on was the benefit of compound interest on his investment over the period of time that he thought he had made his superannuation contributions. The ATO does collect a GIC in regard to the money it collects, but that does not compound on the funds already in the employee's super fund.Do these examples mean that all employers are failing to pay their superannuation guarantee on behalf of their employees? No. A vast majority of employers conscientiously pay their employees' superannuation on a regular basis into the relevant superannuation fund, but it is the minority who do not who are the problem.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Stirling will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice3163316314:00:003163Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. On World Environment Day, is the Prime Minister aware of last week's ratification of the Kyoto protocol on climate change by the European Union and yesterday's ratification by Japan? Given the Prime Minister's statement that the government is committed to meeting Australia's 2010 Kyoto target for greenhouse gas emissions, isn't it in Australia's interests to ratify the Kyoto protocol, thereby helping to ensure that other countries meet their targets and enabling Australian industry to benefit from emissions trading and other flexibility mechanisms under the protocol?3163Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. It is not in Australia's interests to ratify the Kyoto protocol. The reason it is not in Australia's interests to ratify the Kyoto protocol is that, because the arrangements currently exclude—and are likely under present settings to continue to exclude—both developing countries and the United States, for us to ratify the protocol would cost us jobs and damage our industry. That is why the Australian government will continue to oppose ratification. You cite the example of Japan. Japan is a massive energy importer; Australia is a massive net exporter of energy. One of the things that makes Australia almost unique in this context is that as a developed country we are a major net exporter of energy. The idea that you can sign up to a protocol that would facilitate the export of dirty industries from this country into developing countries and thereby facilitate the flight of jobs from this country—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It amazes me that a Labor Party that claims, from time to time, to represent the interests of the working men and women of this country would sign up to an arrangement that would hurt this country. As with so many things—indeed as with all things—this government will continue above everything else to assert the Australian national interest. The Australian national interest does not lie in ratifying Kyoto: that is why we are opposed to it. XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fremantle is aware that the chair has never denied her the right to the call when the standing orders offer it.316414:03:003164Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the March quarter national accounts figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics?3164Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for his question. I can advise the House that in the March quarter of 2002 the Australian economy grew at 0.9 per cent for the quarter, to a record 4.2 per cent through the year—the strongest growth of any of the major Western industrialised countries. In addition to that strong growth, inflation is low. The March quarter national accounts confirm that inflation over the course of the year was 2.5 per cent.Australia's growth was led principally by household consumption, which was very strong, reflecting good consumer confidence and low interest rates as well as additional job creation through the March quarter. Dwelling investment contributed to the growth, although the government expects that that will not continue as the housing cycle has probably peaked. Net exports made a contribution to growth. Exports were very strong in the March quarter, and I pay tribute to Australia's exporters for the work that they have done. As the world economy begins to pick up, exports should continue to pick up and contribute to growth over future quarters.The measures of wages were quite restrained with non-farm average earnings rising 3.7 per cent through the year and productivity rising 4.4 per cent. So productivity was even outstripping wage growth, which is a good sign. The profit sector was at historical highs, with profit share to GDP at 23.8 per cent. Gross mixed income was up an exceptional 11.7 per cent through the year—the highest since 1989. I just want to mention this because gross mixed income is sole traders, partners, non-corporate people, farmers and small business people. The fact that that was up 11.7 per cent—the highest since 1989—shows that it has been quite a good year for Australia's farmers and our small businesses, and I pay tribute to them. In a time of global uncertainty and global downturn, the Australian economy remains strong. Our economic security has been tested through the last year but we have come through it in a strong position with a 4.2 per cent growth rate—the highest growth rate of any of the major Western developed countries.Distinguished Visitors316410000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation of parliamentarians from Mexico, and accompanying them is His Excellency the Mexican Ambassador to Australia. On behalf of all members, I extend to our guests a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice3164316414:06:003164Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that after today's interest rate increase families will pay $50 to $60 more a month on the average mortgage than they were paying four weeks ago?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—What did they pay under Labor?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Minister for Small Business and Tourism!DT4Mr CREAN—Treasurer, if the economy is going so well, why are families facing higher interest bills?3164Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Today's announcement by the Reserve Bank of a rise of 25 points in relation to interest rates means that, over the last two months, interest rates have risen by 50 basis points to an official rate of 4¾ per cent. Those two rises reverse the two cuts in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attack—that is, after the terrorist attack which brought down the World Trade Centre, the Reserve Bank of Australia, like most central banks around the world, reduced official interest rates. As the world seems to have stabilised and the economic slowdown around the globe seems to have stabilised, those two cuts have been reversed. If the standard mortgage variable interest rate goes back to 6.55 per cent, as it was before 11 September, it would be the lowest variable mortgage interest rate in 30 years—as it was prior to 11 September. To give you some comparison, when the government was elected in March 1996, the home mortgage variable interest rate was 10½ per cent. That means that, notwithstanding any rise, on a $100,000 mortgage, you would be paying $330 a month less today than when this government was elected. This government was elected when the Labor Party left office with a 10½ per cent interest rate. But that is really being too kind to the Labor Party, because the average interest rate under the Labor Party was very much higher than 10½ per cent. The average interest rate under the Labor Party, I think, was over 12 per cent over its 13 years in government.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, We have seen the way in which the House has deteriorated in the last few days—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition have a point of order?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—This question was clearly—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—If the Leader of the Opposition has a point of order, I will hear him.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Yes. It is a point of order on relevance, and I am prefacing it.Government members interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Is that going to be drawn attention to, Mr Speaker? 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—My point is relevance and it relates to the interest rate increases under him. It is not relevant to answer it by referring to what happened—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, I take the trouble to note questions as they are asked. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Treasurer about increases in dollar terms faced by individuals with mortgages. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—In the last month.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—It is entirely—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—In the last month.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition! It is entirely within standing order 145 for the Treasurer to respond as he has.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I was saying, Mr Speaker, if the standard mortgage variable interest rate should increase to 6.5 per cent, compared to the 10½ per cent when the government was elected, the saving will be $330 a month. But if you were to average the interest rate under the Labor Party over 13 years of government, the average interest rate was 12¾ per cent. That is why we find it fascinating that the Labor Party now views 6½ per cent as something that it can try to make political capital from. I thought I would table one document just to put down the historical record. Of course, interest rates peaked under the Labor Party at 17 per cent. I have here a clipping from the Melbourne Herald of 13 July 1989, when the then president of the ACTU endorsed those interest rates. The then president of the ACTU in July of 1989 was a Mr Crean. According to the Melbourne Herald of 13 July 1989, he endorsed—849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—Was that 1899? How far do you want to go?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Braddon!CT4Mr COSTELLO—We'll go back as far as—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat.849Sidebottom, Sid, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Braddon!2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. When I last looked we were living in the 21st century, and the question was about this year. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. The Treasurer, by any measure, is being relevant to the question asked, and has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am comparing the 6½ per cent to the 17 per cent interest rates under the Labor Party. Mr Crean, the then ACTU president, endorsed Mr Keating's line that high interest rates were the product of rapid domestic consumption. Mr Crean said:The government had to bludgeon demand out of the system through tight monetary policy.At 17 per cent! Bludgeon demand out of the system through tight monetary policy they certainly did. That was his view. An attempt to make political capital on the lowest home mortgage variable interest rate in 30 years sits so well in the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition. I table that cutting.316614:13:003166Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister inform the House on action being taken by the government to locate and remove people who overstay their visas or work unlawfully in Australia? Is the minister aware of any obstacles to the government's efforts to locate people who are unlawfully in the community and so maintain the integrity of both our migration program and our borders?3166Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Petrie for her question, because it does give me an opportunity to reaffirm—as these issues are quite frequently raised as a criticism of the government's efforts to maintain the integrity of our borders—that we are very much involved in field operations around the country to locate, particularly, visitors and temporary entrants who breach visa conditions, overstay or are found to be working unlawfully in Australia. This reflects the government's commitment to protecting our borders. At 30 June there were an estimated 60,000 overstayers in Australia. It is estimated that around half of the people who overstay their visas are working without authority. Of course, they are taking jobs that could very well be undertaken by the unemployed within our own community.My department does work with government agencies, employers, community groups and even unions to locate overstayers. In the last financial year 14,238 overstayers and people breaching visa conditions were located. If you want to know how seriously we are taking that, that effectively doubles what we saw in Labor's last year in office when the number of people located was just 7,080.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—Because there's more of them.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The difference is not that significant in terms of the numbers of overstayers, I might say to the honourable member. What is important is that in relation to these matters some unions have worked very cooperatively with us in some states. One of those has been the CFMEU, which identifies to us people of concern. It does so publicly on occasions. I saw that at a temple in Sydney and I have seen it recently in a church in the western suburbs of Sydney. The CFMEU has passed on information and we follow it up and it helps us considerably.But the question you have to ask yourself is why other parts of that organisation are supporting people who are unlawfully in the community, that have as their slogan `End mandatory detention and let the boats land'. This organisation is one that has harboured those who have escaped immigration detention. It is an organisation that believes that anyone who arrives unlawfully in Australia should be allowed into the community where they can take the low-paid jobs that are often used to get the unemployed back into the work force. That organisation is called the Refugee Action Collective and they boast proudly that the CFMEU in Victoria is organising their mailouts, publishing information in union journals, giving them time to speak at union meetings and providing financial support with union membership funds. The Refugee Action Collective is not about refugees; it is about people who are not refugees seeking to enter Australia to be released into the Australian community and take the very jobs that the unions say they are there to protect. That is the issue. What you need to know is that this is the same union that is supported by people like Senator Cooney and the member for Jagajaga, whose names appear on their publications. 316614:17:003166McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Given your propensity to quote selectively from the Economist magazine, could you confirm that Australian families and small businesses are paying the highest interest rates of any country in the developed world as measured by the survey in its latest edition? Can you confirm, Treasurer, that the three-month market rate, the two-year government bond rate, the 10-year government bond rate and the corporate bond rate are all higher in Australia than in any of the other countries surveyed?3167Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Obviously I do not have the Economist magazine with me, but I will make the point that the standard variable mortgage rate is what people pay rather than the 90-day bill rate or the 10-year bond rate. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Small business?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser has asked his question!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I can tell just from listening to the question that it is completely flawed because what you actually pay is the standard variable mortgage interest rate. Surprisingly enough, in relation to a mortgage you do not pay a 10-year bill rate.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question explicitly related to small business and I expect him to respond to that part of the question.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. The Treasurer is being relevant.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I have already said, in relation to official interest rates, the reversal of the two cuts post September 11 means that mortgage variable interest rates would go back to the lowest level in 30 years, at 6½ per cent. We find it strange that the Labor Party, which had an average of 12¾ per cent, believes it can make political capital out of a standard variable mortgage rate of 6½ per cent. As I said, there was never a standard variable mortgage rate with a six per cent or even with a seven in front of it under the Australian Labor Party.That is why I do not think you will be successful with this cheap attempt to try to make political capital. It is legitimate, when such a cheap attack is made, to compare records. To compare a record, I think that the average under this government has been something like 7¼ per cent compared to 12¾ per cent; or to compare a peak, under this government it was 10½ per cent when we came to office and under Labor was 17 per cent. These are the ways in which you can make these comparable assessments of economic records. Small business overdraft rates are by comparison still very low—and in an economy which is growing at 4.2 per cent. But let me just finish on this point. None of us would want a terrorist event of the order of September 11 to happen again. But when it did happen it was prudent of the Reserve Bank to take out some insurance by loosening monetary policy, as the Federal Reserve did, as the Bank of England did, as the European Central Bank did, as all the central banks around the world did. But we had hoped that, as the US economy stabilised and the world downturn started to recover, that insurance would not be a continuing necessity, as the Reserve Bank made clear in its decision today. The world economy is strengthening. That is not a bad thing for Australia; that is actually a good thing for Australia because it will mean that our exports will be stronger, our economy will grow stronger and there will be more Australians that are in jobs. That is what it is all about—a strong economy which is producing jobs for Australians. That is what the coalition government remains committed to.316714:21:003167Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Does the government remain committed to exempting small business from the unfair dismissal laws? Is there new evidence about the way unfair dismissal laws are hurting small business? Is there any alternative policy in this area, and what is the government's response?3167Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Blair for his question and for his strong support for the small businesses in his electorate. Let me say that the government's present efforts to exempt small business entirely from the operation of the unfair dismissal laws are our 18th attempt to keep faith with small business and to honour the mandate which has been conferred on us now three times. Eighteen times we have tried and 17 times so far members opposite have said no. If the Leader of the Opposition were serious about turning over a new leaf, if he were serious about transcending his conditioning as a born-to-rule union official, he would drop this obsession with the 50-50 rule and he would commit the ALP to getting the unfair dismissal monkey off the back of small business once and for all.The member for Werriwa, the sage of Werriwa, said that oppositions can afford to be irresponsible. The Leader of the Opposition has weakly followed the Latham line on this, as on so many other issues. Oppositions can afford to be irresponsible but government cannot, not even Labor governments. The New South Wales Labor government knows that the unfair dismissal laws are hurting small business and it has announced some changes designed `to wipe out hundreds of speculative unfair dismissal claims in the New South Wales Industrial Commission each year that cost employers millions of dollars in settlements.' On this issue the New South Wales government has even been prepared to drag the unions into line. It has even persuaded John Robertson, the Labour Council chief, to admit that `the system was overloaded and at risk of a cost blow-out'. Mr Robertson claimed `that a number of unfair dismissal agents were flooding the system with hundreds of claims and charging high fees for compensation wins.' If the Carr government can be honest about the job-destroying downside of unfair dismissal laws, why can't the Crean opposition be similarly honest? The truth is that the Leader of the Opposition is not serious about tackling union power. If he were serious about tackling union power, he would forget his obsession with the 50-50 rule and he would take a stand for the fundamental democratic principle of one vote, one value.316814:25:003168Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you recall telling the House in December 1998:We have worked very strongly for the establishment of an international criminal court. I know that members on both sides of the parliament have worked very strongly for this, and I commend them for it. This development ... [has] been extremely important in the march towards greater fulfilment of the goals of the universal declaration [of human rights].Prime Minister, hasn't similar support for the ICC also come from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney-General? Will you be standing by your commitment to the International Criminal Court or will you let those three ministers hang out to dry?3168Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I would have said something to that effect. I do not recall the precise words. I will be charitable with the Leader of the Opposition and acknowledge he may well be right on this occasion, although I will check it.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—Don't be too charitable.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, I won't be that charitable; I will check it. It is true that very strong statements have been made by the foreign minister, by the Attorney-General and others—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—And you.ZD4Mr HOWARD—And by me, and I do not walk away from that at all. Nor do I walk away from the fact that there are a number of people within the Australian community who hold views that I do not always agree with—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I ask no more of the Leader of the Opposition than I asked of his predecessor, and he will meet the same demands or be dealt with.ZD4Mr HOWARD—They do have reservations about this. People are concerned about two things. They are concerned about bringing to the world a process that ensures that atrocities that have been committed over past decades do not remain unpunished. They are also concerned to ensure that this happens in a way that does not improperly compromise Australia's national sovereignty. What the government is endeavouring to do in its internal discussions on this issue is to reach an outcome that satisfies both of those goals. We have in past years been able to establish, through the councils of the United Nations and otherwise, bodies that on an ad hoc basis have dealt with war crimes. That applies at present in relation to many of the alleged war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia. It should also be borne in mind that the conditions precedent to the establishment of that body did involve the assertion of military force by the United States and by a number of the other NATO countries. People who imagine that the mere signature of a treaty on its own will bring about a new world order misunderstand all the experience of the 20th century. I am not going to pass up an opportunity, and the government is not, to be part of an international arrangement that will bring a greater guarantee that people are held to account for injustices and the atrocities they have committed. 84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr Wilkie—You just have.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Swan!ZD4Mr HOWARD—But in the process of doing that I am not going to see the national interest or sovereignty of this country compromised. That is basically what we are going to do. As with so many of the important things, this government will uphold the Australian national interest. 84GWilkie, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Swan!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The reality is that all the experience of the last hundred years ought to remind even the Leader of the Opposition that a mere signature on a treaty is not of itself a guarantee of world peace. It is not of itself a guarantee that people are going to be brought to justice. But what is a guarantee is the collective behaviour of individual nations, and we are going to continue to behave in the traditional democratic fashion of this country. I make the point that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General and others, in the remarks that have been made, have been articulating a position on behalf of the government that has had the full support of the government. We are now engaged in a process of internal consultation. I make no apologies for that. In accordance with the traditions of our two parties, we will take our time according to our processes to resolve our position, and when that occurs we will let you know.83TRudd, Kevin, MP4G4Downer, Alexander, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister for Foreign Affairs! Member for Griffith!4G4Downer, Alexander, MP84GWilkie, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Swan, for the third time!DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that I had already in fact drawn the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the member for Griffith to their obligations.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, the point I make is that, having had that drawn to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, he then continued his interjection, and you did not draw attention again—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat! The Leader of the Opposition is well aware that by any of the standards of the House, and by any of the standards of any occupiers of the chair, reflections on the chair are highly disorderly. 316914:31:003169Ley, Sussan, MPMs LEY00AMNFarrerLP10—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Component suppliers to the car industry are an important employer in my electorate of Farrer. Would the minister inform the House of the impact of recent industrial action on the prospects for continued growth of this vital industry? What is the government's response to this, and is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 3169Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—I thank the member for Farrer for her question. I have visited the electorate of Farrer and, with the member for Farrer, I visited the world-competitive component manufacturer formerly BTR but now Global Transmissions, who are not only supplying Australian car manufacturers but exporting their product across the world. The future of the car industry in Australia is being placed in jeopardy by irresponsible union leadership and lack of leadership by the Labor Party. Since late last year industrial action by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union has cost the car industry in Australia some $400 million worth of production. The AMWU campaign has forced a temporary closure of plants and a stand-down of thousands of workers. Australia's reputation as a supplier is being put at grave risk. The AMWU is at it again. The latest incident involves illegal pickets in the steel industry which, for the last 15 days, have been impeding delivery of essential inputs. This is not the first time that steel supplies to the car industry have been threatened. The continued disruptions of supply have already prompted one car manufacturer to warn that it may be forced to take action by replacing local supplies with imported products costing Australians jobs. The CEO of Holden, Peter Hanenberger, said today:We just can't keep going on like this.Australia's car industry cannot afford this campaign. The global car industry is suffering from massive overcapacity and ruthless cost cutting. Mass retrenchments and plant closures have taken place. To date Australia has been spared from these actions. Under the Howard government's sound economic management, we have seen the car industry in Australia continue to grow, underpinned by an increase in exports now worth some $5 billion. But Australia's reputation as a supplier of first-class automobiles and a reliable supplier to the export market is being hammered into the dust by industrial action. In my discussions with car manufacturing executives in Australia and also overseas, they continue to raise as a major issue the negative impact of continuing industrial action here in Australia. It is disturbing to see that the car industry has a rate of industrial action six times the national average in terms of working days lost per employee. Where does Labor stand on this issue? With their union mates? And where does the Leader of the Opposition stand, and what is he doing? He is doing now what he did last time when he led a group of people—he is doing nothing. In 1987, when he was leader of the ACTU, what did the Leader of the Opposition do? Nothing: `Crean fails to stop crazy car dispute,' Mr Speaker. He was on the payroll of the union then—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—On a point of order under standing order 145, Mr Speaker: when are you going to pull these clowns into line?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lilley is aware that that was a distinct reflection on the chair. He will withdraw that remark. I will hear his point of order reframed.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I withdraw the remark, Mr Speaker. It was not a reflection on you; it was a reflection on the government.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—It was indeed a reflection on the chair.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—The Leader of the Opposition was on the payroll of the unions then and he is on the payroll of the unions now. He was under the control of the—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lalor would be aware that she would not be on her own, and that is one of the difficulties the chair faces.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, you know that statement from the minister to be incorrect and I ask you to get him to withdraw it.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is aware that, under the standing orders, the chair is obliged to ensure that no unparliamentary language is used. If the Leader of the Opposition has been misrepresented, I will, as I always do, provide a facility at the conclusion of question time for the misrepresentation to be corrected.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I will take the opportunity at the appropriate time, but I believe it is important—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will be recognised at the appropriate time.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I think this is an important point. If you are interested in the decorum of this place—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It is a point of order.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, the point of order is that the minister has implied that I am on the payroll of the trade union movement. I am not. I am paid by the people of Australia in my position as Leader of—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition is aware of the point at which he had been misrepresented and that there are other forms of the House.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—How are your shonky tax dodges going up in Broome?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is facilitating the chair enormously by ensuring that the chair is even-handed. I thank the member for Brisbane. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the accusation by the minister goes well beyond that which can be dealt with in the course of a personal explanation. It is an accusation of potentially a criminal offence; it is an accusation of corruption. Always in this chamber, when that issue is raised by either side of the House, it is either in an appropriate debate, which may be a censure debate, or on a motion of substance. It is not permitted to be raised in this way casually.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for Brand, I stand by my earlier ruling because I had genuinely given it as an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to indicate where he had been misrepresented. I did not hear what I would determine to be unparliamentary language, which of course is a quite separate matter. I will check the record and come back to the House shortly after question time if, in fact, I have been in error. But I did not believe unparliamentary language had been used. I have already indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that there will be an opportunity to indicate where he had been misrepresented.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I draw your attention to standing order 76 headed `Personal reflections':All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.The allegation that has been made by the minister is that I am on the payroll of the trade union movement. I am not. It is incorrect. I take offence—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I will be delighted to facilitate the Leader of the Opposition and raise the standards to the new point he has set, and enforce them. Nothing could suit me better. The minister will withdraw any imputation and continue his answer.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—If it assists the House, I will rephrase the statement that the—Opposition members interjecting—WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—Mr Speaker, I am happy to withdraw it and rephrase the statement. I have withdrawn the statement, but I will say that the Leader of the Opposition is at the beck and call of the unions and that the tentacles of the AMWU stretch right down to the frontbench of the opposition.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—There is no hurry, Leader of the Opposition, I have all day.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I take offence at the rephrased allegation that I am at the beck and call of the trade union movement. I am not. I take offence and I ask that it be withdrawn.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The standing orders are so written that there is a separation between people using unparliamentary language and misrepresentation, and there are different facilities for dealing with both. I did not hear the minister utter anything that was unparliamentary. I call the minister.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—Thank you, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. Leader of the Opposition.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am seeking consistency. That was your response the first time I raised the earlier allegation. When I then said I took offence and asked for it to be withdrawn, you complied, and I thank you for that. I am asking the same thing this time round. Whether you heard it or not, Mr Speaker, I take offence. I ask for it to be withdrawn, consistent with your earlier ruling.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: all the minister said was that the Leader of the Opposition is at the beck and call of the union movement. That is a very touchy, very thin-skinned, very precious Leader of the Opposition.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—When the House has come to order—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Did the Chief Opposition Whip wish to draw my attention to something?7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—I did, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order—when you were asking this parliament to come to order—I reminded you, sir, in an interjection that it was the government side that was making the rabble noise, not the opposition side.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I could have been confused over the last 10 seconds. I have dealt with this matter. I have facilitated the Leader of the Opposition. In the last instance what was said is not something that can be withdrawn, because it was not unparliamentary. In fact, if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to claim to have been misrepresented, the facilities of the House exist, just as they have for 100 years.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing order 76 states:All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.There was imputation of improper motive; therefore the minister should withdraw. Have you ruled that he should not?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I indicate to the Manager of Opposition Business that if any occupier of the chair were to interpret standing order 76 literally, scarcely a question or an answer would survive. I have already indicated that I will give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to indicate where he has been misrepresented at the conclusion of question time.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—The fact remains that the AMWU contributed $2.6 million to the ALP campaign over the last five years. If the Leader of the Opposition controls the union, I challenge him to go from this House after question time and tell Dougie Cameron and the AMWU to go back to work and save the car industry.Honourable members interjecting— 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Did the Chief Opposition Whip want to draw my attention to something a little earlier?7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—If you choose to have my advice, I am only too happy to oblige.317214:47:003172Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is the minister aware that, despite increased security concerns since September 11, there are now 13,900 Defence Force personnel whose security clearances are overdue for review? Is the minister aware that the Department of Defence expects the number to increase? What will you do to reassure the Australian people that you will clear this backlog, Minister?3172Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for her question, but I will take it on notice and get back to her at the end of parliament.317214:48:003172Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. As the member who represents the best wool growing region in the whole nation—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Wannon will come to his question.8H4Mr HAWKER—I ask the Minister for Trade: will he inform the House how the Australian wool industry is contributing to the nation's overall export performance?3172Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Wannon for his question. Implied in the question is obviously that today is Wear Wool Wednesday. I had not noticed any recognition of that on the opposition benches, although I suppose there are not too many rural and regional representatives on that side of the House.Opposition members interjecting—SU5Mr VAILE—You are all wearing wool, are you? You will have to be a bit more explicit about it. In direct response to the question by the member for Wannon about the contribution the Australian wool industry has made to our fantastic export effort, Australia is still the world's largest wool exporter, as you would well recognise. We export 98 per cent of Australia's wool clip. Last year the wool clip was around 800,000 tonnes. In 2001 wool exports were our ninth largest export commodity. Wool contributed more than $3.5 billion to our export bottom line. Interestingly, the same amount of money in our tax reform policy was removed off the backs of our exporters in Australia—$3.5 billion was removed off the backs of Australia's exporters. Australia's wool producers earned $3.5 billion for the national economy, and they did that in a fantastic way.Today, Australia's main wool export destinations are China, Italy, Taiwan and India. Interestingly, we had in the gallery earlier some representatives from the parliament of Mexico. Mexico is one of the new wool export markets that we have established. Last week, whilst in Mexico, we got agreement from the Mexican government to remove the tariffs that had been applied to all Australian exports into that marketplace. It is important today, on Wear Wool Wednesday—hopefully many members of the opposition have Australian wool garments on, albeit not displaying the tuft of wool on Wear Wool Wednesday—to recognise wool's very important contribution to Australia's export industries. Over the years wool has been through some indifferent circumstances and some tough circumstances, a lot of the time under the rule of a Labor government, but of course at the moment it has come back to prosperity under a Liberal-National Party government. We remember the days of the disputes about the wide comb, when the shearers unions were on strike. The union involved then was the AWU. Of course, today the AWU, compared with the AMWU, is probably one of the more responsible unions—if there is such a thing—with regard to trade policy.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—It's the Shorten faction.SU5Mr VAILE—It is the Shorten faction; that is right. If the Australian Labor Party are going to remain dominated by the union movement, they might give 60 per cent of their attention on trade policy to the AWU—that sector led by Bill Shorten, not the union led by Dougie Cameron which we have just heard about and which is crucifying the Australian automotive industry. The Australian union movement really represent only 25 per cent of Australian workers, but they dominate 60 per cent of the Australian Labor Party.317314:52:003173Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Minister, why are you publicising on the official education minister's web site the notorious criminal Mark `Chopper' Read's most recent book? Minister, why do you think that it is appropriate to place a violent illustration of a man's hand gripping a dagger dripping with blood on the official education minister's web site next to pictures of schoolchildren? Minister, when will you remove the book's cover from this government web site and cease publicising `Chopper' Read's book?3173Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thank the member for Jagajaga for her question. I would like to think that the humour that was supportive of her question from behind her did not relate to the seriousness of this particular issue. I said yesterday that the author of this book, Mr Mark `Chopper' Read, as he is described on the cover, had spent six years in prison for murder. In fact, according to the Herald Sun today, Mr `Chopper' Read said of my description of him as a self-confessed murderer, criminal, assailant, arsonist and torturer, `Well, he's got that right.' He went on to say:It does not mean it's the truth; it just means that I have said I've done these things.The point needs to be made that the issue here is that, as Australia's Minister for Education, Science and Training, on behalf of the government I have taken a stand—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPPG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! Before I recognise the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Port Adelaide must be aware that persistent interjections are highly disorderly.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: when will he remove it from the government web site?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. I am well aware of the question and I assume the minister will come to it. He is entitled to do so. RW5Dr NELSON—The argument and the issue here is whether or not those of us who profess to lead in education believe that a person who has been a convicted criminal and who spent more than 18 years in jail should be promoted by responsible education authorities as an author whose books should be endorsed as recommended reading in the state of Queensland for senior secondary students. If the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Minister for Education had been able to pass the commonsense test which says that this person should not be promoted as an author for recommended reading in schools, this matter would not even have been discussed in federal parliament.The point also needs to be made that a spokesman on behalf of the member for Jagajaga was reported in today's West Australian as saying that she did not support the call for the book to be removed. In the process of advising parents of what a Queensland state education authority is recommending that their students read and also recommending the virtues of an author of a book, in making sure that parents are aware of the nature of this book and publicising it through the federal Department of Education, Science and Training web site, I am trying to—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, on a further point of order on relevance: I wonder whether the minister has taken any notice of your instruction to come to the point of—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat! The minister is being relevant. That is what the standing orders oblige him to be and I am hearing him.RW5Dr NELSON—The important point is that the Labor Party has said both in Queensland and here that it believes the decision whether their children should be reading this book in schools is one that will be made by schools and by parents. They need to understand what this book looks like. It is on our web site and it is endorsed as reading material by the Australian Labor Party and the member for Jagajaga.317414:57:003174Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations representing the Special Minister of State. What steps are the government taking to prevent electoral fraud? Are there any obstacles to achieving clean ballots and what is the government's response to them?3174Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Dawson for her question and I congratulate her on her commitment to ensure that Queensland has a clean electoral roll and clean ballots. A clean electoral roll is the absolute prerequisite of a healthy democracy. However, as things stand, the electoral roll is far from rort proof. Unfortunately, as things stand, it is easier to go on the electoral roll than it is to sign up at the local video store.The government want to protect democracy and, to that end, we have tried to ensure that all new enrollees should provide some form of ID before they go on the roll. It is a simple, straightforward, innocuous change but for some reason it is too much for members opposite because, shamefully, they have rejected these proposals in the Senate. Wittingly or not, members opposite are perpetuating a rorter's charter. That is the sad truth. We have seen some extraordinary double standards recently amongst members of the Labor Party. For instance, on page 4 of the Age on 17 May, the Victorian Attorney-General attacked the federal government for wanting would-be voters to produce ID. On page 7 of the same Age newspaper, the Victorian transport minister announced legislation to give inspectors the power to demand ID off all tram commuters, allegedly to stop ticket rorts.Members opposite think that fare evasion is a worse offence than rorting the fundamental democracy upon which this country depends. What could we expect from a party which operates under the standard of anything goes? The member for Barton has just revealed that in his electorate he has a branch of 188 members from one ethnic group, of whom 77 were not on the roll. To the credit of the member for Barton, he is very much against ethnic branch stacking; but trust the caucus to produce at least one member to stand up and defend the sacred principle of ethnic branch stacking! The member for Watson was defending ethnic branch stacking in yet another flagrant act of defiance of the authority of the Leader of the Opposition. If the Leader of the Opposition was at all serious about supporting democracy he would start by cleaning up his own party, by ending his obsession with the 50-50 rule and by supporting the fundamental democratic principle of one vote, one value.317515:01:003175Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is again to the minister for education. Minister, when will you remove Chopper Read's book cover from the government web site it is on and cease publicising Chopper Read's book?3175Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thank the member for Jagajaga again for the question. The photograph of the cover of the book, which she will also notice says, `Authored by Mark “Chopper” Read', will be removed from my web site when the Australian Labor Party is prepared to make sure that Mr Read is not promoted as a credible and legitimate role model to Australian students and in particular in the state Queensland. Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The House will come to order!PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—You are the promoter.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—A straight one down the middle and you cannot play it.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser!RW5Dr NELSON—The Australian Labor Party has said through the Queensland government that it will leave it in the hands of schools and parents to decide whether or not Mr Read is an appropriate author to be promoted to schools, having endorsed this particular book. In order for parents to understand what exactly they are dealing with, apart from needing to know what the cover of the book is about—which actually says a lot about not only the content of the book but also its author—I should also remind the House of the seriousness of this issue for Australian parents.I refer to the joint judgment of the justices of the Full Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania in the case of Mr Mark Brandon Read v. the Queen. Mr Read was jailed at the age of 17 on two charges of assault. In 1974 he did a month in prison for being armed with an offensive weapon. Then he was also imprisoned for assaulting police. In 1975 he did six months in prison for burglary. Then for assault, impersonating a police officer, robbery: two years in prison. Then armed robbery: 12 months in prison in 1975. In 1978, for grievous bodily harm, he was sentenced to two years. According to his own evidence, he shot a man with a shotgun, and in his own words, `blew his leg off'. Five weeks later he was sentenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria to 12 years in prison for the crime of abduction and at the same time to two years in prison for malicious injury. The circumstances of the abduction were that he went into a County Court of Victoria, brandishing a shotgun. Then, in order to have a friend released, he sought to abduct the presiding judge.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Has he got you on commission? You are better than Harry M. Miller.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Hunter is warned!RW5Dr NELSON—This criminal record goes on and on and concludes at the time when he was convicted of wilful damage and recklessly endangering life, for which he was sentenced to three years in prison on each charge—some of which was concurrent, the effective aggregate sentence for the offences being five years imprisonment. He had shot a man in the stomach and set fire to the house of another man.83ERipoll, Bernie, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Oxley is warned!RW5Dr NELSON—Mr Read is not a man who is filled with remorse or who is doing everything he can to see that Australians live in a safer society. He is a man who is profiting on the back of his career. He is trying to use his career to promote himself and in this case to promote not only himself but his own credibility into Australian schools, aided and abetted by the Australian Labor Party. It also needs to be asked, if there is not leadership shown by people in positions of authority in education to make sure that these kinds of people are not promoted as legitimate role models for young people, how we can possibly expect to live in a society a decade from now in which the right choices are made by young Australians.BV5Adams, Dick, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Would the member for Lyons like me to implement the standing orders as requested earlier in terms of imputation?BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—Harry M. Nelson—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lyons!317615:05:003176Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is to the minister for agriculture, representing the minister for the environment. On this World Environment Day, could you advise the House of the government's ongoing commitment to the care and management of our nation's natural systems? How does the government's unprecedented level of funding and policy innovation support the goal of protecting and conserving our natural assets for sustainable use by future generations? Are you aware of any alternative environmental policies?3176Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for drawing attention to the fact that it is not only National Wool Day but also World Environment Day. I am happy to respond to the issues that he has raised. He is one who has taken a very keen interest in environmental issues. I am acting for Dr Kemp today because he is actually in Indonesia, where he is receiving an award from the World Wide Fund for Nature for the leadership that he is taking to preserve the planet's natural wealth. He is one of a handful of people to receive the World Wide Fund for Nature's `gift to the earth' award. I think that is an extraordinary recognition of his personal contribution to the environment. But I am sure he would be prepared to share his award with the members of the government, the members of the coalition parties, who have done so much over recent years for the Australian environment. It has been this party that has reversed the years of neglect of environmental issues under Labor. They used to talk plenty but actually deliver nothing.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—It hasn't been reversed. Read your own report!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Wills!GT4Mr TRUSS—It took this government to introduce the Natural Heritage Trust, which was opposed by Labor all the way along.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Wills is warned!GT4Mr TRUSS—The volunteers working for the Natural Heritage Trust were repeatedly criticised and ridiculed by the Leader of the Opposition today for their contributions to the environment. To this day, when the Natural Heritage Trust is mentioned we hear nothing but ridicule from members opposite. The reality is that this $1.5 billion program, which on 1 July commences stage 2, adding a further $1 billion to make it $2.5 billion—provides major programs around the nation to help protect our environment. In addition, there is $1.4 billion for the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. This is $4 billion towards environmental programs that Labor would never have thought of, would never have delivered. They would be standing up on World Environment Day criticising people but having no record of achievement whatsoever. But it is not just that alone; there is the commitment with communities, with the states, with local government to working towards projects under the NAP and the NHT. This government introduced a national oceans policy, one of the first in the world to have an integrated ecosystems based approach to managing our ocean resources. We have worked it to help protect threatened species, particularly in recent years in dealing with the protection of migratory fish stocks and, of course, the preservation of whales by the moratorium on whaling.The national environment protection measures that we have undertaken up the coastline represent a real demonstration of our commitment to our coastal environment. Then there is the work we have done in wetlands: eliminating weeds, feral animals and the like. This is a record of a government that really cares about the environment and which has the runs on the board. Those runs on the board are being recognised today in Indonesia, where our minister is receiving this award in recognition of this country's leadership in environmental issues. Congratulations, Dr Kemp. Congratulations to this government for its achievements on World Environment Day.317715:09:003177Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Minister, are you aware that Australia's soon to be Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Lieutenant General Peter Cosgrove, has said that Australia's prosperity depends on Asian language studies? Minister, did you know he said that language abilities were central to peacekeeping in East Timor and that it is `impossible to overstate the importance of learning the customs and language of our neighbours'? Minister, will you take Lieutenant General Peter Cosgrove's comments seriously and reverse your decision announced last month to abolish the $30 million a year Commonwealth Asian language schools program?RW5Dr NELSON—The Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Peter Cosgrove, is quite right, as are many others, to express the importance of languages other than English in Australia. The history of national Asian languages and curriculum studies in Australian schools is that in 1994-95, out of the Council of Australian Governments, the then Commonwealth government agreed with the states and territories to go into a four-year funding agreement whereby the Commonwealth would kick-start the study of Asian languages in Australian schools. Then in 1999, under my predecessor, the member for Goldstein, the federal government announced that it would re-announce a program for three years that would end at the end of the year 2002. In fact, the first page of the 1999 strategy for stage 2 of the national Asian languages and curriculum studies in Australian schools specifically said that the Commonwealth would fund at approximately $30 million a year for another three years, in 1999, until the end of the year 2002.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fremantle is warned!RW5Dr NELSON—That means that some $207 million has been invested by the Commonwealth government in supporting national Asian languages and studies in schools. The arrangements were, by the way, that the state and territory governments would take on what is their fundamental responsibility for funding these important programs at the end of the year 2002. Honourable members might be interested to hear that on 3 May, when the acting director of curriculum for the Education Department, Pam Moss, was asked by Verity James from the ABC in Perth whether all was lost, she said:No, it certainly isn't, Verity. I should start by saying that the statement that the Commonwealth is going to axe Asian language programs in schools is not actually correct. The state government decides what programs are offered in schools. The language program in Western Australia has actually been in operation since 1995, with substantial funding from the state government and funding from the Commonwealth as well.In addition, the Commonwealth is continuing with the $20 million a year languages other than English program in Australian schools. The $1.2 million the Commonwealth commits to the Asian Education Foundation, which has produced Asian curriculum study materials for 20 per cent of Australian schools, will continue. I have instructed my department to work with a consultant to look at the whole process of Asian and other languages in Australian schools. And at the moment we are also committing, along with the states, $6 million through the Australian course curriculum online initiative to develop Indonesian, Japanese and Chinese languages to support Australian students. This $207 million investment by the Commonwealth government has supported the professional development of teachers and the development of curriculum materials. It is now, with the GST, the responsibility of the states, as Mr Peter Beattie said, to support the teaching of students in languages other than English in Australian schools.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—Mr Speaker, I ask whether the minister would be prepared to table the document from which he was so extensively quoting to inform us of how we could learn Chinese online.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Was the minister quoting from a confidential document?RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr Nelson—Yes. I cannot table it.317815:14:003178King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—My question is also directed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister inform the House of increases in funding for state government schools in the budget, and is he aware of any comments and policies in this important area? 3178Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and for his very strong interest in schooling and, in particular, government schools. In this year's budget, the government increased its funding to Australian schools by 6½ per cent, which takes it to $6.6 billion.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Hunter must be aware that I am extending to him more grace than he is entitled to.RW5Dr NELSON—The Commonwealth government this year has increased its funding to Australian government schools by 5.7 per cent. That means that over a six-year period funding for Australian government state schools by the federal government has increased by some 52 per cent when enrolments in government schools have increased by only 1.4 per cent. It is important that honourable members understand that state government schools are funded, maintained and regulated by state governments. As the federal minister for education, I cannot even go into a state school without the permission of the state minister for education. In fact, the 69 per cent of Australian students—that is, 2.27 million students—who attend public state schools receive 78 per cent of all of the public funds that support the education of Australian students. Further to that, one million students—or 31 per cent of students—in Catholic and independent schools receive 22 per cent of the public funds.Yesterday the New South Wales government delivered its budget. Honourable members might be interested to know that in the federal budget the Howard government increased its funding to New South Wales state government schools by 5.7 per cent. Mr Speaker and honourable members, by how much do you think that the New South Wales government increased its funding for its state government schools?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—About the same?RW5Dr NELSON—You would like to think it would be about 5.7 per cent, Mr Speaker and Prime Minister, but it was not 5.7 per cent. My department advised me this morning that the New South Wales government increased its funding in its budget for its state schools by two per cent on its spending from last year. In other words, where are the missing millions? If the funding had been increased by 5.7 per cent, there would have been $202 million more available for students in New South Wales state schools. It is like the situation in Victoria: if the state government had increased its funding for its state government schools by 5.3 per cent—as we did in Victoria—instead of 2.9 per cent, there would have been $95 million more for students in Victorian state government schools. The member for Jagajaga needs to make sure that Australians understand the facts. 00AMRKing, Catherine, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Ballarat!RW5Dr NELSON—The facts are that state and territory governments are primarily responsible for funding state government schools. The message to the states is: keep up with the Commonwealth.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper and, through you, I remind the opposition that they wasted a quarter of an hour with completely frivolous points of order.Personal Explanations317915:18:003179Mr CREAN,MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?DT4Mr CREAN,MPMr CREAN—Yes, on two occasions.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.DT4Mr CREAN,MPMr CREAN—The Minister for Small Business and Tourism said, firstly, that I was on the payroll of the trade union movement; I am not. Secondly, he said that I was at the beck and call of the trade union movement. I represent the people of Australia. I am beholden to no group. This is a complete distortion—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The House will come to order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Is that the end of it?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I provided the Leader of the Opposition with an opportunity to indicate where he had been misrepresented. He indicated he been misrepresented on two occasions and the way in which he had been misrepresented. That is what the standing orders provide.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—But now I have a question.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—As he is aware, I was unaware of that.Questions to the Speaker3179317915:20:003179Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, in future, if these allegations are to be made, do my personal explanations constitute sufficient grounds for you to rule those statements out of order by those perpetrating them? If not, we have a very unfair system in which an allegation can be made during question time and the answer not be immediately responded to.3179SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The Leader of the Opposition is well aware that this matter has been canvassed by my predecessors in the chair and by me on four occasions in the last two sitting weeks. The Hansard provides a comprehensive report of my response, which is consistent with that of my predecessors. Of course, I cannot prevent anybody from making any statements in the House on either side. Every occupier of the chair presumes that those statements are being made in good faith. There is no facility for me to require particular statements to be withdrawn. If someone is misrepresented, then that is what the facility that has just been used by the Leader of the Opposition is meant for. In addition to this opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to indicate that he had been misrepresented, it is of course beholden on all of us to say in the House only those things that we believe can be authenticated. 317915:21:003179Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, further to that comment, I draw your attention to standing order 77, which says, `When any offensive ... words are used ... the Speaker shall intervene.' If you have previously ruled a matter as offensive, will you then intervene subsequently to rule it out of order?3179SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I need to indicate, once again—I think it is for the third occasion this afternoon—that statements made that misrepresent a position can be corrected by the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else doing as they have just done. If in fact unparliamentary language is used, of course I require it to be withdrawn.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Or offensive language?10000The SPEAKER—Yes. I need to qualify that. Consistent with what all of my predecessors have done, I do not want offensive words used in the parliament. But, as everyone is well aware, there are occasions when in the heat of the moment, on both sides, words are used that are inappropriate. The degree to which people take offence varies from time to time. Only the Speaker can determine whether or not a word is offensive. But, in the instance of the Leader of the Opposition, he claimed to have been misrepresented rather than having had offensive words used against him.318015:23:003180McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—Mr Speaker, in the normal course, obviously it is the appropriate thing for any member to use the personal explanation session at the end of question time, and we do; but there are some allegations that are more serious and cannot be allowed to stand for so long. The House of Representatives Practice on page 490 says:The practice of the House, based on that of the House of Commons, is that Members can only direct a charge against other Members or reflect upon their character or conduct upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. I think the statements made by the minister with regard to the Leader of the Opposition clearly fit into that category and therefore they did enable you to take action at that time to require him to desist unless he was prepared to move a motion. They were not of a character that justified waiting until the end of question time. That practice has developed because some allegations are more serious than merely misstating one's position, which is something we can correct in the normal course of matters by a personal explanation.3180SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I hear the statement made by the member for Fraser. I will reflect on it, and I will also investigate what has happened in past parliaments to see what has been allowed or not allowed as offensive allegations and tags. I think that will be very helpful for all of us.Personal Explanations318015:24:003180Ms MACKLIN,MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?PG6Ms MACKLIN,MPMs MACKLIN—I do.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may proceed.PG6Ms MACKLIN,MPMs MACKLIN—The Minister for Education, Science and Training said in question time that I had endorsed the book by Chopper Read. I have done no such thing. I would say again that the only person who is promoting the book in this place is him.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. She has indicated where she has been misrepresented.15:25:003180Mr LEO McLEAY,MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the member for Watson claim to have been misrepresented?4I4Mr LEO McLEAY,MPMr LEO McLEAY—Most grievously, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Watson may proceed.4I4Mr LEO McLEAY,MPMr LEO McLEAY—During question time, the Leader of the House said I supported ethnic branch stacking. I have never supported ethnic branch stacking, but I do support the right of permanent residents to be members of political parties.15:25:003180Ms HALL,MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Mr Speaker, I would like to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the member for Shortland claim to have been misrepresented?83NMs HALL,MPMs HALL—Yes.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Shortland may proceed.83NMs HALL,MPMs HALL—Last night when I was speaking to the appropriation bill, the member for Paterson stated in a point of order that I had dramatically misled the House when I stated that he did not support the federal government giving any money to Energy Australia Stadium. This is not true. At approximately 7.20 on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 at Canberra Airport, the member for Paterson told me that he did not support the federal government giving any money—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for Shortland!83NMs HALL,MPMs HALL—for the upgrade of the Newcastle Knights home ground to Energy Australia—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Shortland will either wait for the chair or resume her seat.83NMs HALL,MPMs HALL—My apologies.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Shortland is aware that she cannot advance an argument; she can only indicate where she has been misrepresented. She has done that. If her meeting with the member for Paterson at a particular airport indicates a further misrepresentation, I will hear her; otherwise, she is out of order. 83NMs HALL,MPMs HALL—Mr Speaker, I was identifying the time and place. It seems to me that the member for Paterson says one thing in private—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—In that case, the member for Shortland will resume her seat.Questions to the Speaker3181318115:27:003181Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a similar question to that raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Points of order taken under standing order 76 may be offensive but what is of greater gravity is the improper imputation. That is what was being objected to, and it should be dealt with differently from merely offensive words, as disorderly as they may be.3181SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am delighted by the passion on both sides of the House to ensure that offensive words are not used. To ensure that I am able to exercise my judgment from an informed point of view and not create any precedent, I will check what words my predecessors have deemed to be offensive or not offensive in reference to members.Personal Explanations318115:27:003181Mrs IRWIN,MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the member for Fowler claim to have been misrepresented?83ZMrs IRWIN,MPMrs IRWIN—Yes.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.83ZMrs IRWIN,MPMrs IRWIN—Yesterday in the House during the debate on the appropriation bill, the member for Barker quoted selectively from my speech in that debate. The member's quotes were completely out of context, and any fair reading of my speech—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fowler must indicate—83ZMrs IRWIN,MPMrs IRWIN—would show the true meaning of my words.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: under the precedents of personal explanation, an issue of context would hardly be misrepresentation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—As the minister is aware, I had interrupted the member for Fowler. The member for Fowler must indicate a specific issue on which she has been misrepresented.Questions to the Speaker3181318115:28:003181Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Speaker, my question concerns page 191 and following pages of House of Representatives Practice, and it relates to an article which appeared on the front page of today's Australian and was written by the journalist Mr Price. I quote to you the words which I wish to draw to your attention:Much of the blame for the crankiness this budget session rests with the Speaker. A series of shocking rulings by Neil Andrew in the past week has undermined his authority and encouraged rabbledom.There's a knack to appearing—EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member for Perth is plainly attempting to pervert the standing orders to reflect on you in a way which is completely out of order.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—It would be uncharacteristic for the member for Perth to reflect on the chair and for that reason I had allowed him to continue, but he of course understands the obligations he faces. The member for Perth is allowed to continue.5V5Mr STEPHEN SMITH—Mr Speaker, before I continue with the quote let me make this point advisedly: I would not associate myself with such comments unless it was on a substantive motion. I am asking you a question. To ask that question, I need—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Perth would be aware that, far from denying him the call, I facilitated him.5V5Mr STEPHEN SMITH—I go on with his quote:There's a knack to appearing non-biased while looking after your mates. Andrew doesn't have it. If he were refereeing at the World Cup, Tokyo and Seoul would be declaring a state of emergency.He continues:While Andrew has been harsh on Opposition interjections, he gives Abbott enormous licence to belittle, mock and ridicule.My question, Mr Speaker—EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Perth will resume his seat.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—He's Chopper Read with ears!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne! Given the statements made as recently as in the last five minutes, I find it extraordinary that those pleading for higher standards would then automatically make that sort of interjection. The interjection is not outside the standing orders: it merely erodes all that the Leader of the Opposition has had to say over the last 15 minutes.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, the member for Perth is quite brazenly and gratuitously reflecting on the chair in a way which is utterly unpermitted by the standing orders. Mr Speaker, you, in your grace and forbearance, are extending an extraordinary latitude to him, but the fact is he is reflecting on you and a reflection on you is not validated under the guise of reading out some comment from someone else.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Perth will come to his question.5V5Mr STEPHEN SMITH—My question, Mr Speaker, relates to page 191 of House of Representatives Practice. On that occasion in 1964 a journalist broadcast words which reflected on the then Speaker's impartiality. As a consequence of that broadcast, the relevant journalist was `summoned by the Speaker'. The relevant journalist agreed to make amends by broadcasting a suitable retraction and apology. My question to you, Mr Speaker, is, firstly: has your attention been drawn to the article? Secondly, have you contemplated such comparable or similar action in respect of the journalist, Mr Price? If not, is that because you accept the analysis of the article? If you do not accept the analysis of the article, do you have any concern that such a perception may be widespread? 3182SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—In my response to the member for Perth I would indicate that, yes, the article had been drawn to my attention. It was not a matter of major concern to me, given that I did not think the readership would be awfully wide, but it had been drawn to my attention.Honourable members interjecting—10000The SPEAKER—But the matter had been brought to my attention. What the member for Perth may not be aware of is that, following a change to the act in 1987, the action taken as outlined by him and House of Representatives Practice is no longer as readily available to the chair. Furthermore—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Now the practice is to give him a cup of tea.10000The SPEAKER—It would seem that the enthusiasm to raise the standards dissipates fairly quickly, but I know it is generally shared. Furthermore, the facility no longer exists.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Is that not easily available or no longer exists?10000The SPEAKER—No longer exists. While I regret that such an article was written without consultation with me, I personally have no qualms about any one of the decisions I have taken, and I am happy to discuss them with any member of the House at any time or with any member of the gallery. I do not intend to grace the issue by doing interviews on radio.Questions Without Notice3182318215:35:003182Mrs VALE,MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.VK6Mrs VALE—The member for Sydney had a question on Defence's performance in processing personnel security clearances. As part of a nationwide recruiting campaign, Defence is employing more staff to improve its performance in processing security clearances. New staff will be coming on board in the next few months, and the figures will start to improve. Defence is continuing to invest in information technology to automate the routine parts of the vetting process and to provide better management information security vetting performance. We are also planning a program to enhance security knowledge at all levels of the organisation and to detect security issues before they become major problems.The Australian National Audit Office conducted an audit of vetting across seven Commonwealth agencies in mid-2001. It found that Defence's personnel security practices are largely compliant with the Commonwealth Protective Security Manual. Defence's management of the vetting process was assessed as adequate, and monitoring, maintenance and review were assessed as fair. Defence is working continually to improve its performance in these areas.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek—Mr Speaker, could I ask the minister to table the document from which she was quoting?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Was the minister quoting from a confidential document?VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs Vale—Yes, Mr Speaker.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Brand, I am desperate to recognise you. I am being denied that opportunity by the conversation currently running between the minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Batman.Questions to the Speaker3183318315:37:003183Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, my question relates to the way in which you just questioned the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on the status of the document in her hands. When I was first elected to this place, the normal inquiry of the chair when somebody was asked whether or not they were quoting from a document was to start the interrogation not by asking the minister whether they were quoting from a confidential document but whether or not they were quoting from a document. Then, when the minister confirmed that they were, a second question was asked as to whether or not the material was confidential. We seem in the last few years to have moved away from what I think is the proper approach to handling those questions. By moving away from it, it sometimes gives a minister an opportunity or suggests to a minister a way out from the particular query that is being directed at him or her and amounts to an assistance to the minister which, from the strictly impartial position the chair would want to occupy, is something you would not normally want to give. I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether you could return to the practice of speakers in the past that, when a matter is sought to be tabled, when it is apparent that a minister is reading from a document, the two queries which are usually delivered to them are delivered to them in the future.3183SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will be happy to facilitate the member for Brand. As he is aware, he has been in the chamber longer than I have and, as I am sure he appreciates, the practice that I have been using is not one I have modified; it is one that I inherited. I will look to the standing orders and endeavour to be more scrupulous in future.Matters of Public Importance3183318310000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I inform the House that I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fraser proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The further increase in interest rates and the probability of further interest rate increases to come, and the impact of these changes on Australian families already under financial pressureI call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:40:003184McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—The Treasurer's arrogant complacency about interest rates will come back to haunt him. That arrogant complacency will be an albatross around his neck in his campaign for the leadership and will continue if he becomes the Prime Minister. We do not know whether or not the Treasurer will seek to make a guest appearance in this debate. He usually chooses not to be involved in debates. He struts like a peacock in question time when all the cards are stacked in his favour, but he will not address the issues. Why is that? It is because the facts are against him.In the last two days we have had two new pieces of information presented to this chamber that illustrate the emerging situation with regard to the interest rate payment pressure on families and small businesses. The first was the statement that I made yesterday that referred to the Deutsche Bank document showing that, if the increase in interest rates forecast by the Governor of the Reserve Bank were to eventuate and the cash rate reached six per cent, the obligation of Australian households to pay interest as a proportion of their gross household income would be greater than at any time since at least 1987—and perhaps much earlier; the table only goes back to 1987. It will certainly be much higher than in any period in the last 15 years.Today we got another new uncontested piece of information from the Economist magazine. Our colleagues would be aware that from time to time the Treasurer likes to quote the back page of the Economist. He comes in, waves it and picks the little bit that suits him. We picked a little bit today that did not seem to suit him quite so well. It said:Australian small businesses are clearly paying higher interest rates than their counterparts in any other country in the developed world.That matters for two reasons. It matters because those small businesses are trying to make a living and are having to pay back the interest on the money they borrowed to run their business. It matters because they are trying to compete internationally with those other companies borrowing at that lower rate. From time to time the Treasurer thinks that we should come in here and make comparisons about a long time ago. He likes to talk about 1989 and all sorts of ancient periods. He seems to forget all the things he said in 1995 about household debt and national debt. We have in Australia now an absolute explosion of household debt. Household debt has doubled. Credit card debt has trebled. It is not surprising that, in his statement today, the Governor of the Reserve Bank expressed concern again about the increase in household debt, as part of his explanation for the increase in interest rates today. We have inflation pressures causing concern. It is not surprising that the governor included this in his statement explaining the increase in interest rates today. But `inflation pressures' is easy econo-speak. We all say to each other, `Tut, tut, inflation is going up.' What that means is that families are paying higher prices for things they need to buy, and a lot of those higher prices are down to the government. Families are paying more for private health insurance. Families are about to pay more for medicines. Families are paying more for telephone charges. They are about to pay more for postal charges. All those matters are straight down to the government. What is not so clearly recognised by people is the extent to which families are also paying more in tax. The tax burden has gone up dramatically under this government. We have found the circumstance in recent times where the assessment is that, since this Treasurer came to office, total Commonwealth taxes paid per person have increased by nearly $3,000 a head—$3,000 per person per year, or $50 every week for every man, woman and child in Australia. Given the average size of Australian households, that means they are paying an extra $130 a week in taxes. They are paying higher prices and now they are getting hit by higher interest rates.Let us have a look at the impact of that higher interest rate and its implications for debt. An average family in Melbourne, for example, is paying $145 a week more in interest to buy a median-value home in Melbourne than when the Treasurer was first elected. Because of the impact of the increased price of houses and the increase in household debt, the family paying that off is paying $145 a week more on interest to buy a median-value home than when Peter Costello became the Treasurer, in addition to paying $130 a week more in tax. This is not taking into account the explosion in credit card debt—that has trebled, but that is additional. This is just to buy a median-priced house in Melbourne. We all know it is not just in Melbourne. You could get an equally dramatic outcome of course in Sydney. The Reserve Bank Governor stated on Friday—and has stated on previous occasions—a serious concern about the surge in house prices, and he referred today to serious imbalances in the economy when he was explaining the reason the interest rates went up today. We all know that is code for his concern about house prices. Let me give an example. A family borrowing to buy a three-bedroom house in Sutherland would have paid $690,000 at auction last weekend. That is not an extreme example; we know that there are many more expensive houses in Sydney. But in Sutherland, an outer suburb of Sydney, they would have paid $690,000 at auction last weekend. As a result of today's rate rise, a family borrowing to buy that house will be paying an extra $107 a month in mortgage repayments. But if, as we expect, the rates go up another 1¼ points, that family will be paying an extra $535 a month. Some people interpreted the governor as saying last Friday that interest rates might go up another two per cent. But let us be modest and say they go up another 1½ per cent—one-quarter today and another 1¼ per cent. If, in addition to that $107 that they are paying as a result of today's decision, it goes up another 1¼ per cent, that family will be paying an extra $535 a month in mortgage repayments as a result those increases. That is to buy a three-bedroom house in Sutherland. It is not to buy a mansion on the waterfront. That $145 a week extra I quoted is what people are paying to buy a house in Melbourne compared to March 1996, based on the median price of housing in Melbourne. We are talking about what is happening to average families. The data on the pressure that families are under is very clear and very worrying. Every member of parliament who listens to their constituency would know that people are concerned about the impact of interest rates and debt. Why has it happened? Household debt has more than doubled. On the debt overall—that is, the household debt, the credit card debt, and including people who have nearly paid all their debt off and people who are heavily in debt—on average, Australian families are now paying $500 more in interest payments every year. Some are paying much more. Some are paying that much every month. But the average for families—the people who do not have a mortgage and right across the board—is $500 more than when this government was elected. That is the combined effect of what is happening to interest rates and what is happening to debt, and that is why families are under pressure.The increase in mortgages in Melbourne, for example, as I said, is an extra $145 a week, or a 58 per cent increase in how much families have to pay. You might say that is just because of inflation. Think of how much extra income they have got. To buy that median house when the Treasurer came to office took 36.1 per cent of average weekly ordinary time earnings. Today it takes 46.5 per cent. That is why families are under pressure. It is not a secret. That is why they do not enjoy the Treasurer appearing smugly and arrogantly in here, on the television, and in question time. They do not see him come in to the debate—he does not want to have to stand up here and answer the questions about why Australian small businesses are paying the highest interest rates in the developed world or why families are having to put more of their income aside to achieve the same objective of buying a median house.It is not as if this is a matter that all federal governments have always wiped their hands of. There is a history of federal governments in this country—nearly all of them Labor governments, you would be amazed to know!—that have sought over time to take action with states and local governments to take the pressure off housing prices. My colleague the member for Werriwa is developing again that sort of agenda that Australians need to be concerned about to intervene, to do something about the problem of house prices in the cities and suburbs of Australia. But the government does nothing.Yesterday the Australian Bureau of Statistics released a report which anybody who was out there listening would not be surprised by but which the Treasurer seems to have ignored. In 1998-99 one-third of Australian households were under financial pressure. Yet since this survey was taken, that Deutsche Bank data that I referred to yesterday shows that interest as a percentage of household increases has increased by about 30 per cent. Those families are under much greater pressure now than they were then and, sadly, there is more to come.You know how quick the Treasurer is to come in here and attack things that we say and try and demolish the argument. He has had 24 hours to demolish that Deutsche Bank data. I kept listening and I did not hear the D word. The Deutsche Bank data went unchallenged because it is correct. It is based on an assessment of the Bureau of Statistics and the Reserve Bank. You can quote all the airy-fairy numbers you like; what that says is that families are having to spend more of their income to pay the interest on their debt, and that is putting financial pressure on families. In plain English, they are paying higher prices, they are paying higher taxes and they are paying higher interest rates. That is why it is hurting. It is putting extraordinary pressure on families. So it is no wonder that the Reserve Bank Governor said, `I'm worried about a continued rapid expansion of household debt.' It is no wonder he said:Inflation in Australia is close to the top of the target range and inflation pressures appear likely to continue in the longer term ... Today's action is aimed at reducing the risk of potential imbalances.We are starting to find an extraordinary thing. It may be a shock and a revelation to some. This House of Representatives chamber is actually being used to give the Australian people some information about what is happening. That no longer happens in question time. It used to be called `questions without notice' but we know it is now called `questions without answers'. We continue to get questions but no answers, and we get no information. We get no information from the Treasurer about the contemporary problem of Australian families. We get a discursive commentary about what somebody might have said in 1989 or about a misquote of an article someone else might have written in 1991, but nothing about what is happening to families in 2002. That is what families want to hear: they want to hear whether we are going to continue to be the economy in the developed world with the highest three-month money market rate, the highest two-year government bond rate, the highest ten-year government bond rate and the highest corporate bond rate, all of which are flowing through to the living standards of people trying to run small businesses in this country and to households trying to buy a house. The government has allowed debt to explode and it has now allowed its budget to get out of hand so that interest rates are increasing, and that combination is hitting the living standards of families. If the Reserve Bank Governor's forecast is anything like right, it is going to hit families harder as they try to meet their interest payments than any families have been hit for at least 15 years, as far back as the statistics can easily and readily be identified in the Deutsche Bank survey. So the pressure is on families now. The pressure is going to increase, and it is time for the government to act and for the Treasurer to come in and answer the debate. (Time expired)15:55:003186Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—What an absolutely dull and miserable effort by a person who would be considered to be a complete fraud if it were not unparliamentary to call the member for Fraser a complete fraud.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I ask the parliamentary secretary to withdraw that.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I said if it would not be unparliamentary to refer to the member for Fraser as a fraud, I would call him a fraud. I certainly have not called him a fraud.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I must ask you to withdraw.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I withdraw any suggestion that the member may have taken that I was referring to him as a fraud.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—It should be unqualified.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—He has withdrawn.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—This is the second day in a row that the member for Fraser has come into the chamber to talk about interest rates. This MPI is all about turf control in the ALP. Everyone knows, or they should, or they will now know, that the MPIs for the last two days were initially put forward by the honourable member for Werriwa. There is a battle for control of debate on this topic in the Australian Labor Party. The member for Fraser has elbowed aside the member for Werriwa to endeavour to take control of this debate. The member for Werriwa was also to have borne the debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 which is on the Notice Paper at the moment.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Interest rates have just gone up. Shouldn't we have the Treasurer here debating and being accountable to the parliament on this important issue, instead of someone who has got no economic policy responsibility?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, I certainly have some economic responsibility in relation to this area. The point I want to make is that the member for Werriwa was originally to have carried the debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 before the chamber, but what has happened is that again the member for Werriwa is trying to take over the territory—K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is recognised that the MPI involves a wide ranging debate—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—What is the point of order?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—On the question of relevance. Surely it is not proper to be raising the question of who spoke in a debate on superannuation bills earlier today. It has got absolutely nothing to do with the matter before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The member for Werriwa will resume his seat.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It is interesting that the member for Werriwa is not denying that the member for Fraser elbowed him out of control of the opposition debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002. He also has not denied that he, the member for Werriwa, put forward the proposal originally over the last two days for the MPI discussion but the member for Fraser, who is clearly concerned about the up-and-coming member for Werriwa, insisted on taking control of the debate. And what an absolutely pathetic effort we have seen from the member for Fraser over the last two days! From the rather interesting smile on the face of the member for Werriwa, I can see that he concedes that the performance by the member for Fraser over the last two days has been completely pathetic. It has been a long way short of the mark, and I suspect that, if the member for Fraser continues to operate in that way, it will not be long before the member for Werriwa finally shunts aside and off to political retirement the member for Fraser.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—What about interest rates?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The MPI for the second day in a row is about interest rates. Let us get back to the facts. Instead of listening to the misleading diatribe put forward by the opposition, let us look at the facts. The Reserve Bank of Australia today announced a 25 basis point increase in the official cash rate. This brings the cash rate to 4.75 per cent. When we were elected to office, you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker—as will those listening—that the mortgage rate was 10.5 per cent and that was down from a maximum interest rate while Labor was in office of 17 per cent. Prior to the movement by the Reserve Bank, the interest rate was 6.3 per cent. It is now only 6.55 per cent. Under this government, housing loan affordability has never been better. With a mortgage of $100,000, the fall in the variable interest rate from 10.5 per cent—which was the situation when Labor left office—to 6.55 per cent represents a savings in interest costs of $3,950 a year, or $330 a month. So the increase of 25 basis points today simply increases the payments by $20 a month on a $100,000 loan. That means that housing loan affordability in Australia has never been better. This government, through sound economic management and an appropriate approach to budgetary management, has brought about an environment where interest rates are about as low as they have been over the last 30 years. That rather pathetic effort we heard from the member for Fraser—soon to be replaced by the member for Werriwa—just indicates how economically bankrupt the economic vandals of the Australian Labor Party are. Over 13 years they sought to run the economy of this country—the sad days of Labor.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr Hatton—We actually did.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The member opposite ought not to interject because it was his predecessor, the so-called world's greatest Treasurer, who brought about the recession we had to have— LN6Hatton, Michael, MP0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—aided and abetted by some of those people who are still at very senior levels in the Australian Labor Party.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The member for Blaxland can seek the call if he wishes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I want to return to the comment I made about mortgage interest rates of 17 per cent at the peak of the Australian Labor Party reign. The saving in interest costs on a $100,000 loan between then and now—a maximum of 17 per cent under Labor down to 6.55 per cent in June 2002—is $10,450 a year, or around $871 a month. How on earth can the member for Fraser have the gall to come into the chamber, not one day but two days in a row, just to pre-empt the member for Werriwa to talk about interest rates? Why does he not instead talk about why the Australian Labor Party, during their 13 years in office, brought the reality of the Australian dream of home ownership almost beyond the reach of average Australians? This government is very proud of the fact that today we have a mortgage interest rate of 6.55 per cent; 6.55 per cent is lower than it was at any time under the Australian Labor Party. First home buyers can also access the grant under the First Home Owners Scheme. This government is particularly pleased with its management of interest rate policy. We are particularly pleased that young Australians—and other Australians—now have the capacity to attain home ownership while the Australian Labor Party was putting what is the basic right of all Australians totally beyond reach.The member for Fraser also referred to household borrowing. I want to point out a few facts to the honourable member for Fraser. The increase in household borrowing across Australia in recent years largely reflects an increase in housing affordability brought about by low interest rates, low inflation and improved access to credit. This has made loans more affordable to a wider range of households so that more people now have the opportunity to buy their own home. We have brought about a situation where more people have the opportunity of buying their own home.Household debt needs to be looked at in the context of the overall financial position of families. Household assets have been growing strongly. It is interesting to look at the statistics. For every dollar of debt, households have over $2 in financial assets and around $6 in total assets. The household sector as a whole is not having difficulty servicing its debts. So instead of endeavouring to criticise on false premises the outstanding economic performance of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and this government as a whole, the ALP are failing to talk about other important issues.Why won't they tell us about the need to defend the nation? Why won't they support the government on the importance of protecting our borders? Why won't they support necessary budget measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? Why won't they support the government's attempts to crack down on some of the rorting in relation to the disability support pension? Why won't they back the government's attempts to help job seekers? Why won't they support reform of the welfare system? Why won't they support Australian families? Why does the Australian Labor Party continue to be so irrelevant? Why is it that we tend to have our attention taken up by the internal territory battles between the member for Fraser and the member for Werriwa?The matter of public importance over the last couple of days has not been proposed because of Labor Party concern; it has been proposed simply because the member for Werriwa wants the member for Fraser to move over, and the member for Fraser simply does not want to make way for the member for Werriwa. If what I am saying is not true, the member for Werriwa ought to stand up and deny that over the last two days he has sought to carry the MPI; he has sought to run the MPI. However, the Australian Labor Party hierarchy—K26Latham, Mark, MP0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Thank you for agreeing, my friend. For the last two days the Australian Labor Party hierarchy have seen fit to muzzle the member for Werriwa. They have seen fit to make sure that the member for Werriwa is not allowed to stand up and carry out his responsibilities as the junior shadow minister in this area. How has the member for Werriwa reacted? In relation to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 he said, `If I can't lead the debate, I'm not going to talk. I'm going to go walking.' He is like the little boy who has the cricket set; if he is not allowed to bat, he is going to take the bat and ball home—and that is the member for Werriwa.Returning to the question of interest rates, I want to refer to a comment made by the columnist Matt Price in the Australian on Tuesday—that is, yesterday. Matt Price, in his article `The sketch', refers to Labor preaching about rates.Opposition members interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, I can see that you are amused by the attitude of the Australian Labor Party. Everyone listening to this debate knows how irrelevant the Australian Labor Party is. Everyone listening to this debate knows how the Australian Labor Party has got it wrong. Matt Price, in his article, said:Unluckily for Crean, listening to Labor preaching about rates is as incongruous as Alan Bond delivering the Boyer lecture on business ethics.Doesn't that say it all?This government, in contrast to the Australian Labor Party, has a very long and proud record of sound economic management. We inherited a major economic problem; we inherited a $10.3 billion deficit. We did not create the problem but we have accepted the responsibility for fixing it. The Labor Party, when you look at some of the debates before the chamber, are endeavouring to prevent the government from implementing its election promises. I think that is pretty rich coming from a party which made the serial offence, over and over again, of breaking election promises. We all remember the l-a-w tax cuts. We all remember how the Australian Labor Party promised not to sell the Commonwealth Bank, and yet they sold the Commonwealth Bank. We all remember how the Australian Labor Party, prior to every election, were prepared to do anything and say anything to crawl into office. Unlike the Australian Labor Party, this government is absolutely and resolutely determined to deliver on its election promises in full, on time and totally. We are not going to apologise for that. We stood up before the Australian Labor Party and the people of Australia and we said what we were going to do and where exactly we were going to do it. Let us return to the question of interest rates again, in the remaining seconds I have in this debate. We inherited mortgage interest rates of 10.5 per cent. They are now down to 6.55 per cent. The ALP had interest rates up to 17 per cent. The reason we have had this tired and pathetic effort from the member for Fraser is all about trying to preserve his position as Labor's spokesman against the onslaught of the honourable member for Werriwa. (Time expired)16:10:003189Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I do so enjoy following the member for Fisher. He is a big, slow-moving target. It is always good to start with a big, slow-moving target from the other side. We have just seen in this debate a really clear demonstration of his economic credentials. Five times he said he would return to the issue of the debate, which was broadly economic policy and interest rates. He is like the smoker who will give up tomorrow or the dieter who will start tomorrow. Five times he had a go at it. He did not actually get there at any point in the process, but he did declare five times that he would do it; and that counts for something, but not a lot. It certainly does not count for something from the member for Fisher. This is a fellow who even the National Party in Queensland would not keep. It was not just any old National Party in Queensland, it was the Bjelke-Petersen National Party in Queensland. When you could not make the grade to hang around with that lot, you were at the low end of the low scale. But it has been demonstrated in the last 15 minutes why it is that even the National Party in Queensland has some standards, and he does not measure up to them. The entertaining part was as he got into the biff, put on the steel-capped shoes and used them with all the skill of a ballerina. It really was out of place, and the member for Fisher might like to endeavour to do something about his homework on the portfolio and actually talk about the issues.I think on the fifth go, when he said he wanted to talk about the issues, he tried to refer to what had actually gone on 10, 12 or 15 years ago during Labor's period in office, when interest rates were at a high level. As the member for Fraser and others have pointed out, there are some interesting comparisons that can be made; not least of all, critically, is how much households are now forced to pay out of the income they have to service their debts. It is all good and well to talk about the raw figures—the inflation rate or the interest rate—but, at the end of the day, what matters to people when they go to balance their budget is how much money they have coming in and how much of that they have to send out straightaway to service an already established debt. That is the critical calculation that affects daily lives because that is what determines the personal disposable income of ordinary Australian families. On that, the comparison is interesting. We now have a government that, in six or seven short years, has doubled that family debt. We now have a government that can boast a higher percentage of household income being forced to repay interest rates on loans—a higher level than we have seen in this country since about 1987.If the parliamentary secretary at the table wanted to pursue any of the arguments he raised, he would have discovered a very unsavoury answer. That answer is that the government has now put in place a burden on the backs of every Australian, the likes of which we have not seen for the best part of a generation. That is the real cost of this increase to Australian families; that is the cost they know they have to meet every week when they seek to budget the books. Let us look at what that means for the average household these days. We are now talking about an average debt of $77,700 for every household in Australia. That is a huge burden shared across the nation by all Australians, made demonstrably worse by any increase in interest rates because of the higher threshold of burden that is now there. The minister—the parliamentary secretary—I should not elevate him—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—John Howard won't.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—Indeed. In fact, it is interesting—as the member for Fraser points out—that the Prime Minister has made a point of overlooking the member for Fisher on about four occasions as appointments have gone through. So, as with the Queensland National Party, the Prime Minister clearly has some standard that he requires, and the member for Fisher does not meet that standard either.The government has managed to increase the level of debt to more than 100 per cent of family disposable income. Debt now represents 119 per cent of gross household disposable income. How do ordinary families balance their budgets when they confront debt of that level? The difference is the amount of money that families have and what has produced the current pressures on interest rates. Let us turn to what has produced the current pressures on interest rates. We used to be lectured all the time about the government's prowess in reducing interest rates. The Treasurer in particular and other senior ministers were never slow to take credit for each interest rate reduction that occurred over the last few years. They were very quick to get in with the press conference and the doorstop to claim credit for that reduction. Look at the difference in their demeanour now and the way in which they apportion responsibility for the increase. All the benefits were their sole doing. No credit was given to any of the changes that were made by the Labor government and no credit was given to the sacrifice that was made by workers during the accord period. There was no acknowledgment of the role of the Reserve Bank or that of the financial institutions. It was all down to the brilliance of Peter Costello! Now that we see interest rates rising, the government has disowned the process altogether. You would be forgiven for believing that the government was not involved and was purely a spectator. Obviously, that is not the case, but we need go no further than the government's own words about these things. For example, look at the impact of deficit budgets and the lecturing we used to get all the time from ministers about how deficit budgets produced problems for inflation and for interest rates in the monetary system. This is what the Prime Minister had to say: I have made that commitment, I will repeat it to you this morning, I do not believe that we should go into deficit, and we won't go into deficit if we are re-elected.That is what he said just last October. Only a matter of months ago he gave a commitment that we would not go into deficit. We now know that we have a budget deficit of $3 billion. That itself deserves some comment, because it was only a few years ago that the government stood here and told us that this year we would have a $14 billion surplus. That is monumental mismanagement of unprecedented proportions. No other government in the history of this land has squandered so much money so quickly. In its own estimates and in its commitments it has turned a $14 billion surplus into a $3 billion deficit and it says that the pressures on inflation and interest rates have nothing to do with the government. I am sorry, but the government needs to be reminded about its own commitments. At the same time as the Prime Minister was promising falsely that the government would not have a deficit budget, he said:Once you start with deficits they get bigger and bigger ... you end up with high interest rates, higher unemployment.That is dead right, Prime Minister. We are now seeing higher interest rates because of your hopeless economic management and that of your government over the last few years. We are seeing the pressures flow from the budget through into monetary policy. We now confront a situation where there will be pressures on interest rates. Out of the mouths of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer came an admission in earlier days that that is the result of deficit budgets. We did not need to have a deficit budget. Look at where the $14 billion went and look at the $20 billion in current and forecast expenditure that the Prime Minister spent in the 12 months leading up to the election. But you need look no further than the $5 billion gambling debt that the Treasurer worked up for us. True, that system was put in place by Labor, but there is a clear distinction between the system operated by the Labor government and that operated by this government. We actually ran it at a profit. Not only did we run it at a profit and not only did the taxpayer earn $2 billion in that system while we were in office but we put in place processes to safeguard the taxpayer. When this government came to office it was given advice about the dangers and problems with the system. When the currency fell through the floor and the `Pacific peso' was the Australian dollar, the government was advised that the currency fluctuations were such that they were a problem for the currency swap scheme. What did the government do? It changed the guidelines. It was in breach of them, so to put itself back within the guidelines it simply shifted the rule. As a result, Australian taxpayers are $5 billion in the red. That gross mismanagement is producing the pressures on interest rates that we are seeing this week. For the government to trot out an incompetent parliamentary secretary in a debate of this magnitude is an indication of how totally out of touch it is with the importance of this issue. I tell you what: the people out there, when they get their pay packets and their bills next month, will know and they will remember who did it. (Time expired)16:20:003192Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLP10—Every time the Labor Party mentions the two words `interest rates' the Australian nation remember the pain, the suffering and the collapsed businesses. They also remember the inability to sustain the standards of living that they believe they are entitled to. Every time they hear the pompous rhetoric of the member for Fraser or the hyperbole of the member for Brisbane they remember that in 1989 not only were mortgage rates 17 per cent but also the bank business variable interest rate peaked at 20.5 per cent for small business. They remember that we were told by the Labor Party and by the former Prime Minister and Treasurer, Mr Keating, that we had the recession that we had to have. They remember incompetence and they think, `Thank goodness they are no longer there.' When we debate interest rates and debt, it is wise to get back to some fundamentals and to some facts instead of the spin doctoring we have just heard. First and foremost, if we compare the amount of interest that is now paid per week by a householder with a $100,000 mortgage, even with the increase of 25 basis points that was announced today, we see people paying $330 a month less than they would have paid under Labor's high interest rate regime.People have seen an economy which has been stable. We have withstood the pressures of international recession in terms of the Asian recession. We have come through that difficult period after September 11 when the world was in such turmoil. Indeed, the Treasurer pointed out in this place that the two interest rate rises in recent weeks have in fact cancelled out the interest rate reduction that was put in place after September 11 and was felt necessary to stimulate the economy at that time.We have seen the First Home Owners Scheme which has allowed the building industry to be so prosperous. We have seen it tempered; it went up to $14,000 and it has come back to $10,000 under this budget. We have seen reasonable and responsible management of the economy, which means that we have not seen the great fluctuations and the pain and suffering that flowed from what we saw in the 13 years of Labor. To put the question of household debt into perspective, we need to put a few more facts on the table. Firstly, household debt needs to be looked at in the context of the overall financial position of households where there has been growth. For every $1 of debt, households have over $2 in financial assets and around $6 in total assets. The household sector as a whole is having no difficulty in servicing its debt. Household interest payments in the March quarter of 2002 were 5.9 per cent of disposable income, which is well below their peak of almost 11 per cent in 1990 when Labor was in office. The ability of all borrowers to service their debt is being enhanced by the new low inflation and low interest rate environment in Australia, and a household mortgage interest rate at around 6.5 per cent is currently still at a very low level. It is always important to make the contrasts and to remember what we inherited because, in the relatively short period that this government has been in office, we have truly turned many things around. The member for Fraser complained that this side of the House often referred to what occurred in 1989. I guess in this year of the Queen's jubilee we could perhaps call 1989 an annus horribilis for the Labor Party—except that they put that curse on the rest of the nation. Let us see what the member for Fraser had to say in 1989. When interest rates were at their very peak of 17 per cent, he said that all arms of economic policy would need to remain tight, including monetary policy. At the same time, he called for higher mortgage and rent relief packages to be paid for by higher taxes. Those taxes were to involve wholesale taxes being increased from 30 per cent to perhaps 50 per cent on a range of goods that he called luxury goods. He supported a modest turnover tax on sales of luxury houses of $400,000 and above and he wanted the Labor Party's planned reduction of top marginal rates to be deferred. That was his plan for managing the economy into prosperity. It would have plunged us even further into areas of pain and suffering right across the board.In 1990, which was not a good year for him either, interest rates were at 16.5 per cent and he said then:The Government recognises that high interest rates are biting in both the business and the household sectors. However, if we do not moderate demand we run the risk of a burgeoning in our debt to a level that neither we nor, more importantly, our children will be able to sustain without dire economic hardship. They certainly left hardship, didn't they? They left us a debt in the vicinity of $80 billion, of which we have repaid $61 billion. They left us with high interest rates and an economy which was truly in dire straits. When we came in as the government, we had the courage to take the action that was needed to bring the economy into a sound condition that subsequently enabled us to withstand the downturn in the international economy.A few other things need to be said about 1989. When interest rates were 17 per cent for housing loans and 20.5 per cent for small business loans, the Leader of the Opposition said, `I think everyone accepts that interest rates are high because of the circumstances associated with the economy growing too fast.' Let us make the comparison with growth then and growth that we have seen under this government, and with how we have managed the economy and how Labor failed to manage it. At the time he made that comment, the Australian economy was recording a growth rate of 5.5 per cent. In the year to the March quarter of 1998, and under this government's stewardship, we also happened to be growing at 5.5 per cent with low interest rates and low inflation. As I said, this growth had a low interest rate of 6.7 per cent at that stage and we reduced it even further. In the June quarter of 1999, Australia's growth was five per cent and variable housing rates were 6.5 per cent. However, over the last six years, we have also seen real wages for Australian workers grow by 9.7 per cent, with these rises extending to the lowest paid within our community. Under the coalition, workers on a federal minimum award have seen their real wages rise by 7.9 per cent. What was Labor's record? They had their much vaunted accord. And what did the accord do? It lowered real interest rates and it was estimated that the real wage equivalent for low income workers fell by five per cent.That is a pretty disgraceful record. If I were a member of the Labor Party I do not think I would be using the words `interest rates' when I wanted to have a debate in here. It is not just people who sit in this House who remember how dreadful it was under that period of mismanagement; the whole nation remembers it. We had all those small businesses who could have survived, perhaps, a normal downturn but, because of the mismanagement of Mr Keating in that period, what we saw was businesses that were sound going to the wall and families ruined. The word `ruined' is not one that is too strong.The bottom line is that under this government we have seen sound fiscal management, we have seen action taken at the right time to ensure that things do not get out of hand, we have seen prosperity grow for the nation, and we have seen the government returned to office because the people well remember what it was like before. I suspect that that memory will serve right through to the next election and beyond.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Committees31933193319316:31:003193Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD, I present the committee's advisory report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002.Ordered that the report be printed.MH4Jull, David, MPMr JULL—by leave—The ASIO Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill represents part of the government's legislative response to the tragic events of 11 September. The bill is part of a suite of bills introduced by the government to counter the threat of terrorism. The bill is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation considered by the parliament in recent times. In its original form, it will provide for a person to be detained for up to 48 hours incommunicado without legal representation and with the right to silence removed. If further warrants were issued, a person could be detained indefinitely. The committee received over 160 submissions. Most of these submissions raised concerns in relation to these aspects of the bill. The committee, in considering the proposed legislation, has been confronted with the challenging task of balancing the proposals in the bill with the need to ensure that the civil liberties and rights under the law that Australia provides as a modern democracy are not compromised. The proposed legislation, in its original form, would undermine key legal rights and erode the civil liberties that make Australia a leading democracy. It is the view of the committee that the recommendations contained in this report will enhance the ASIO Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill and provide greater confidence to the Australian public. I shall discuss individually the key sections of the bill which the committee believes require amendment.The amendments contained in section 34B of the bill will empower ASIO to seek a warrant from a prescribed authority—a PA. A PA can be a federal magistrate, a deputy president or a legally qualified member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The warrant provides for the detention and questioning before the PA of persons who may have information that may assist in preventing terrorist attacks or in prosecuting those who have committed terrorism offences. The use of members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as PAs was heavily criticised in relation to their suitability to issue warrants. At public hearings and in submissions it was argued by organisations and interested individuals that the AAT was not independent enough to be suitable for the role of PA.The status and role of the prescribed authority is a critical part of the bill. It is the belief of the committee that the PA must be of a certain status which ensures transparency and accountability and provides confidence to the public. It is the belief of the committee that this can only be achieved if the authority for issuing a warrant is judicial. It is essential that the judiciary be responsible for issuing warrants under this bill but, in view of the Grollo v. Palmer case, the issuer of the warrant may not be able to undertake the responsibilities of the PA as set out in the bill. The committee proposes a regime in which a federal magistrate would issue all initial warrants. A Federal Court judge would be requested to issue all warrants where detention exceeds 96 hours. AAT members, with qualifications currently set out in the bill, would perform all the functions of the PA as set out in the bill, excluding the responsibility for issuing warrants. The committee has tested this regime with expert witnesses and considers it the only possible approach to maintaining judicial control over detention and at the same time seeking to ensure consistency with previous High Court rulings. As a further safeguard, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has indicated that at the start of the operation of the bill he will attend the first series of interviews. He suggested a procedure be put in place whereby he is made aware of any impending activity at the earliest possible time, thus ensuring that questioning would not begin before his arrival.The committee recommends that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 be amended to provide the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security with the power to suspend, on the basis of non-compliance with the law or an impropriety occurring, an interview being conducted under the warrant procedures in the ASIO Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security should immediately report the nature of such cases to the committee.I turn to sections 34C and 34D, on warrants and duration of detention. Sections 34C and 34D of the bill make provision for the issuing of two types of warrants: a questioning and/or a detention warrant. If detained under a warrant a person may be held for up to 48 hours unless a further warrant is issued. Under the proposed legislation there is no limit to the number of warrants that may be issued, hence it is conceivable that a person could be detained indefinitely without a criminal charge being brought against them. It is the view of the committee that this is not acceptable. The committee therefore proposes to introduce a maximum limit for detention of seven days. At the expiry of that period a person must either be charged or released.I turn to section 34F and the issues of detention of persons and legal representation. One of the most contentious issues of the bill is detention of persons incommunicado. It is proposed by the legislation that a person under a warrant will be refused the right to make any contact with anyone not specified in the warrant. Thus, a person may not be able to contact their family or have access to legal representation. Evidence to the inquiry was opposed to this arrangement, particularly as the person would have no right to silence. The Attorney-General's Department suggests that access to a lawyer could lead to information about the person in detainment being made public. The committee notes, however, that there is no such concern in relation to the provision of interpreters under proposed section 34H and the provision of a medical practitioner under proposed subsection 34M(3).The committee recommends the creation of a pool of legal representatives, possibly selected by the Law Council of Australia. The legal representatives could be security cleared if need be. This will enable a person detained for questioning under the provisions in the bill to have access to a legal representative from a list supplied by the prescribed authority under proposed section 34E. Further, the committee suggests that it would be appropriate for some of the lawyers to be representative of Muslim and other communities. It became evident during hearings that little consideration had been given to the development of protocols or a code of conduct that would help ensure the protection of the rights of persons subject to a warrant. The bill sets out the framework for issuing a warrant for the custody, detention and interviewing of a person. However, the actual operation of performing these functions is administratively complex and contains numerous parts. It was widely agreed during hearings that there is a need for an enforceable protocol or code of conduct that would provide a detailed guide to the custody, detention and interviewing stages set out in the bill.The committee proposes that ASIO should develop a protocol which guides the operations of the bill in consultation with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Australian Federal Police and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The protocol should be approved by the Attorney-General. The committee should be briefed on the protocol as soon as it is developed, and subsequently the protocol should be tabled in the parliament. The bill should not commence until the protocol is developed and is in place. In addition, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security should monitor the use and application of the protocols. A breach should be reported to the committee immediately.I turn to section 34G and the issue of protection against self-incrimination. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to gather intelligence relating to a possible terrorist or terrorist activity. Therefore, the powers under section 34G that relate to the giving of information and producing things are considerable in scope. Scrutiny at public hearings of proposed section 34G focused on the combined issues of the refusal of the right to silence and of no protection against self-incrimination for information relating to a terrorism offence provided at an interview.Terrorism offences are punishable by life imprisonment. Under proposed section 34G(3), a person does not have the right to silence. The penalty for failure to comply is imprisonment for five years. Therefore, a person who provides incriminating evidence relating to a terrorism offence could get life imprisonment. Alternatively, if a person fails to provide information, they could get five years imprisonment.The inadequacy of this arrangement was identified during the hearings. In addition, the evidence indicated that it was incompatible for a person to have their right to silence removed and, at the same time, have no protection against self-incrimination for information relating to a terrorism offence which is provided during an interview. It was made clear during hearings that protection against self-incrimination for information provided at an interview was not the same as immunity from prosecution. If a law enforcement agency could collect evidence alternative to a person's statement, then they could prosecute on the basis of the alternative evidence.The main objective of the bill is the collection of intelligence that could assist ASIO in preventing a terrorist attack. The lesser objective is the collection of evidence for the purpose of prosecution. The committee believes that amending the bill to provide protection against self-incrimination will assist in the collection of intelligence.Section 34J goes to humane treatment. Proposed section 34J of the bill provides that a person being detained under a warrant must be treated with humanity and must not be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The committee is concerned, however, that there are no penalty clauses attached for actions by officials who do not comply with the legislation. It is therefore recommended that proposed section 34J have a note attached indicating that penalties apply if officials breach this requirement.As the bill stands, it is possible that children could be detained under the legislation. The only reference to children in the bill comes under proposed subsection 34M(1)(e), which places an age restriction of 10 years of age on strip searches. The legislation as it currently stands would allow for the detention of a child without a parent's knowledge. The bill would provide for strip searches to be undertaken on children aged 10 and over. Many protections could be put into the legislation with regard to children under the age of 18. However, it is the view of the committee that it would be simpler and safer to have the legislation not apply to anyone under 18 years of age.Considering the concern that has been expressed by the public in regard to this bill, the committee recommends that a three-year sunset clause be put in place. This will enable the parliament to review the merits of the act after it has been operational for a number of years.In conclusion, I would like to express the committee's appreciation for the efforts of those who gave evidence to our inquiry. I would also like to thank the members of the committee for their time and dedication in the conducting of the inquiry. Finally, I thank the secretariat staff who were involved in the inquiry: Margaret Swieringa, Sonya Fladun, Tiana Grey, Richard Haureliuk and the inquiry secretary, Stephen Boyd. I commend the report to the House.16:44:003196McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—by leave—I support the remarks made by the chairman of the Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD. I congratulate the chairman and my colleagues on the committee for coming forward with a report which I think will make this piece of legislation something that we can at least feel a lot more comfortable with than we could feel with what is proposed in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002. As members are aware, this bill is part of the government's response to the attack of September 11. Yesterday we saw the Attorney-General respond to the Senate committee that was looking at some other parts of the package. They have recommended significant changes to the legislation, and this committee has recommended significant changes to the legislation as it applies to ASIO. My own view is that the government was too draconian in its response. The present provisions of the bill will allow ASIO to have police arrest a person for questioning and searching and to hold them incommunicado indefinitely without any legal representation. They are compelled to answer questions. If they do not answer the questions, they will get five years in jail. They are not allowed to tell their families and their friends. It is unclear from the way that the bill is presently written whether, upon the police arresting them, they would have to be taken directly to be questioned. The bill would allow a 10-year-old child to be taken into custody and questioned.All of this is to question a person who has not been directly involved in a terrorist activity. The committee accepts that there is a need for ASIO to seek to gather intelligence on terrorist activities and to question and search people who may be able to assist them in preventing a terrorist attack. There is no doubt that ASIO do need that power. But there is a lot of doubt—and the unanimous view of the committee is that there is a lot of doubt—that this bill goes too far in trading off individual rights in the pursuit of terrorists. One would think that many of the proposals in this bill had come from a police state rather than from a democracy.The committee made 15 recommendations. We believe that those recommendations will preserve the rights of individuals, will provide legal protection for a person who is taken into custody and will still allow ASIO to acquire the information that they require to assist them in preventing terrorist attacks in Australia or overseas. A lot of the information that ASIO may acquire in these exercises could be in response to requests from other agencies either here or overseas.I want to mention a couple of points about some of the recommendations that the committee made. The committee was very concerned, and a lot of the witnesses who came before us were very concerned, that the warrants that would be issued to have the AFP arrest people would be issued by members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, except for a few who have been there for a long while, are appointed for term appointments. Members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are not independent of the government. The committee is strongly of the view that it should be a judicial officer who has independence who issues these warrants. It has been put to us that magistrates and judges may not be willing to be the people who oversee the interrogations. The committee feels very strongly that, in the first instance, warrants should be issued by a magistrate and, if the Attorney-General or ASIO wish to extend the warrant past 96 hours, a Federal Court judge has to issue the warrant to allow that.The committee is also concerned that under the present legislation the amount of time that a person can be held is open-ended. It has been put to us—and a reading of the bill would suggest—that a person could be held indefinitely, as long as the Attorney-General and a magistrate or an AAT member under the current provisions was willing to issue a warrant. The committee believes that that is an outrageous proposal. The committee has recommended that the maximum amount of detention should be no more than seven days, and at the expiry of that period a person must either be charged or released. It is interesting to recall that, under the Commonwealth Crimes Act, the police can hold you for four hours and then they have to either charge you or release you.The committee was also concerned that people would be brought before this tribunal not being able to tell family members or anybody where they were and that they would have no representation whatsoever. We believe that there is some merit in the arguments that have been mounted by the security services which say that, if they are going to ensure that they get the information, it might be necessary to act quickly. But the committee is firmly of the view that people should have legal representation, and that problem could be solved by a panel of lawyers which is proposed by the Law Council and is security cleared. Everybody would be happy with that proposal and people would have some legal representation. I can think of nothing worse than a person being arrested by the police, being taken into a room, being told that they have to answer questions or they will get five years in jail and then not knowing what to do. A person needs to have some legal advice.The committee is also of the view that, by taking ASIO on what they said—that this was an exercise in getting information that would help them to prevent or assist in preventing a terrorist act—the objective was to get information; the objective was not necessarily to get evidence. If the penalty for committing a terrorist act or being involved in a terrorist act was life imprisonment and a person who had been brought before the committee could later on be charged with a terrorist act, it seemed to us that to say to them that they could have life imprisonment or five years for not answering the questions would in fact militate against ASIO's objective of getting information. We propose that people should not be able to incriminate themselves in any of the evidence that they give at these questionings.As the chairman said, the committee was very concerned about the provisions for people under the age of 18 to be caught up in this system. While it is arguable to say that people under the age of 18 might know some information or be able to help, in trying to come up with a protocol that allows the security services to talk to people under 18 it just becomes far too difficult. There is the spectre of the police arresting a 12-year-old child, taking them into custody and bringing them before a prescribed person to answer questions without any legal representation and with only a family friend. It is an extremely daunting proposition and something that is alien to the way that Australians expect things to happen.The provision of a sunset clause is also important. While there is great concern in the US and other parts of the world that there may be another terrorist attack, the government in Australia are currently saying—and I do not think they have changed the advice in recent days—that they do not see any apparent terrorist threat to Australia. The committee is of the belief that putting a sunset clause into this legislation to see how it works, to see if it is needed in three years time, is a very important issue as well. The other point that I thought was important—and I am pleased that the committee has picked up on it—is the right of a person to seek judicial review after they have been taken into custody. The committee has recommended that, after a person has been held for 24 hours, they should have the right to apply to the Federal Court for release. You really need to be able to test before a judge the right of the security services to hold a person, so that there is some fairness and integrity in the system.While I do not think that all the civil libertarians will say that the recommendations of the committee are the perfect answer, what the committee has tried to do is balance the need of the security services and Australia to intervene and attempt to prevent terrorist activity with the rights of all Australians to be protected from oppressive laws. In discussing this legislation, a number of people will say to us, `But look at the oppressive laws that the Americans have introduced under the USA Patriot Act,' but the interesting thing about the USA Patriot Act is that it applies to everybody except American citizens. The USA Patriot Act, a very draconian piece of legislation which allows for people to be taken into custody and questioned et cetera, applies to what they term in the act as `aliens' but what the Americans tell us are non-US persons—that is, not a US citizen or a person with a valid visa to be in the US. So the committee has tried to strike that balance, and I think we have the balance right. If tomorrow everybody attacks us, then we will know we have got it right. I think the committee have done a very good job with all of us being able to come to a unanimous decision. If we can get a unanimous decision right across the parliament on a contentious issue such as this, there must be some sense in the proposals that the committee are putting forward.16:56:003198Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—by leave—I would first of all like to congratulate the chairman for the way in which he conducted the public hearings that we had, hearings that aired every conceivable objection to features of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002. They allowed those with objections to present their views and also gave an opportunity to the agencies to clarify their positions. The process was excellent. The work of the Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD on it has been excellent too, and I congratulate them.We are in this chamber considering these matters because of the shocking events of September 11. There were some 3,000 people who had their civil rights absolutely destroyed. There is no doubt at all that, if you kill somebody, the civil rights of that person are terminated for all time. The events of September 11, while they were a wake-up call internationally and to our societies generally, had been preceded by terrorist acts such as the bombing of embassies in Africa by people associated with Al-Qaeda. The people who were killed in the attacks on the embassies were all innocent persons, but a huge number of them happened to be innocent people indigenous to the countries where those embassies were situated. It applied to the American service personnel who were killed in the destruction by Al-Qaeda of their barracks in Saudi Arabia, and to the American personnel who were killed in the attacks on the USS Cole. There is a similar relationship, I believe, to those Russian citizens who were killed in the destruction of several Russian tenement houses in Moscow some little time ago.The problems associated with international terrorist activities which are quite easily assigned to persons associated with the Al-Qaeda organisation have been experienced globally for some 10 years. Different countries have reacted in different ways to them, but all have been focused by the events of September 11. Indeed, after the events of September 11 the United Nations addressed its members and said that all its member states should move legislatively to support their intelligence and law enforcement agencies to ensure that as much was done as could be done to protect their citizens from the possibility of terrorist attack.When we met as a committee, we were mindful—as no doubt the government was when it brought this legislation forward—of similar legislation recently passed in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. It was of passing interest—and I make this as an aside as opposed to anything of substance in the argument—that, if put on a scale of hardness from little response to dramatic toughness—or, as the previous speaker described it, draconian action—the Canadians come out on top in the draconian stakes and much more so, interestingly enough, than the United States or the United Kingdom. We had an opportunity to take each of the clauses of the government's legislation, set them alongside the propositions which had emerged in other countries and make a judgment about what would be appropriate both in our circumstances and in relation to what was being done elsewhere. We did that, and the result was this unanimous committee report, the recommendations of which, if put in place, would alter the character of the legislation substantially. I do not think we should walk away from that: it would alter the character of the legislation substantially; it would be a very different proposition that emerged.We were influenced in arriving at those conclusions not just by our own regard for the civil liberties of the Australian people but also in fact by the agencies themselves. The question was put to the ASIO director: `Would it make any difference to your capacity to gather intelligence from the people that you had in detention were they to have a right completely not to incriminate themselves?' The ASIO director replied, `No, it wouldn't make any difference at all.' When one listened to what he had to say elsewhere in the testimony that he presented, one could see why. The ASIO director has no ambitions to be a law enforcement agent or to see his agency as a law enforcement agency. His primary concern is not the collection of evidence to conduct a successful prosecution against a terrorist. The primary purpose of ASIO— indeed almost the exclusive purpose of ASIO—is to protect all our fellow Australians and also those citizens elsewhere who may be threatened by a terrorist threat. Their objective is to collect intelligence so that attacks may be thwarted. Attacks that are prospective may be thwarted either by preventing them from happening or, should intelligence become available to them about an attack which has been successfully completed, by having enough knowledge about who was responsible for that to inform them should a subsequent attempt be made by those same individuals to launch an assault. ASIO are not looking for prosecutions; ASIO are attempting to save lives. Again, the director of ASIO did not in substance change the threat assessment in relation to possible activities here in Australia. It needs to be said that never at any stage has he said that there is no threat; he has said that the threat is of a low level. It is a finite threat, not one that does not exist. But he also pointed out, in the course of his remarks, that he is as much concerned about information that may be gathered here that would prove helpful to intelligence and law enforcement agencies elsewhere who may confront a threat.September 11 posed a turning point in many ways in international history, but it was not a unique or a one-off event in terms of affairs prior to then nor since. The sort of intelligence which the ASIO director is seeking to be able to obtain is, for example, the sort of intelligence which, gathered internationally, enabled the Rome police to thwart an effort to poison the water supply of the American Embassy in Rome and which enabled the Singaporean police to thwart an effort to attack the Australian Embassy and the American Embassy in Singapore. That is what he is talking about: gathering that sort of information, and that sort of information is not obtained only in the country in which it is intended to carry out a terrorist act. So he is seeking for his agency the capacity to get better information. It needs to be understood too that we are not talking here about the only mechanism available. This is seen by the director, no matter how it may be portrayed in public by others, as last resort stuff.The intentions of the government and of the opposition in the last election campaign to see that law enforcement agencies are properly staffed and properly equipped to respond to terrorist threats are in the process of being put in place with, I might say, bipartisan support. The principal capacity of the intelligence organisations to obtain information resides in their ability to use willing informants and their ability to obtain by electronic means communications that are passing between people who are terrorists or who have knowledge of the possibility of terrorist activities. By an overwhelming margin, these remain and will remain, irrespective of what happens to the bill, the principal means by which ASIO and law enforcement agencies will obtain information in relation to the protection of our community. However, the director has said that he would like the capacity to be able to question some individuals, because the way in which ASIO's powers are cast in other legislation means ASIO may well have pretty good knowledge that a particular individual has something to tell them, and they need to be told in a timely fashion.The world of intelligence has changed substantially not just because of the events of September 11; it has been changing over the last couple of decades. The previous preoccupations of intelligence organisations were basically backward looking: how to get a thoroughgoing understanding of whether or not a particular individual or group in the community was engaged with people who might be enemies of your particular country—whether they were agents of that country or spies or whatever. These were essentially gentlemanly, leisurely, backward-looking exercises. The role of the contemporary intelligence community is now very different from that. The Cold War is over. Because the agencies have other mechanisms for collecting information, such as those that I have referred to, increasingly the intelligence agencies are engaged in real-time prevention of terrorist acts.One only has to look at the torment of the American intelligence agencies to see the community expectations about how they interpret the real-time data that they are given. But there is no question at all that, when one sees the information gathered—largely electronically and in some cases from informants—of particular actions in the United States of Al-Qaeda operatives who subsequently emerged as the bombers on September 11, one can see how important (a) this real-time gathering of information is and (b) the correct analysis of it is. We are going to have to get better and better at it.The challenge for us was how to put what ASIO needs in the proper context of our civil liberties. There is no requirement for selfincrimination. There is no requirement for indefinite detention. There is no requirement to go after children. There is no requirement to have no legal representation whatsoever for the persons involved. All this can be done in this backstop legislation with appropriate protections on all these fronts. The bill can be dramatically altered and still be valuable to the agency that the bill is supposed to assist. They have made that clear enough themselves in some respects. I would not say that most of the amendments that are proposed here would necessarily get a tick from the particular agencies, but they can live with all of them.I hope that the government understands the work that has been put into this and the unanimity of that report and takes it away and gives serious consideration to changing its legislation to meet all of the objections that we have put forward. 3201320110000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Hunt to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in place of Mr Baldwin.17:09:003201Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—by leave—I move:That Mr Baldwin be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that, in his place, Mr Hunt be appointed a member of the committee.Question agreed to.Bills3201R14473201Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that this bill be considered forthwith.Bill agreed to.3201Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Ageing) (5.10 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills3201R14413201Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that this bill be considered forthwith.Bill agreed to.3201Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Ageing) (5.11 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills3201R1547BillsR15463201Debate resumed. 17:12:003201McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I am pleased to continue talking on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 and the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2002 and would like to maintain for a while my focus on the problem of the minority of employers who fail to pay their superannuation guarantee on behalf of their employees. In 2001 the Australian Taxation Office received over 11,000 complaints about unpaid superannuation and there were over $104 million of outstanding superannuation guarantee payments. This $104 million is a lot of money. A lot of ordinary Australian workers are missing out on money that they have earned. In instances where employers do not pay the superannuation guarantee over an extended period of time or not at all, they are stealing. They are stealing the hard-earned money of Australian families and stealing their opportunity for a secure retirement. The ATO needs to work harder to make sure that employers are paying their employees' superannuation guarantee. I notice that the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services in its report Enforcement of the superannuation guarantee charge of April 2001 recommended the following:Recommendation 4The Committee recommends that the ATO focus more attention on prosecuting employers who repeatedly default on their SG responsibilities.I will be asking the minister to report the results of the ATO's prosecutions strategy and implementation plan. The report stated:The ANAO found in its recent performance audit of the ATO's administration of the SG that, at the time of the audit, the ATO had not developed a clear strategy for prosecuting employers who choose not to comply with their obligations.This is quite an indictment on the actions of the ATO in this area. The ATO claimed in its submission to the Senate committee that it was more interested in rehabilitating employers than in punishing them. In essence, this is a fair approach, but it does not work with serial offenders. The ATO needs to be as tough with these offenders as it is with the average Australian and their personal income tax. The ATO told the committee that it was going to focus on high risk groups of employers. This risk based approach was endorsed by the ANAO as a more effective use of resources to lead to improvements in overall compliance levels.The disturbing thing about this approach, however, is that it will be at the expense of the employees who have made individual complaints. The ATO needs to action individual complaints as soon as possible. Most of the real-life experiences that have been recounted in this House by my colleagues on the superannuation guarantee issue have highlighted the dissatisfaction of employees complaining that the ATO has not taken adequate action to chase up their missing superannuation payments. Not dealing with these complaints expeditiously will exacerbate the perception that the ATO does not look after the average person and has poor service delivery. The government is claiming to be helping employees make sure that they get the superannuation guarantee. This is a misnomer, as I said earlier. The majority of businesses pay their employees' super guarantee on time. The minority who do not will be required to pay quarterly when this bill becomes law. But will it change the culture of non-payment? Not without persuasion. Firms that deliberately flout the provisions of the Superannuation Guarantee Act will still continue to do so unless the ATO prosecutes them. I am not talking about employers that, for some reason or another, miss the odd payment. I am talking about the small group of employers that deliberately do not pay. This bill will provide for a greater frequency of payment—which is good—as the increased frequency reduces the amount owed by the employer to the employee. But, unless the ATO actively prosecutes the employers who do not pay the superannuation guarantee in a timely fashion, there is no point in reducing the frequency of payment. An active prosecution regime will protect employees, not just increasing the frequency by itself. The introduction of a requirement for employers to pay the superannuation guarantee on a quarterly basis is a positive step. I am at a loss as to why the government has not moved more quickly to implement this reform. As I mentioned earlier in this speech, all it needed to do was support the private member's bill presented by the member for Werriwa. Why support the Labor bill rather than this bill? Another problem with this bill is the fact that, if passed, it will not be enacted until July 2003—a wait of over a year. Why is the government doing this? It has adequate transitional provisions in the bill for employers. The extra year's delay is costing workers whose employers only pay their superannuation annually valuable interest on retirement savings. I cannot understand the motivation behind this delay. Perhaps the Prime Minister or Treasurer can enlighten us.The bill also unfairly targets casual and seasonal workers. I must admit I am amazed that the government is changing the qualification for superannuation. Under this bill the minimum wage eligible for superannuation entitlements changes from $450 per month to $1,350 per quarter. This effectively moves the goalposts out of reach of most casual workers. Why on earth it has changed this test when the casualisation of the Australian work force is at an all-time high is completely beyond me. I can think of an example off the top my head. My son, David, works two casual jobs—one as a cleaner and the other in an office on the weekend. Under the changes to this bill he will probably fail the threshold test for both these jobs. This means he will miss out on superannuation altogether. He has friends who are in the same situation. I have many constituents in my electorate of Stirling who come in and talk to me about this. There are thousands of young people in a similar situation to my son's and my Stirling constituents'. Employers tend to hire casual workers for flexibility. However, this flexibility does not provide certainty for our young people. These measures, coupled with the proposed changes stripping casual workers of their rights of protection under unfair dismissal legislation, leave young people pretty exposed to exploitation. The Treasurer speaks about the problems facing this country in his much-vaunted Intergenerational Report. Yet he and this government are, in effect, creating a whole new generation of workers—disadvantaged workers—who have no certainty of employment, will work casual jobs for most of their working lives and now, thanks to these superannuation measures, could end up tied to an age pension future with little or no retirement savings. I thought that the thrust of the Treasurer's report was to recognise that we might not be able to support our older Australians in 30 years time and also to recognise the need to make structural changes to combat this. Denying a whole class of young workers superannuation is certainly not going to help realise those aims, is it, Mr Treasurer? I call upon the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer to dump these unfair provisions before they seriously erode the nest eggs of an increasing number of hardworking Australian families.Even though I am critical of the shortcomings of the bill, I must recognise that the shift to quarterly payments, when finally introduced, will provide benefits to employees. It is commonsense that employees whose contributions are credited quarterly to the fund will earn more compound interest than if the contributions are credited only annually. This view was recognised in the Senate inquiry. The committee identified a number of risks associated with annual payments. These risks were: the potential loss of investment earnings for employees; the potential loss of entitlements due to insolvency—it is very difficult in cases of insolvency for the superannuation fund to recover unpaid superannuation contributions; increased incidence of lost members for firms; an impact on disability and income protection insurance—less frequent payments can increase the risk of employees losing their insurance cover on account of insufficient funds in their account, and superannuation funds will continue to deduct insurance cover despite infrequent employer contributions; and complying employers can be commercially disadvantaged. As my colleague the member for Wills correctly pointed out, less frequent payments can commercially disadvantage employers who make their superannuation payments of the right amount and on time. If the ATO is not detecting or penalising the employers who do not pay their superannuation guarantee, they can gain an unfair competitive advantage. The committee found that these risks were reduced under a quarterly contribution regime. These risks are reason enough to change the payments schedule to quarterly. I support the introduction of quarterly payments as they reduce the risks I have just outlined.Another component of this bill which stands out is the superannuation tax cut introduced by the Treasurer in the budget. This tax cut is not fair. It provides a tax cut for the top three per cent of working Australians while ignoring the people who are shouldering the burden of the budget—the middle class and the lower income earners. The Leader of the Opposition outlined two options that Labor would introduce if we were in government. These options are to cut the superannuation contributions tax for all Australians from the present 15 per cent to 13 per cent, or to cut the tax to 11.5 per cent for people who are aged 40 and over. The government's policy outlined in the budget and this bill targets the richest three per cent of workers. Where is the logic in giving these workers a tax cut? Surely, if we are to reduce the burden on the taxpayer in the future, we need to increase the retirement income of a greater number of people. Here again we see the thrust of the Treasurer's much-vaunted Intergenerational Report undermined by measures contained in his budget. If we were to introduce Labor's proposals, there would be less strain on the taxpayer. For example, by introducing option 2 we would be providing a benefit to people who have only entered superannuation late in life. Remember, Labor only introduced compulsory superannuation in 1992. Commonsense should dictate that the government should provide support for people who are going to retire in the next 20 years. Any assistance for people over 40 will help top up their superannuation to make retirement easier. Option 1 of the Labor plan also has benefits which far outweigh the government's plan. Option 1 will cut the superannuation tax for all Australians from the present 15 per cent to 13 per cent. This option would add many thousands of dollars to everyone's retirement income. Everyone's income increases. To illustrate this I will use two examples that were released by my colleague Senator Nick Sherry, the shadow minister for retirement incomes and savings. Example 1: Matthew is 20 and earns $40,000 a year for the rest of his career. He gets an extra $7,128 in a retirement nest egg under Labor's option 1 and $4,748 under Labor's option 2. Matthew would receive nothing under the Howard government's proposal. Example 2: Heather is 40 and earns $60,000 year for the rest of her career. She gets an extra $4,069 under Labor's option 1 and $7,122 under option 2. Heather would receive nothing under the Howard Liberal government's proposal.As can be seen from these examples, a lot more Australians would be better off under Labor's plan. But people will say, `How much will this cost?' The answer is that it is revenue neutral. It is fairer and it does not cost any more. Why doesn't the government implement Labor's plan, then? Because the government is rewarding the top three per cent of income earners, who, even without the government's changes, would be more than comfortable in retirement. These people will benefit from this bill and the Treasurer's budget, yet pensioners, the sick and the disabled, the vulnerable in our society, have been mugged—all in the name of the Treasurer's Intergenerational Report. The government says, `Let's cut the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and change disability support pension eligibility because we won't be able to pay for this in 30 years time.' But on the other hand it hands out tax breaks on superannuation to the top three per cent of income earners in the country, totally ignoring the retirement nest eggs of the other 97 per cent of income earners. How will this save us money in the future, Treasurer? Tell me that. This government's actions are absolutely unbelievable. There is still time for the Treasurer to move amendments to these bills to deal with this inequity. I commend the opposition amendment to the House and I look forward to those changes being made.17:25:003204Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—In speaking to the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 I am reminded of a number of significant milestones in the debate on superannuation over at least the last decade. When I first came into this place, the whole issue of the superannuation guarantee charge was somewhat in disarray. I think many Australians accepted the principle, but it was excessive union influence which created many anomalies. That is why, when I look at some of the details of the second reading amendment moved by Mr McMullan, I am reminded of that undue influence. There has been some discussion about 50-50 rules, 60-40 rules and one vote, one value. If people cast their minds back, particularly in the rural and regional sector, they will remember the shearing industry and the super guarantee charge and the compulsion of it. If anyone understands the shearing industry—particularly in the farming sector as opposed to the pastoral sector, where contractors are prevalent—there are individual shearers with many employers and many cheques; perhaps up to 50 employers in one year. The potential for some disarray was obvious. The great irony was that this money quite often ended up in the wrong account and quite often could not be accounted for. The shearer, who was in many ways an individual contractor, self-employed almost, did not get the benefit of what was basically a good idea.The opposition come to this debate with this tarnished approach, and at the back of it lies much of the debate around the union influence on the ALP. I welcome these changes, as I have welcomed over the last few years the development and improvement and the steadying, I suppose, of the change that has been part of the superannuation industry for too long. The McMullan amendment says in the first paragraph—10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—The honourable member should refer to the member by his seat.HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—I quote from the amendment from the member for Fraser, where he says:(1) ensure that the proposed surcharge tax reduction to high-income earners, the splitting of superannuation contributions and the closure of the public sector funds do not proceed; As I recall it, this was actually an election promise. Here we have the irony of the opposition insisting that we not implement an election promise. It used to be the other way around. In fact, from the 1993 and 1996 federal elections many will recall the l-a-w law tax cuts. In that period we were endeavouring to keep the Keating government to its word about implementing those tax cuts. We all know what happened there.Much has been said about the Intergenerational Report, particularly by the previous speaker. I particularly welcome this concept because so often politicians, parliaments and governments are criticised for not looking at the longer term. I welcome it because the best hope for our nation is to apply longer-term measures rather than short-term measures for political gain, which, as I say, we are often criticised for. To see the report criticised by the opposition is somewhat ironic, because I think it demonstrates true leadership, true commitment and doing the hard yards in developing policy in all important areas—in this case, superannuation. So I very much welcome the Intergenerational Report. In conclusion, there is one point I raise: how do we attract and maintain young professional people when we know they are in great demand overseas, and when we know that some of our brightest and our best will be attracted by a whole range of incentives offered by a whole range of overseas countries for a whole range of reasons? I think the amendment proposed by the member for Fraser on behalf of the Labor Party really challenges that whole concept of how we attract our best and brightest to stay in their own country and to be productive for Australia. We need to hear from our political opponents how they would deal with that issue. It is with particular pleasure that I support this bill. It is an important implementation of the government's overall program and I wish it a speedy passage.17:31:003205Corcoran, Ann, MPMs CORCORAN009CWIsaacsALP00—Last year the ALP proposed a number of measures to make things more secure for employees if their employers went out of business. One of these measures was that employers be required to pay employees' superannuation guarantee moneys to the super fund on at least a quarterly basis. The logic behind this proposal is that this money that belongs to the employee is safely in the hands of the super fund on a regular basis and not propping up the cash flow of the employer's business but, more importantly, it is not at risk if the employer should go out of business. Most employers are reasonable and ethical people and do the right thing by their employees. Unfortunately some are not, and those working for this minority of employers do need some protection.Under present legislation, employers are not required to remit superannuation guarantee moneys to super funds until 28 July of the year after the year in which superannuation liability is incurred. Some of this money is 13 months old when it is remitted. Luckily, about 85 per cent of employers remit the money quarterly, or more frequently. The change to compulsory quarterly remittances is necessary only to bring a minority into line. The issues that flow from a delay in remitting the money are twofold: firstly, the employee's super account is not earning as much interest as it would if the moneys were remitted on a more frequent basis; and, secondly, if the employer's business fails during the year, there is a very real possibility that this money will never be paid. Problems can arise even with the most conscientious and well-intentioned employer. I know very well from first-hand experience the pressures of running a business, particularly the pressures of maintaining a positive cash flow. These pressures can be a real temptation to delay passing super money on until legally required to do so. In fact, it could be argued that a business, focused on its cash flow, should not remit this money until the last minute. But holding back this money for up to 13 months is too harsh, for all the reasons I have talked about. The ALP has proposed for some time that all employers should be required to remit this money every quarter as a minimum.This legislation proposes to do just that but, unfortunately, it adds a kick that is just not acceptable. That kick is this: at the moment, employees must earn at least $450 per month before they are entitled to a super guarantee payment. This legislation quietly changes that to a minimum of $1,350 per quarter. It sounds the same but it is not. An employee—particularly a casual employee—can often earn more than $450 in one month and nothing the next. Under the proposed legislation, this employee now misses out on any SGC money. For example, an employee who earns $500 per month for two months and then earns $300 in the third month gets no super money under this proposed legislation. Under the existing arrangements, my employee would have had $80 paid into her super fund on her behalf—in fact, $90 after July this year. She has just missed out on $90. She is a low-income earner—she earned just $1,300 in three months—and she is about to be slugged another $90. This is on top of recent increases in the cost of her medicines—and, at the same time, she watches the top three per cent of income earners get a tax cut.I am in favour of the move to quarterly payments but not to the change in the minimum eligible wage. This part of the bill, whether by blunder or by deliberate intent, penalises workers who are in the low-income bracket—the very workers who need every cent that they can get. The category of persons most likely to be caught by this change are those in casual employment. Casual employment is becoming more and more common. It is not the preferred option of many who are working on a casual basis but it is often the only work available. To hit these people again is totally unjust.There is an underlying theme in this package of legislation, of which the SGC change is just one part, which is very disturbing. The theme is the introduction of measures which purport to assist low-income earners or protect employees, but which are actually reductions in benefits or measures of no practical use. The first of those measures is the change to the remittance arrangements for superannuation guarantee contributions which I have just talked about. The second callous move is the introduction of the low-income earners co-contribution, another move which looks okay—even progressive—at first glance but which is of little benefit in reality. The low-income earners co-contribution is a plan whereby those on less than $20,000 per year who make contributions to their superannuation will have those contributions matched up to a limit of $1,000 per year. This is good stuff, provided you can find $1,000 to put into your superannuation when you are earning under $20,000 per year. This move is callous because it is touted as a move to help low-income earners. The reality is that not many low-income earners will be able to put $1,000 into superannuation. They prefer to buy food or pay the mortgage or rent and, of course, they are now paying more for their medicines. It is hard to accept that this government does not understand this, but the alternative—that is, that the government does not care—is even harder to accept. Other changes proposed by this package of legislation are demonstrations of this government's preference to enhance the benefits of the relatively well-off at the expense of those in more difficult circumstances. The first is the reduction over the next three years to the tax surcharge that high-income earners pay. This tax cut comes at a time when the Treasurer is urging us to be patriotic. He is deploring the costs associated with an ageing population, he is asking disability pensioners to accept a pay cut and he is asking everyone to pay more for their medicines. The tax cut is a reduction over three years to the tax surcharge on superannuation contributions made for employees earning more than around $86,000 per annum. Whilst there is some merit in encouraging everyone to save for their retirement, we would be far better off offering a tax cut on superannuation to all employees, not just those in the top three per cent of income earners, and not as we dud those on very low incomes by upping the threshold below which no superannuation is paid. Labor has proposed an alternative to the tax cut for the top three per cent of income earners. That alternative is to cut the tax that all employees pay to 15 per cent. This would give all employees a tax cut, not just those at the upper end of the scale.The second is the change to give couples the ability to split their superannuation and access separate tax-free thresholds and the reasonable benefits limit. This will benefit all those who have superannuation of approximately $500,000 or more, but this is not the average income earner and certainly not the low-income earner. I have watched and heard many moves over the years where this government has produced proposals which it says will assist those on low incomes but which turn out to be of no assistance at all. For this government to slug those on low or erratic incomes by reducing their entitlement to superannuation, to propose a tax cut for those on the highest incomes, and to pretend to be offering assistance to reduce the obligations of employers to contribute, is a demonstration that this government is either unaware of how people live or does not care. I cannot decide which option is worse.17:39:003207Tollner, David, MPMr TOLLNER00AN4SolomonLP10—The minister has declared that the coalition government will make superannuation safe, easily understood and fair for all Australians. The Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 and the associated regulatory changes set the path to help bring that about. I am not going to waste the time of the House reviewing the Amateur Hour response of the Leader of the Opposition. Effectively, the Labor Party themselves have done that, announcing changes to their own initial foray into this area, to hide the multibillion dollar shortfall that Labor's first shot at opposing these measures revealed.Prior to becoming a member of this House, I spent well over a decade in the superannuation industry. I was the North Australian Manager for the Australian Retirement Fund—a fund that had in excess of five per cent of the Australian work force, and in the Northern Territory around 23,000 members. I welcome the government's initiatives. The higher deductibility permitted for self-employed persons will be widely welcomed, encouraging savings and self-reliance in retirement and providing increased incentives for people to save for their future retirement through superannuation. The extension of superannuation contributions for people aged up to 75 years, as opposed to 70 years, will allow interest to continue to accrue, thus increasing the margin of safety and retirement benefits. Equally importantly, it will further relieve the burden that would otherwise fall on taxpayers through the national age pension.The superannuation surcharge deductions are a step in the right direction in an environment in which everyone seems to be clamouring for a reduction in taxes paid on superannuation. Some will argue that superannuation taxes should be reduced even further. The loudest voices seem to come from the superannuation industry itself. My view is that the superannuation industry should do a little bit of navel gazing and listen to some of the issues raised by the Australian Consumer Association in regard to fees. I share the view of many who say that fees charged by some providers impact more on the adequacy of superannuation than the contributions and earnings taxes do. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia reckoned that the fees are not an issue because most employers pay into low-cost superannuation funds, and they dismiss the 40 per cent who opt to go into high-cost retail funds. I would like to quote from the March edition of Super Funds:In these instances, the member chooses a particular fund on the basis of professional advice and/or the knowledge that the fees that will apply have regard to the various services and features that are offered.Another group, IFSA, the Investment and Financial Services Association, suggest the same thing. In the December-January 2002 edition of Super Review, they said:Quite simply, not all superannuation is the same. Because of a failure to acknowledge the variety of products and services on offer in the marketplace, commentators have erroneously compared apples (basic, simple superannuation products) with oranges (products that offer a wide choice of managers, 24x7 reporting and services and comprehensive advice).Most Australians have what could be described as `plain vanilla' superannuation products, and pay fees for administration and investment management accordingly. The range of choices on offer is limited and servicing is basic. They went on to say:It is important, therefore, to acknowledge the benefits that a competitive market delivers in terms of the generation of a wide range of offerings, to meet differing needs of consumers. We are not all the same. We don't all choose to drive the same car, live in the same house or invest in the same way. Similarly, our retirement savings needs are not the same.I cannot follow the arguments put by ASFA and ISFA that there are `apples and oranges' retirees, because at the end of the day the only fruit that really counts is dollars. We do not all choose to drive the same car, but if we decide to buy an expensive one we do not expect the government to carry the can if we fall behind in our car payments. Why then should those organisations expect the taxpayer to carry the burden of a retirement income shortfall that is caused by a high-cost plan which is loaded with bells and whistles but which detracts from achieving a retirement income goal? The fact that some people decide to join high-cost funds to the detriment of their retirement income based on some kind of professional advice leads me to question the motives of that advice. I see on the front page of Tuesday's Australian Financial Review the headline `AMP warns bank takeover a threat to super'. That may shed some light on the issue. It is clear from the article that AMP Chief Executive Paul Batchelor is concerned about the shareholders of AMP. He appears to me, at least, to be more interested in the shareholders than he is in the retirement futures of the customers of AMP. Hidden in the super guarantee amendments is the issue of unclaimed super guarantee vouchers and the ability of the Australian Taxation Office to deposit vouchers directly to a member's fund without the need for specific advice from the member or employee. In particular, that goes to the aim of easily understandable superannuation arrangements. A high number of superannuation guarantee vouchers remain unpaid simply because members have not understood the requirement upon them to nominate the fund into which super guarantee vouchers should be paid. As a result, today many members of funds have never seen their proper superannuation entitlements. Forms—even the most simple bureaucratically designed forms—are a problem for a lot of Australians. I obtained some figures from the tax office about this issue. Currently, or as at 3 June, over a million super guarantee vouchers have been issued to the value of almost $356 million. Of that number, almost half—a little over 490,000—remain unclaimed, and the value of those is over $134 million. Of those, 73 per cent are more than 12 months old and they represent 60 per cent of the total value—almost $81 million.Two very exciting changes that are envisaged will be even more widely welcomed by the funds, members and, most importantly, all those who wish and hope for a better future for their children and their children's children. The first of those changes is the move to quarterly payments. This change has wide ramifications for employers and employees. All those law-abiding employers who have paid their superannuation will welcome this initiative. Mostly they will pay their superannuation contributions at the same time as they pay their tax. This will mean that the ATO will be able to identify sooner those employers who are dodging their superannuation responsibilities. By the same token, recalcitrant employers who to date have been able to undercut their rivals in tendering for jobs by not taking into account superannuation costs will be brought into line, with implications for fairness in competing for work and in ensuring that employees receive their proper benefits. In short, there are some areas of business that I am aware of in the Northern Territory—for example, parts of the cleaning and security industries—who look upon super as something that they have to dodge simply because a number of people in those industries do not take those costs into account when they tender for work. For honest businesses to compete, they are almost forced to tender on the same basis. At the same time, the Australian Taxation Office will be able to identify those recalcitrants, employees will gain their legislated benefits a lot more easily and, through the magic of compound interest, they will see their benefits work better for them. The taxation commissioner will be able to send their super guarantee vouchers to their super fund if they opt for that. Costs will be reduced for superannuation funds. In the past, a number of funds took it upon themselves to collect outstanding contributions for their members. Of course, if the tax office is going to take some of the burden off their shoulders, that will reduce costs for funds, and it is essentially fund members who stand to benefit from the reduction of those costs.I now move to the innovation that will allow parents, grandparents and even friends to choose to contribute to the retirement security of all those under 18 years of age. This is a very big step. It will go a long way to addressing the current adequacy issues that dominate any discussion of superannuation and retirement in an ageing Australia. For example, a parent who puts away just $20 a week for a newborn child will have created a superannuation base in excess of $28,000 for that child by the time they are 18. This is based on a modest real rate of return of around four per cent per annum, and it is based on a low-cost fund such as the Australian Retirement Fund, which charges a dollar a week in administration fees and nothing more excessive than that. By the time that child has reached retirement age of 65 years, that base funding will have grown—as I mentioned, with interest of four per cent—to $180,000 in today's terms. In my experience in the industry, it is the Aussie battler—the average income earning Australian—who is most set upon ensuring a better deal for his or her children than they have had for themselves. Thus it will be these people—Australians of modest means who have worked hard all their lives—who will utilise this opportunity to put away $1,000 a year or around $20 a week to see their kids do better. I find it difficult to imagine a more practical and sensible adjustment to superannuation laws to help Australia as a nation and Australians as individuals overcome the inherent problem of an ageing population. I commend the bill to the House.17:53:003209Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyIND00—I rise to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002. Some considerable number of years ago someone insisted that I read Michener's famous book Centennia, which is the story of the founding of the state of Colorado in the United States. If you will bear with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, what I am about to say is most relevant to the bill.The person insisted so much that I read the book because the state of Colorado was almost identical to the state electorate of Flinders that I represented for 20 years. It was almost eerie: for the Rocky Mountains read the Great Dividing Range; for Denver read Charters Towers; for the Platt River read the Burdekin River; for the rainforest read the snow and ice and for the downs read the prairies. The first town on the downs in my electorate is called Prairie. The rainfalls at 17 inches are almost identical. European settlement went in there about 1840 and it went into my area about 1860. Both areas were laid down in the Mesozoic period. The great mass of land, the Great Artesian Basin, supplies water for a large proportion of my old state electorate and the old Gila Laguna aquifer in the United States supplies a similar water supply there. In 1890, the populations were not all that dissimilar: 35,000 to 40,000 in the mid-west area of North Queensland, as it is called, and about 70,000 in Colorado. The really extraordinary thing is that the population of North Queensland's mid-west has fallen from 35,000 to around 25,000. The population of the state of Colorado has gone from 70,000 to over five million the last time I looked. You must ask yourself why one race of people has succeeded so magnificently and another race of people has failed so dismally. It most certainly is not the result of the stout-hearted people who have founded and battled for a living on that plain. To quote a famous couplet:For what do we striveFor what do we fightOn a slab of dirt on a windswept plainThat will keep us broke Till we go insane.Obviously I have given this a great deal of thought over the years. Three factors enabled them to succeed so magnificently and us to fail so dismally. The first was statehood, the second was the building of dams and the third factor, which brings me to the subject of this bill, was locally owned banking.The Senate currently has a select committee looking into superannuation in Australia, and the findings are quite astounding. They have delineated that, of the $6,000 million a year that comes out of rural Australia into superannuation funds, only one per cent goes back to rural Australia. Are we as a government, the people charged by the Australian people to run this country, to ignore a mechanism that takes $6,000 million a year from rural Australia and returns only $60 million back, and leave that government mechanism in place? It would be a disgrace and a reflection on everyone if that were allowed to continue.We have one of the lowest savings rates in the OECD countries. We have a negligible saving rate and in some years it has actually been negative. The only savings in Australia—that is, money freed up for investment—are the superannuation funds. If you like, they are government enforced compulsory savings forced on the Australian people, and that is a good thing—I do not deny that. However, it behoves this place to seek out mechanisms by which at least a small proportion of these funds can be returned whence they came—to rural Australia. Having said that, if you wish to buy a house in rural Australia, you might have to find 50 or 60 per cent of the value of the house as a deposit. If you wanted to buy the same house in Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne you would have to find only a 10 per cent deposit. Needless to say, not a lot of houses are being built in rural Australia—in fact, very few are being built, in spite of our very cheap land. We cannot access finance. That is the reason why we are not building houses. If we are not building nice shops it is because we cannot obtain bank finance. If, for example, we are not changing our cattle stations into irrigation farms as we should, there are a number of reasons now; but still the most overwhelming reason is that we cannot secure finance to make those necessary changes.Before coming down to the House to speak today I was on the telephone to a very prominent person in the beef industry in Australia. I pointed out that almost every single station in North Queensland has access to an almost unlimited water supply. They are on a major river; nearly half of Australia's entire rainfall run-off. As I have said in this place many times, half of Australia's agriculture comes off the Murray-Darling, and the Gulf of Carpenteria has six times more water than the Murray-Darling. Whilst the Murray-Darling is supporting a population of 20 million, the Gulf Country and its periphery, the mid-west, languish. The reason why they languish is that we do not have access to finance.When we were setting up the Queensland Industry Development Corporation, which was a state bank in Queensland, I and William Gunn, the Deputy Premier, were the two ministers charged with the responsibility of oversighting this wonderful institution. I asked the most highly paid executive in Australia at the time, `How would it be viewed by the business community—the setting up of this bank?' And he said: `For the first hundred years the important decisions—and you government people do not make the important decisions; banks and financial institutions decide whether you build a house or not, not the government—were made in London. Our banking was controlled from London. For the next hundred years, they were made in Melbourne or to a lesser extent Sydney. It sure would be nice for the next hundred years if those decisions were made north of the Tweed River. You would get an enthusiastic reception for the creation of a Queensland bank, the only bank that would be controlled north of the Tweed.' And we did. We had such an enthusiastic reception that that bank rose from $250 million a year in funds to $3.5 thousand million dollars a year in the space of 13 years. It was extinguished by the economic rationalists, flogged off and sold and it no longer exists.We need to reinstitute a movement of some of these funds. The proposals that are in the bill today are very acceptable. I think they are necessary. I most certainly am not a socialist who wants to go and sting the rich all the time. Many of the people who have very big incomes in my electorate are miners and other people who richly deserve and earn in the hardest possible way every single cent that they make. Many of them are cattlemen living in isolation and risking their lives almost every day of their life up in mustering helicopters or on wild, mad horses chasing breakers up in the Gulf Country. They are people who earn every cent that they make, and good luck to them. I do not want to see those people stung by superannuation surcharges et cetera. But the thing we are not doing with this bill is addressing the problems that are being delineated in the other place. In the parliaments of Australia, the Senate has delineated the problems that exist, and these problems are not being addressed and they need to be addressed. Whilst we are talking today about superannuation and changes that are being made I must also add to this the fact that I represent probably the biggest fruit picking electorate in Australia. The banana is the biggest selling commodity in the supermarkets in Australia and the biggest single generic item sold in supermarkets in Australia. It is a very high labour content industry. We have to keep some sort of close relationship between the cost of production here and the cost of production overseas and to do that the wages cannot be very high. So, of its very nature, fruit picking is a lowly paid job—as it is, I suppose throughout most of Australia. These people come for a little while when they are out of work or in between jobs and they will pick and then move on. Many of us have kids or relatives who have done this. We may have done it ourselves from time to time.But the small amount that is put aside in a superannuation fund rapidly vanishes. Effectively, we see that the tens of millions of dollars a year going into superannuation funds from the giant fruit picking industries of North Queensland are simply vanishing. Those people who work so hard and so long for such little remuneration find that this money has been taken from them. Nearly 100 per cent of it is taken from them in the Tullys and Innisfails and Mareebas and is sent down to the big cities never to return. These people never see that money again. This is a continuation of the greatest of injustices and unfairnesses and is bad for the commonweal. We have the resources in Northern Queensland—we most certainly have. The only part of Australia that has water—real, fair dinkum water—is Northern Queensland. Obviously, if you have water everything else flows very freely.We have the biggest hard rock mining province probably in the world. The north-west mineral province of Queensland is probably the biggest concentration of resources anywhere on the planet. We have the biggest lead mine in the world, the biggest copper mine in the world and the biggest zinc mine in the world in that province. We have a black soil plain 1,200 kilometres long and 600 kilometres wide. Our nearest neighbour has a population of 100 million people who go to bed hungry every night. For us to simply sit on those resources and not develop them is a disgrace. The rest of the world clearly is not going to continue to accept that sort of behaviour.We need to look at ways to utilise these resources, to turn them into wealth for ourselves and for other people on the planet, to provide hope and opportunity for our young people. We must never forget that our young men in this country have the highest rate of suicide of any group of young men anywhere in the world. As the federal Department of Health and Ageing indicated in their really wonderful inquiry, those suicides are directly related to unemployment. This is not a country of golden hope and opportunity; it is probably at this point of its history just the opposite. It is a place where there is no hope and there is no opportunity.Let me universalise—globalise, if you like—my remarks. Whilst I have been talking about rural Australia, all of the Australian savings sector goes to the fund managers, who are very young people who are described as `screen jockeys' because they sit in front of a screen all day long and play monopoly with each other. They buy and sell shares with each other. After two days of pounding the carpet in Brisbane and in Sydney, going from superannuation fund to superannuation fund with a number of commercial projects in my electorate that people had approached me about that were red-hot commercial opportunities, each of the superannuation funds told me that they do not invest money in projects—they do not invest money in something that will make money; they only invest money in shares!If you read John Kenneth Galbraith's rather wonderful book The Great Crash 1929 you will see that all the Americans did with their money in the year of our Lord 1929 was to buy and sell shares backwards and forwards to each other. So I have no hesitation in coming into this place and predicting where this stupidity will end. You cannot indulge yourself in economic cannibalism for a decade and then expect to still have an economy that is a real economy, not something that is simply propped up with artificial values like me selling real estate to you and you selling it back to me at continuously inflating prices or me selling shares to you and you selling them back to me at continuously inflating prices, providing some very false and misleading statistics that would lead us to believe that we are going all right in Australia. If you think we are going all right, how come the rest of the world thinks our dollar is worth only half of the value it had some 10 or 15 years ago? If you think that it is turning around, I have got news for you: you have got another think coming in a big way.What about all of those indicators we have handed to us by the Treasurer on a daily basis here? Ever since I have been here we have been told—including from a previous Treasurer, Mr Keating—on a daily basis about how wonderfully everything is going. But most politicians say, `If it is so wonderful, how come everything is so bad in my electorate?' Each of them thinks that his electorate is an isolated example. I hear the people from the cities coming in here and saying how bad things are. I hear people from the country coming in here and saying how bad things are. The indicators are false. Those indicators that things are looking up are extremely misleading. Dr David Kemp did a wonderful paper, which he presented in this place, on the real unemployment figures. Mr Langmore, a former Labor member in here, produced a book with Quiggan, and Quiggan was the only economist ever to receive the Science prize in Australian history, mostly on the basis of that book. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Langmore didn't get it.HX4Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTER—I take the interjection, because Mr Langmore, who was a Labor member of parliament here at the time, actually lost his endorsement as a result of that book, because the book delineated what the real unemployment figures were. The government, if nothing else, has been honest in owning up to the fact that the number of people on disability pensions is twice what it would otherwise be. I have mentioned in this House previously that the three economics editors of the three major papers in Australia all state the real unemployment figures to be twice what they are quoted to be—as did Mr Anthony, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. He also quoted a real figure of around two million people. I just say to you that that indicator, for example, is false and misleading in the extreme.But if you take that superannuation money and do with it what the Singapore government has done with their superannuation, use it for real development of their country, then you will see the sort of magical economic growth that has been seen from a tiny little country with no resources whatsoever. I represent an area which can produce $3,000 million a year from salt from within its periphery, $4,000 million a year from pure silicon, $10,000 million a year from agriculture, and $1,000 million a year from ethanol. What is preventing us from doing these things? There are a number of difficulties created by government, but the most important factor of all is that we have no money. We have no way of getting that money. Unless we can convince some big corporation, mostly overseas corporations now, we simply cannot achieve the wonderful future that we should be achieving. (Time expired)18:13:003213Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—in reply—Initially, I would like to thank those honourable members who have participated in the cognate debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 and the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2002. I have to say that it is not uncommon that the contributions made by members of the government parties are very much more positive than the efforts put forward by those people on the other side. It is interesting also to note that the member for Werriwa was to have led the debate for the Australian Labor Party but he was elbowed aside by the member for Fraser, who clearly is very concerned about the fact that his colleague the member for Werriwa is breathing down his neck as a key economics spokesman for the Australian Labor Party.Apparently, when the member for Fraser decided that he would lead the debate for the Australian Labor Party, the member for Werriwa picked up his bat and ball and went home and actually took his name off the speaking list. My understanding is that he has not made a contribution on the debate currently before the House. It is eminently regrettable that the member for Werriwa decided to be churlish, but it is also interesting that the internal party dynamics of the Australian Labor Party are such that the member for Fraser felt it necessary to, in effect, take control of the economic debate from the member for Werriwa.The government last year in its superannuation policy statement, A Better Superannuation System, announced a range of measures designed to enhance the overall attractiveness, accessibility and, most importantly, security of superannuation. With the introduction of the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002 and associated amendments through the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations and Retirement Savings Account Regulations, the government will have delivered on a significant proportion of these commitments. As a government, we place a very high store on keeping faith with the Australian people, and we are very pleased to have achieved this.Looking at some of the remarks made by honourable members of the opposition in this debate, I notice that the member for Fraser must not have actually read the bill before the chamber. It is a bit surprising, considering the senior position that the member for Fraser has in the Australian Labor Party. He came out and said, `Labor will oppose changes to public sector schemes and choice for certain public sector employees.' Any wonder that the member for Werriwa wished to take control of the debate from the honourable member for Fraser. I assure the honourable member for Fraser that the matters that he raised are not actually included in this bill. The government does remain committed to choice. We are in favour of giving employees the right to determine who manages their superannuation. Why should the employer have this right but not the owner of the superannuation savings, the employee? That is a pretty fair question to ask.When the honourable member for Stirling spoke, she asked a question about the superannuation guarantee. She asked: why does the Australian tax office not prosecute employers who do not pay the superannuation guarantee? I always welcome the opportunity to improve the education of the honourable member for Stirling. I point out to her that the superannuation guarantee charge is the penalty that is imposed on noncomplying employers. The only penalty provisions in the Superannuation Guarantee Act relate to reporting obligations on the employer. Where amounts erode, the Australian tax office does undertake legal debt recovery action. I am very pleased not only to contribute to her education but also to give her that assurance.Various members of the Australian Labor Party also posed this question: why is the government reducing the surcharge, which will benefit higher income earners? Again, the government did announce this as an election measure prior to the last poll. We went to the people and we said that, if the Howard government were returned, we would in fact make this very important reform of the superannuation system. We believe that we do have a mandate from the electorate to implement our superannuation policies, including the reduction in the surcharge. Looking at the hopeful expression on the face of the honourable member for Hunter, the shadow minister at the table, I know that he is clearly hoping that some of his senators choose to support the government legislation. The government's superannuation policies were announced in A Better Superannuation System on 5 November 2001 and were part of the government's election platform. They received considerable media coverage at the time and, no doubt, the superannuation changes were some of the matters which the Australian people took into account when they decided to consign the Australian Labor Party to yet another term on the opposition benches. The reduction of the surcharge has been supported by a number of industry groups, including the Australian Bankers Association, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and the Investment and Financial Services Association. The government is keen to ensure that superannuation remains attractive and encourages all employees to save for their retirement. The measure to reduce the surcharge is in keeping with the government's broader retirement income policy objective of encouraging people to make greater contributions to supplement the superannuation guarantee and to build greater financial self-reliance in retirement.It is a bizarre situation when the honourable member for Hunter is opposing, or at least his party is opposing, what this government is seeking to do—that is, to implement our election promises. One could understand that an opposition would endeavour to compel a government to keep its election promises. This government is going to keep its promises in full and deliver them on time. The Labor Party when in office broke its promises in a serial way. It was prepared to promise anything, to do anything and to say anything to get back into office. This particular policy was announced prior to the election, and the Australian Labor Party is trying through the parliament to force the government to break its promise. The government is determined to deliver on its commitment to the Australian people. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would understand, the Howard government has a very strong commitment to keeping faith with the electorate. We promised certain policies before the election, we were returned in an historic victory for the Howard government and we are very pleased to be able in this bill to deliver on our election commitments.Returning to the surcharge, a group of people affected by the surcharge will generally have a greater capacity to make voluntary contributions to superannuation than other groups. The reduction in the surcharge will provide further incentive for this group to save through superannuation. I am certain that those listening would agree that this is a very positive outcome. The reduction in the surcharge is just one element of a package of messages announced in A Better Superannuation System to enhance the overall attractiveness of superannuation. Other key measures in the package include—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Time!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The member wants to go to sleep! I can see he wants to get away from here. He clearly wants to desert his duty at the table and do anything other than contribute to the parliament, because he knows that he has no integrity in opposing the government's delivery of its election promise. He knows that the particular promise which we are seeking to deliver through this bill is a very positive outcome for his electorate and for his constituents in the electorate of Hunter.Other key measures in the package include a government superannuation co-contribution for low-income earners, under which the government will match personal contributions made by low-income earners up to a maximum of $1,000 a year, and an increase from $3,000 to $5,000 in the limit on fully tax deductible contributions made by self-employed persons. The member for Rankin, who has returned to the chamber—83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—To hear you.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I thank him for coming in to hear the pearls of wisdom in this summing-up speech. The member for Rankin actually said that the superannuation contributions tax was an insidious tax. I can see that he is nodding and that he is agreeing with that comment. I want to remind the honourable member for Rankin that the superannuation contributions tax was actually an initiative of a Labor government. It was introduced by the previous Labor government.Other opposition members said that these bills should not introduce a quarterly threshold. The government's election commitment and budget measure on quarterly superannuation guarantee contributions show the Howard government's commitment to the safety, security and availability of superannuation. Quarterly SG contributions are part of a package of measures that will deliver significant benefits to employees. The move to a quarterly SG exemption threshold is a key element of this package and is designed to reduce the compliance impact on business. A general exemption threshold would simplify the employer's requirements and therefore reduce the compliance burden on business by aligning the determination of whether an employee is entitled to SG with the new obligation to pay quarterly. The package aims to balance the compliance cost to business with the benefit to employees of more frequent contributions. On balance, the new quarterly system will still impose additional compliance costs on some businesses, particularly small businesses. To exclude the proposed change to the exemption threshold would add to this compliance burden. Fewer employees as a proportion will miss out on employer superannuation under the new quarterly SG exemption threshold than when SG was introduced under Labor in 1992. In 1992 five per cent of employees were excluded from SG because of the $450 per month exemption threshold. After the proposed change, only three per cent of employees will miss out on SG.The SG exemption threshold has not been indexed since its introduction in 1992. If the exemption threshold had been indexed to the CPI, it would now be around $573 per month instead of $450 a month. A number of peak industry groups have lobbied in the past for indexation of the SG exemption threshold. However, the government favours a move to a quarterly exemption threshold. Peak industry bodies, including the Australian Retailers Association, the National Farmers Federation and Taxpayers Australia Inc., have indicated strong support for the move to a quarterly exemption threshold. The NFF indicated that it could support a regime of quarterly SG contributions, subject to a number of conditions, including a move to a quarterly exemption threshold. The need to balance the cost to business with the benefit to employees was raised by the National Director of Taxpayers Australia, Peter McDonald, in the Financial Review of 24 May. He noted that under a quarterly exemption threshold the maximum loss of entitlement after contributions tax is $34.40 per month, most or possibly all of which could be potentially eroded by administration fees. He went on to add: The time and cost for the employer who is administering these small amounts far exceeds the employee's paltry superannuation benefit.... ... ...The change to quarterly employer assessment rules based on $1,350 earnings is a fair compromise.The member for Stirling asked—I suppose it was a rhetorical question, in a sense—why not support the Labor bill introducing quarterly superannuation guarantee contributions, and why is the start date 1 July next year? Mr Deputy Speaker, you would understand that Labor's bill was seriously flawed. It does not achieve a move to a quarterly contribution regime because it fails to amend the imposition act—that is, the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act. It imposes a harsh and unjust penalty regime by charging interest from the beginning of the year regardless of which quarter the employer has a shortfall in. Finally, business and industry have indicated that they need at least 12 months to adjust to this change—a time frame that Labor's bill will not allow them.The member for Fraser referred to the splitting of superannuation contributions between spouses, and he said that Labor will oppose this measure. Again, one can understand why the honourable member for Werriwa is keen to play a higher role in economic debates on behalf of the Labor Party. I want to assure the honourable member for Fraser that the measure he referred to in his speech is simply not included in the bill. The measure will, however, assist couples to maximise the benefits from tax concessions provided to super. A low-income spouse or non-working spouse will get better access to the tax-free threshold and pay lower tax on super benefits.The honourable member for Kennedy, who surprised us all by coming into the parliament to make a contribution on this debate, said that the government should require super funds to invest in rural and regional areas. This government is a government which has strongly supported rural and regional areas. We stand by our record. We are very proud of the way we have supported those Australians who live outside the capital cities, because they make a wonderful contribution towards making Australia the lucky country. They have indeed assisted us in every part of our national journey. I want to point out to the honourable member for Kennedy that funds are free to invest moneys in rural and regional areas if they wish. Funds must, however, have regard to an investment strategy and cash flow requirements and act in the best interests of their members. Forcing funds to invest in a particular area could well reduce the retirement income of members. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that would be entirely distorting the intention of superannuation.Over recent years there has been a growing realisation throughout Australian society of the importance of retirement planning and saving for the years ahead. Superannuation is seen as a vital element in planning for a comfortable and secure retirement. The government recognises that it is important that superannuation is safe, easily understood and fair for every Australian. The amendments in this bill, together with the proposed amendments in the regulations, will help achieve the aim of a safer, fairer and less complex superannuation system.The bill introduces amendments to the superannuation guarantee law to require employers to make specified levels of superannuation contributions on at least a quarterly basis on behalf of their employees to avoid the superannuation guarantee charge. Currently an employer has until 28 July, following a financial year, to make the required level of superannuation contributions on behalf of its employees or be subject to the superannuation guarantee charge. While the majority of employers currently make superannuation contributions quarterly or more often, the law will be amended to require all employers to make contributions at least quarterly.A number of enhancements to the superannuation guarantee law will also be made by this bill to facilitate the introduction of the new quarterly contribution regime. Other measures contained in the bill will make superannuation more attractive and support retirement incomes policy, including allowing a working person the opportunity to make personal undeducted contributions to a superannuation fund until age 75; reducing the superannuation and termination payment surcharge rates from 15 per cent to 10.5 per cent over the next three years—that is our election commitment, and I referred to it a moment ago; allowing contributions to be made by third parties on behalf of children who are under the age of 18 and who otherwise do not receive superannuation support; and increasing the fully deductible amount available to the self-employed for personal superannuation contributions made to complying superannuation funds or retirement savings accounts. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be interested to know that self-employed people who claim an income tax deduction for personal superannuation contributions will now have an increased limit where full deductibility is available for the first $5,000 of contributions plus 75 per cent of the excess over $5,000 up to the taxpayer's age based deduction limit. Full details of these measures and some minor technical corrections were contained in the explanatory memorandum. The second bill in this cognate debate, the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2002, establishes the basis for requiring employers to make at least quarterly superannuation contributions on behalf of their employees. These amendments will enable the superannuation guarantee charge, which underpins the compulsory superannuation arrangements, to be imposed on a quarterly basis. Full details of the measures in that bill are also contained in the explanatory memorandum for the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Bill (No. 2) 2002.The opposition has moved, as is customary, a second reading amendment requiring that the bill be withdrawn and redrafted. Because we are very proud of this piece of legislation, members of the opposition will not be surprised to know that the government rejects the second reading amendment. I commend the bill to the House and urge the House to defeat the opposition's second reading amendment.10000Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wilkie)—Order! The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved as an amendment that all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McMullan's amendment) stand part of the question:.18:37:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Wilkie) 79Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Windsor, A.H.C.Worth, P.M.60Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.*Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.*Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.Original question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.321818:45:003218McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—I indicate that the opposition will be opposing two elements of this bill: (1) Schedule 1, item 126, page 20 (lines 11 to 13),.(2) Schedule 2, page 37 (line 2) to page 47 (line 28). 10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I understand that it will suit the House to deal with each element separately and then to consider the remainder of the bill. The question is that item 126, schedule 1, be agreed to. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Item 126, schedule 1, is the schedule which deals with payments to people under the quarterly superannuation payment arrangements. As I said before, the opposition supports the change to the quarterly superannuation change arrangement, but we vehemently oppose the proposition that the $450 threshold should be increased to $1,350. It is quite perverse. At the moment approximately 85 per cent of employers pay quarterly or more regularly. So for them there is going to be no change and there is no reason why, therefore, there should be a change to the threshold to affect the circumstances of those people, in terms of simplicity. We are saying that, under an arrangement where people have to pay as a statutory minimum annually, we have a monthly minimum amount specified. But, now we are reducing that annual requirement to quarterly, we are tripling the minimum payment.Let us think about this. Not one person is going to be better off as a result of this, but a substantial number of people are going to be worse off. Why is this happening? Let me give you an example. Shearers work for an extensive period of time but for a series of different people in succession. In many circumstances many of them would not earn $1,350 from any employer because they move from shed to shed. But they would work full-time for a considerable period—several months, going from shed to shed. At the moment they would get superannuation guarantee payments for every job. Under this proposition they will get none. Why is that good policy? I ask the parliamentary secretary, what is the basis? Which individual will be better off under this proposition? Not one Australian will get one more cent of retirement income as a result of this change, but a large number of people—most of them not as well-off as shearers—will lose. People who work for an occasional month fruit picking might earn a thousand dollars, but if they do not work for the next two months they do not meet the $1,350 quarterly payment and they get jack zip in their superannuation. How can that be progress? This is supposed to be about retirement income and about savings. But there will be less savings, less retirement income, and it will be less fairly distributed.If you take these two measures, this measure and the other one we are opposing, what do they do? One says if you are part of the richest three per cent you are going to get more. The other says if you are part of the poorest three per cent you are going to get less. What possible principled rationale can there be? It is not a simplification measure. It is not a savings measure to the government. It is taking away the superannuation rights of some of the lowest-income Australians. I say to the parliamentary secretary, please reconsider. This is not part of anything. This is not going to be a cost to your budget. It is not a problem for the government's budgetary program—there are no budgetary dollars involved. All you are doing is taking away the superannuation benefits of some of the lowest-income Australians—people working in the hospitality sector, people working as casual labour, shearers—and the rationale for it is beyond the comprehension of all those who have looked at it. It is a purely mean-spirited proposition and I ask you seriously to reconsider this proposition.18:50:003219Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I thank the member opposite. Obviously the government is very keen that item 126, schedule 1, be agreed to. I just want to point out to the House that the government's policy, as announced in A Better Superannuation System and reaffirmed in the outstanding budget delivered by the Treasurer on the 14 May, is to require employers to make superannuation guarantee contributions on at least a quarterly basis. As part of a regime of quarterly superannuation guarantee contributions, the SG exemptions threshold will change from $450 a month to $1,350 a quarter. The government's election commitment and budget measure on quarterly superannuation guarantee shows the Howard government's commitment to the safety, security and availability of superannuation.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—We all support that.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Quarterly SG contributions are part of a package of measures that will deliver significant benefits to employees. The move to a quarterly SG exemptions threshold is a key element in this package and it is designed—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—We all agree with that.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I am pleased to see you are agreeing with it. Then you ought not to be opposing the measure that we are discussing, which is designed to reduce the compliance impact on business. A quarterly exemption threshold will simplify the employer's requirements and therefore reduce the compliance burden on business by aligning the determination of whether an employee is entitled to SG with the new obligation to pay quarterly.This package aims to balance the compliance cost to business with the benefits to employees of more frequent contributions. This is a very important point. On balance, the new quarterly system will still impose additional compliance costs on some businesses, particularly small business. To exclude the proposed change to the exemption threshold would add to this compliance burden. Fewer employees as a proportion will miss out on the employer superannuation under the new quarterly SG exemption threshold than when SG was introduced by Labor way back in 1992. In 1992, when SG was introduced, five per cent of employees were excluded from SG because of the $450 per month exemption threshold. After the proposed change, only three per cent of employees will miss out on SG. The SG exemption threshold has not been indexed—this is a very important point—since its introduction in 1992. If the exemption threshold had been indexed to the CPI, it would now be around $573 per month instead of $450 per month. A number of peak industry groups have in the past lobbied for indexation of the SG exemption threshold. However, the government favours a move to a quarterly exemption threshold. A number of peak industry groups have provided strong support for the move to a quarterly exemption threshold, including the Australian Retailers Association, the National Farmers Federation and Taxpayers Australia. The NFF indicated that it could support a regime of quarterly SG contributions subject to a number of conditions, including a move to a quarterly exemption threshold. The need to balance the cost to business with the benefits to employees was raised by Peter McDonald, the National Director of Taxpayers Australia, in the Financial Review of 24 May. He notes that under a quarterly exemption threshold the maximum loss of entitlement after contributions tax is $34.40 a month, most or possibly all of which could potentially be eroded by administration fees. He goes on to add that the time and cost for the employer who is administering these small amounts far exceeds the employee's paltry superannuation benefit, and the change to quarterly employer assessment rules based on the $1,350 earnings is a fair compromise. The member for Fraser claimed that not one person will receive more money from this measure. I am happy to point out to him that, by introducing a quarterly system, money that could previously be paid annually will now be paid into a fund quarterly, and this means compounding interest. The member for Fraser should be aware of that. The member for Fraser claimed that the quarterly threshold change would not help anybody. I want to emphasise to him that there will be swings and roundabouts. Someone who earns less than $450 a month for two months and slightly more than $450 in the last month of a quarter will actually earn more in superannuation. This measure will assist business and we are not going to resile from it. We would ask the opposition to reconsider its opposition to this measure.10000Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wilkie)—Order! The question is that item 126, schedule 1, be agreed to.Question put.19:00:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Wilkie) 78Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.61Adams, D.G.H.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Windsor, A.H.C.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The question now is that schedule 2 be agreed to.19:05:003221McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—There are a number of questions about this proposition that we would be interested in receiving answers for. But let us summarise what this proposition is. This proposition is that the richest three per cent of taxpayers—that is, people who have a taxable income of more than $85,000 a year in round figures—should have a tax cut. They are the only people who are going to benefit from this measure. There are people whose basic income is slightly less than $85,000 but who get caught out by administrative anomalies. If people want to clear up the anomalies, that is fine. But why are we spending $370 million of taxpayers' money on giving a benefit to so few when we are doing nothing for most and reducing the benefits for some? We will be interested to hear outlined the case in principle for this measure, because there has been a lot of criticism of the superannuation surcharge, essentially based on its administrative cost. The problem is that this measure does not reduce its administrative costs by one cent. All it does is increase the administrative cost as a proportion of the revenue raised, because we keep the administrative costs the same and reduce the revenue, and so it cannot be for that reason. Is it an equity measure? Clearly it is not, because the superannuation surcharge itself was introduced by the government as an equity measure. It has its shortcomings as a measure, but the one thing it does have going for it is the equity argument that was put forward by the Treasurer in 1996. Now they are proposing to reduce it to make it less equitable.I would be interested in receiving a bit of information from the parliamentary secretary—he will not be able to provide it tonight, but he might take it on notice or else we will have to get it from the Senate. Is it possible to determine the distribution of the beneficiaries of this measure—that is, who pays the superannuation surcharge? Clearly, we cannot identify it by individual taxpayer—(a) we do not want to know that question and (b) it would be improper for you to provide us with that information. But we would be interested, for example, in the geographical distribution—that is, by postcode. We would be interested to know who pays the tax and, therefore, who the beneficiaries of the reduction are—most particularly, by some sort of geographic distribution. I suppose the most obvious way is by postcode but, if there is some other simplified measure that makes it easier for the office to provide information that is equally informative, we would be happy to receive it.I would be interested in hearing the argument in defence of this measure. Is it about equity? If not, what is the evidence that the retirement income of the beneficiaries of this measure is not adequate? There is evidence that there are Australians whose retirement income is not adequate, and governments need to contemplate whether they will do something about that. I think there are initiatives that need to be taken, from which almost certainly this three per cent of people would benefit, as well as everybody else. That is fine; I do not want them to be particularly disadvantaged by virtue of their higher income. But I want to know: what is the evidence that the retirement incomes of the beneficiaries of this measure are not adequate? Is there any scintilla of evidence to suggest that, when NATSEM and other research organisations suggest that there are Australians whose retirement income may not be adequate, any of them will have their retirement income improved by this measure?There is nothing that I have ever seen that suggests that the retirement income for people earning $85,000 a year plus—that is, all the members of parliament and others on similar salaries—is not adequate and that we need to spend $370 million of taxpayers' money to fix it. That is the question that we want to hear answered. We would appreciate the information. I am not expecting the parliamentary secretary to answer it now, but I would appreciate it if it could be supplied to me. Otherwise, we will have to seek the answer to the question about the distribution of the beneficiaries in the Senate. What we want to know is: how is it that anyone earning less than $85,000 a year will get any benefit from this measure? What evidence is there that those beneficiaries have inadequate retirement incomes compared to any reasonable community standard?19:10:003222Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I want to reiterate that this is a measure which the Howard government took to the Australian people at the last election. It was part of our election promise and we are absolutely and resolutely determined to deliver in full and on time all of our election promises, including the reduction in the superannuation surcharge.It is a bizarre act for the opposition to seek to force the Howard government to break an election promise. We are all used to the Labor Party's record on election promises; we are all used to them being prepared to promise anything prior to an election and then breaking those promises afterwards. Just briefly, prior to the 1993 election, Labor promised income tax cuts and said that they were legislated into law. Paul Keating said:... let me tell you something that I thought you might have known—they've been legislated. They were not a promise, they are law—L-A-W—law.He also said that there would be no tax increases.... what I am promising to do is not put up tax.He also said that Labor would retain majority ownership of the Commonwealth Bank. We all know that, once back in office, the Keating government failed to deliver the second round of the l-a-w tax cuts. They increased wholesale sales tax and fuel excise, there was a total increase in tax of around $6 billion—according to a study by Professor Neil Warren—and they also legislated to sell the remainder of the Commonwealth Bank. They might treat election promises lightly, but this government treats election promises with a very great sense of sincerity.The honourable member for Fraser referred to the issue of data on those who pay the surcharge. I want to point out to the honourable member that this information is not published by postcode, so that information is not available. But I will undertake to pass his request on to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Coonan, in the other place. I also want to point out that the reduction in the superannuation surcharge is only one of a suite of measures, including a co-contribution for low-income earners and a higher deductibility for the self-employed. The member for Fraser and the opposition more generally are taking, with respect to our election commitment, quite a different stance from that taken by the honourable member for Rankin. On Wednesday, 29 May, during the second reading debate on the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme Amendment Bill 2002, the honourable member for Rankin, taking an honourable course, said:The government made an election commitment to this initiative and, as such, we will not be opposing this bill.If that was the position of the opposition as recently as 29 May, which is not very long ago, why have they suddenly changed their position on this policy of support for election commitments? How can a party change its tune on such a fundamental stance within a week? Of course, they have a record of breaking election promises and now they want to seek to force the Howard government to follow their immoral example. We certainly find that to be entirely unacceptable.The government is keen to ensure that superannuation remains attractive and encourages all employees to save for their retirement. The measure to reduce the surcharge is in keeping with the government's broader retirement income policy objective of encouraging people to make voluntary contributions to supplement the superannuation guarantee and build greater self-reliance in retirement. We do not resile at all from this measure. Looking at the faces of honourable members opposite, I can see that they hope that one or two of their senators become recalcitrant so that the Senate will indeed pass this important measure. This government wants to keep its election promise. This government wants to keep its commitment. The opposition is trying to force the government to break an election promise. That is absolutely disgusting and despicable.19:15:003222Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I was not going to contribute to this debate—I was simply going to come in and vote—but I could not restrain myself when I heard the parliamentary secretary talking about a promise to the electorate. It reminded me of a comment that the Prime Minister, who was the then opposition leader, made in 1987. He said something along these lines: the mandate view of politics is a nonsense. And so it is. The government of the day cannot claim a mandate for every promise it makes at elections. Indeed, the election of those on the non-government side—including more and more Independents, I suggest—is an indication that people want to elect to this House people who will be legislators who will move amendments. It is encouraging to see the opposition moving a couple of substantive amendments rather than moving the normal second reading amendment and deferring serious consideration of the legislation until it reaches the other place. Indeed it is we representatives of the people in the people's house who should amend legislation when in our judgment it is not up to scratch. Otherwise, if a government claimed a mandate there would be no need for a non-government side. No-one, apart from the government of the day, would suggest that, although more and more in its arrogance the executive is rushing legislation through this House and not giving members a chance to debate it properly, let alone move substantive amendments.I, too, made an election promise to my constituency: to bring fairness to the parliamentary superannuation scheme. The parliamentary secretary said earlier tonight that he does not oppose choice of super—that is, for anyone other than members of parliament—for public servants or for anyone else out in the community. If those are his views—I will pick them out of Hansard tomorrow and quote and requote them all over Australia—let him, along with his colleagues and everybody else in this House, support my choice of parliamentary super bill when I reintroduce it to this place later in this parliament. The reduction of the surcharge does favour those who are better off, including parliamentarians, and that is why I will certainly support the amendments that have been moved tonight by the opposition. I supported the substantial bill in the earlier vote—it includes some very worthwhile measures—but these two amendments are necessary to make it fairer. Indeed, I would support the use of the forgone revenue that we are spending on this lessening of the tax burden on higher-income earners to ensure that we are serious about reducing the tax burden on savings and superannuation for those on lower and middle incomes and to get serious about providing for retirement for the less well off in our community.Question put:That the schedule be agreed to.19:23:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. I.R. Causley) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Baldwin, R.C.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cameron, R.A.Charles, R.E.Ciobo, S.M.Cobb, J.K.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J. *Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.62Adams, D.G.H.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Vamvakinou, M.Wilkie, K.Windsor, A.H.C.Zahra, C.J.Question agreed to.Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole, and agreed to.3224Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (7.30 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Adjournment322410000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! It being past 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.I call the honourable member for Bass.0V5Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The question is that the House do now adjourn. All of that opinion please—7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You had already given an indication that the member for Bass had the floor.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I had.84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne—I had actually received the call, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister can require at any time that the motion be put, I am told, so the question is that the House do now adjourn.Question negatived.Bills3224R15463224Debate resumed from 16 May, on motion by Mr Slipper:That this bill be now read a second time.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.3224Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (7.33 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Adjournment3224Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (7.33 p.m.)—I move:That the House do now adjourn.322519:33:003225O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—Despite the efforts of some governments—and, I must confess, sadly all too few—and many of the world's sporting federations, the problem of doping in sport remains a significant issue worldwide. Since 1988, when the story of Ben Johnson's exclusion from the Seoul Olympics resounded around the globe, doping in sport has attracted much attention but in many instances much too little sincerity and much too little action.Last week, some Australian sporting stars, led by Ian Thorpe and Michael Klim, raised concerns about current issues related to the fight against this dark cloud, which continues to hover over world and Australian sport. Whilst their views apparently did not represent those of all of their colleagues their remarks were significant, coming as they did from two of our nation's most successful swimmers.Their complaints seem to be in relation to three matters: firstly, that there are too many agencies involved in testing around the world and there is far too little communication between them; secondly, that there is overtesting of Australian swimmers, especially when compared to their international rivals; and, thirdly, that procedures used by some testing laboratories are inadequate.The first two concerns undoubtedly arise because Australia is more serious than most countries about dealing with drugs in sport. An Australian sports man or woman can be tested out of competition by each of: their national agency, ASDA; the new international agency—it is called WADA; and their international sports federation; as well as at any competition in which they take part, whether at home or overseas. Their counterparts, depending on their sport, might be subject to testing only by WADA, whose program is not yet fully operational, in addition to at international competitions. The gulf remains considerable and our stars' frustration is quite understandable. But on the other hand, if the cooperation between the various testing agencies then becomes too close, the independence of each agency and the integrity of the broader attack on the evil of drug use becomes diminished.There are also very sound reasons why an athlete should be tested more than once in a short space of time. I refer the House to an actual situation that occurred recently. A German athlete was tested following a third placing at a major international competition, after which there were no further competitions scheduled for quite some time. The following day on her return home she was tested again in an out of competition test. The first test was negative; the second positive. What happened overnight is a matter for speculation but it seems pretty obvious, and is certainly a justification for this type of testing regime.On the third issue they raised, the athletes have every right to complain if any agency's collection or handling methods are not up to scratch, whether the tests are done in or out of competition. They must also do everything to protect themselves against dubious procedures, whether these are the result of poorly equipped or poorly trained collectors, indifference or carelessness or, more seriously, deliberate actions on behalf of those in charge of testing.The athletes say that they have registered their concerns in the appropriate way on doping forms but that nothing has happened as a result of this. If this is the case then we need to be looking at other avenues to ensure that Australians are fully protected. Their sports must take up the cudgels with the relevant authorities to ensure reasonable compliance is adhered to.Amongst the claims made, the greatest concern is that of inadequate or questionable procedures at a major international swimming event. Surely at such a meet we should be able to expect that the international federation would ensure that everything is completely in accordance with their rules and regulations. Some of this concern may no doubt have arisen because our own athletes are used to and are comfortable with procedures used in Australia by ASDA. While we cannot expect every test in every location around the world to be done in exactly the same way, our athletes certainly have the right to expect that the basic principles relating to the integrity of the collection, storage and delivery of the samples are followed, wherever the test is undertaken.In relation to broader matters, there unfortunately remains no doubt that we are participating on an uneven playing field. Not all countries are as committed to dealing with doping in sport as we are in Australia. Given the slightest window of opportunity, some national sporting organisations in other countries, some national Olympic committees and, in cases where governments directly control sport, governments themselves excuse, cover up or find loopholes to exonerate their sports men or women accused of doping.Indicating the breadth of this particular problem, there has been much concern even with respect to the United States. It seems that both IOC and the International Association of Athletes Federation, IAAF, have had enough of the shenanigans of the Americans and have called them to order. USA Track and Field, in particular, took the easy option in some instances of finding that cases against their athletes were not sufficiently made out, forcing the IAAF to appeal these decisions to its arbitration panel. This was an expensive cop-out and everyone knew it, especially the Americans.There remain claims that the US has covered up or failed to deal appropriately with other positive tests. A former senior official with the USOC's doping program is taking court action to highlight problems within the fight against doping in the US. Australia must continue its flag bearing role in stamping out drug use in sport, and it seems that this must even extend to taking a hard line with our friends.322619:38:003226Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6CanningLP10—I wish to raise this evening an important issue for my electorate regarding forestry. Many people would not understand that in my electorate I have two forest towns, Jarrahdale and Dwellingup, and these towns are in jeopardy from an employment perspective and from the perspective of the mills continuing, through the state government not allowing them access to the forests. In fact, we have small boutique millers in my electorate who wish to value-add to timber products in the electorate by using such unique varieties of timber as sheoak, wandoo, tuart and marri, and the Forest Products Commission does not allow them access to the forests. By not being allowed access to the forests, they cannot even get fallen timber or dead standing timber. This is the situation for these poor people.We know that Alcoa has a significant bauxite mine in operation in the Darling Ranges in Western Australia. Clearing the timber for the Alcoa mine site is one thing, but the sad thing is it is not being used properly. I have spoken to Alcoa's senior executives in Perth and their forest managers, and can I say they are quite concerned about the fact that the timber from their mine site is not being used as it should be. The problem is that the Forest Products Commission are playing a very dodgy little game in Western Australia with regard to giving access to the forest to certain millers. We have the case of Heritage mill in Jarrahdale run by Mr Terry Keogh and we have the case of Macleans timber mills, which operate out of Mundijong. We also have the case of Colli's in Dwellingup. The problem is that once Alcoa clears this land they are meant to allow these millers access to the forests so that they can select suitable timbers to mill for the local market and certainly jarrah for the overseas markets. The problem is that before they get there, through the shenanigans of the Forest Products Commission in Western Australia, through lack of forward planning, much of this timber is pushed up and burnt. It is an absolute crime that valuable timbers like jarrah, sheoak, tuart and wandoo are being pushed up and burnt in piles. I have workers who come and tell me that they are devastated to see such valuable timbers stocks in the current world climate being misused in the way they are. Even what they call char operators, people who go in for firewood, are not getting the best access to these forests.Macleans have a problem with the Forest Products Commission that is a bit of a catch-22. They owe the Forest Products Commission approximately $98,000, but they cannot get any timber to produce to pay off their debt. The Forest Products Commission are saying, `If you do not pay us our debt, we are not going to allow you access to the forest.' They have gone and tooled up their mill to the extent that they can treat very small jarrah logs and bendy jarrah logs and get very valuable timber out of these. Most of the mills in the further south-west of Western Australia would not touch these tiny logs, but Macleans timber industries in my electorate not only have had a good scoping study from purchasers to do this but have ready markets. They even had Chep, whom they were supplying with the lower grade timbers. But because of the lack of access to the forests because of the lack of negotiation by the Forest Products Commission, we find an absolute stand-off where Macleans timber products are going broke. There is a very serious chance that they will have to close their doors because of the lack of help from the Forest Products Commission. I have written to Dr Biggs and asked him to try to help negotiate a deal for these timber millers in my electorate. They have come back with a legalistic approach. I am asking the Forest Products Commission to do the right thing by the timber millers in my electorate, to give them access to the forests so that they can add value to very valuable timber stocks for furniture and quality floorboards and to allow them to get on with the business of employing local people in my area and generating income for both overseas exports and the domestic market.322719:43:003227Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Mr Speaker, firstly, I would like to congratulate the General Sir John Monash Foundation on the function which I attended together with you and the Prime Minister at Anzac Hall. In a non-partisan way, I also congratulate the federal government and also the people from Australian business who are going to establish a foundation that will have major academic scholarships that will eventually become the equivalent of the Rhodes scholarship or the Fullbright. It is wonderful that a person of such great stature for Australia—our greatest general and a person who did for Australia in peacetime what he did for Australia in wartime—will be the focus of international academics and students when they see the Monash scholarship become the equivalent of the Rhodes and the Fullbright. I particularly congratulate people in private industry, whether it is the Pratt Foundation, Arthur Hedwick's, Monash University or the Gandel Charitable Trust, for putting their money behind the federal government's $5 million.Mr Speaker, on Monday I was telling you about the 90th anniversary of the Kadimah organisation in my electorate. The Kadimah is famous not just for being a library and a cultural institution but also as the place from where the Hazomir Choir and the very famous Dovid Herman Theatre, which was named after the famous Vilno Troupe, were established. The Dovid Herman Teatre has been producing plays in Yiddish in Melbourne and Elsternwick for over 40 years. It is also the place where the famous Kadimah literary journal, Di Melburne Bletter, has been published by Moishe Ajzenbud for a similar amount of time.The Kadimah moved from Carlton in the 1950s and 1960s as the Jewish community moved from that area to St Kilda and Elwood. It is now situated in my electorate in Elsternwick in the Leo Fink Hall, which was named after the famous philanthropist behind the Classic Cinema. I have a great deal of fun going there sometimes on Wednesday lunchtimes to the Wednesday Club, where elderly citizens from that tradition meet. It is a great organisation. It has sponsored things like the One Voice—Concert in the Park in Caulfield Park. It is a source of great pleasure to me that I have been able to give elderly citizens awards to a couple of the people there. One was to a dynamic actress in her nineties and the other was to Mr Yosl Winkler, whose activities on behalf of the organisation have gone on for more than 50 years.Alex Dafner has written a very wonderful history of this organisation. I am indebted to him for the role that he has played in making this parliament understand the role that the Kadimah have had in fulfilling the vital culture and social needs of the Yiddish speaking migrant community and the role that they have played in enriching Australian society in particular. As their tradition says, `un biz 120 un nokh vayter', which means, `may it live to 120 and then some'. I hope the organisation goes well beyond 120 years.Tonight I will also talk about another person whom I am very proud of in my electorate, Crystal Elliott. After facing severe drug addition, being on amphetamines, LSD and ecstasy, attempting suicide and being involved in physically and emotionally abusive relationships, she has rehabilitated herself and has published a wonderful book, Ever Wondered ... if your child would use drugs? Crystal has decided that it is her role to make sure that other parents do not have to go through the kinds of agonies that her parents did, by providing a book that has simple questions and answers that parents can understand on this very complicated issue of drugs. It has just been published and has been written up in my local press. It will be available on the Internet. The address is: www.ever-wondered.com. I strongly recommend it to parents all around Australia as a `how to' book to look after your children and to prevent them going on drugs. 322819:48:003228Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—Once again I rise to speak on the issue of ovine Johne's disease. The House has heard me on a number of occasions talk about this particular issue that has been taken up at a national level and is being administered, more specifically, in New South Wales by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture through the agriculture minister, Richard Amery, and, more importantly, by a number of rural lands boards throughout New South Wales.The House has also heard me talking about the physical, mental, social and economic damage that this particular action on ovine Johne's disease has contributed to many of my constituents and to constituents of other members throughout this country of ours. Tonight I would like to read from a copy of a letter that I received from a constituent, Caroline Spittle, and her husband. It gives a classic illustration of how ovine Johne's disease is the debacle that I said it was. The letter is dated 12 March this year. It is addressed to the Chairman of the Young Rural Lands Protection Board. It says:Dear SirI received at 7pm one evening about the middle of 2001, a call from Peter Frecklington, asking had we sold sheep to a farm at Murrumbateman sometime. I said yes and on checking up, I found it was in 1998. Peter then said that OJD had been found in the sheep.Peter then visited us on 13 December, 2001 and we had a discussion. We asked a lot of questions. Some were answered, some he was not sure about. Peter said we would have to have the sheep tested and now Peter has placed us under quarantine.Yesterday, I reviewed some of the letters from Peter and did some homework.In a letter dated 17 December 2001, Peter says that OJD had been discovered on the property our sheep went to, and that our sheep were the only source that OJD could have come from on that farm.I had asked Peter to get proof and identification of our sheep and about the stocking situation on the Murrumbateman farm where the sheep went to. I was told that there was no proof and no identification of the sheep slaughtered and that the farm had no stock on it before our sheep.I have gathered some information to prove that the above is not correct. The property had no stock in 1993, cattle in 1994 and from 1995 sheep. In 1997 they ran agistment sheep which were quarantined with OJD.To start with, Peter Frecklington verbally told us that the property had no sheep on it before our sheep and we believe this point to be incorrect and this can be verified at the Yass Rural Lands Protection Board.This is a very serious allegation as far as we are concerned. This Murrumbateman property has already had OJD infected sheep before our sheep ever went there and we believe the infection could have occurred there.As to our own situation, we have not bought sheep for 33 years except buying rams from OJD free studs of high regard. We do not travel our sheep on the road, have good fences and are very careful about contamination of any type.After receiving a quarantine notice on Wednesday 6 March, we had to cancel an inspection for the sale of sheep on 8 March. We can ill afford to do this as being breeders—one has to sell surplus stock to make room for the on coming lambs.I wonder if you realise the ramifications of restricting trade will have on the whole sheep industry, just as people get going again with the improved wool and mutton prices.None of the adjoining properties to us have OJD or are suspect.Our cast for age ewes usually get sold and go through Goulburn abattoirs and we have had no feedback as to OJD.I would like to know what gives the Young Rural Lands Protection Board the right to quarantine Kingslea? We sold the sheep in 1998 to a property at Murrumbateman that had previously had quarantined OJD sheep running on it. We believe they have become infected with OJD on that property as they were running there for three years before they were sold.I would be happy to address the board at anytime on this matter if need be.My husband has been seriously ill last year. Now with the worry of all this, he has been set back a great deal, for which I have to attend to him more frequently. I am a very busy person managing the property and keep the stock in top order. I have recently inspected all our sheep and they all look very well. Looking after a very ill husband, I can do without all this extra stress which is being placed upon both of us.That is a classic example of the debacle involving ovine Johne's disease and how the system creates unnecessary, stressful situations for people in an environment where they do not have ovine Johne's disease but an arbitrary decision has been made that they do. This woman looking after her husband, who has obviously become sick because of this, is in very dire straits. (Time expired)322919:53:003229Corcoran, Ann, MPMs CORCORAN009CWIsaacsALP00—Mr Speaker, I thought you might like to hear about a cup of coffee I had about two weeks ago. It is in connection to a wonderful new initiative which has been undertaken recently by Central Bayside Community Health Services, a very innovative service provider in my electorate of Isaacs that is run by a very innovative chief executive officer. Some time ago, the CEO and the staff of this place were horrified to discover that their favourite cafe over the road had closed down. There was great consternation amongst the staff over where they were going to have their morning cup of coffee and their lunch et cetera. The CEO put his thinking cap on and Cafe Escape was born. Cafe Escape opened up in a shop over the road from Central Bayside. It was funded by that group but only for the set-up costs; it now has to find its own way financially. It caters for lunches and morning and afternoon teas for the people in the surrounding businesses, offices, shops and homes and of course for the staff and clients of Central Bayside. The cafe is open on weekdays and provides eat-in or take-away services. But Cafe Escape has one major difference from other suburban cafes—apart from the fact that, as a tea drinker, I enjoyed my cup of coffee there. Eight of the 10 people on its weekly work roster have a mild intellectual disability.The cafe is managed by two staff. One has a food retail background and is responsible for the retail and food management aspects of the shop. The other is an instructor with Central Bayside's disability program. Each day, three mildly intellectually disabled young adults are rostered on under a work experience program in this cafe. They are learning skills in all aspects of catering and customer service in a retail environment. Eight students are rostered on over the five days of the working week. All the staff and students have completed accredited food handling certificates, the disabled people doing them at the nearby Sandy Beach community centre. As part of the opening service two weeks ago, we handed out the certificates. There is something very special about young disadvantaged people who have achieved something tremendous. They were very proud of it, and it was great to be there.This initiative is a winner for all concerned. The place is positive: it is a very cheerful environment and a great place to go to have a cup of coffee. The young staff are thrilled to be working there, and their families have all commented positively on the growth and happiness of their young working daughters. The local community is very positive and encouraging too.The background to the establishment of this venture demonstrates two qualities of Central Bayside's disability program staff: firstly, the compulsion they felt to explore avenues for meaningful work experience for their clients; and, secondly, the vision they possessed to recognise the opportunity presented by a nearby vacant shop and the lack of a nearby place to get a decent lunch and a decent cup of coffee. An assessment of the potential market was undertaken, and it showed that there was a need for this type of shop in the area. A business plan was developed, and Cafe Escape came to life.Mr Speaker, I wanted to tell you about Cafe Escape for a number of reasons: partly because of the difference it has made in the lives of these eight young adults and the pride they are developing in their skills and achievements, and partly because the cafe portrays people with a disability in a very positive way. It shows the community that people with disabilities are very able, it fosters the integration of the community with people with a disability and it creates greater respect for and understanding of disabled people. It also demonstrates the value of community organisations as service providers, the care they provide for their clients and the ability they have to spot a local opportunity and to make it work. It demonstrates the way we should be pursuing support of people with disabilities: by assisting them to try new experiences, to develop new skills, to have a go and to get a job and by giving them a chance of a meaningful life in the community while in a protective and caring environment, which this cafe provides. Some of these work experience students may well go on gaining the skills and confidence to work in other retail organisations, such as supermarkets. Central Bayside management is at present developing business networks to negotiate such opportunities in the future.The other great benefit is the independent living skills these work experience students are learning. They are using their work skills to carry out domestic duties in their own homes. One family told me about the change in their daughter, who takes great pride in her new skills and confidently, with her own initiative, gets into the housework and tells her mother how she should be cleaning the place properly. I congratulate these adventurous young adults and also the management and staff of Central Bayside Community Health Services on an innovative, inspiring and very successful project.323019:58:003230Ley, Sussan, MPMs LEY00AMNFarrerLP10—On `Wear Wool Wednesday' in Wear Wool Week, I rise to speak up and speak out for the Australian wool industry. I pay tribute to the farmers who have gone through so many long, lean years following the collapse of the wool floor price, and to the shearers and shed hands, whose jobs are surely two of the toughest there are. I have seen the industry from both sides. After marrying a shearer and travelling in western New South Wales, outback Queensland and South Australia for several years, working in all manner of shearing sheds and on numerous sheep stations in a full range of climatic conditions, I have seen and experienced life as real and raw as it gets. Shearing was recently described as the most physically demanding job that there is, and certainly I think that it must be so. Dragging a 60-kilogram wether across the board 120 to 220 times a day in a shed where the temperature may easily reach 40 degrees Centigrade, bent double with the noise of the overhead gear loud in your ear, knowing that if you slow down so does the money, means it really is a tough working environment. Shearers, of course, do piecework. Australians readily associate with the romance and the images of the outback shearing shed, but I wonder how many city dwellers living on the eastern side of the Great Divide have actually visited the real thing. So I urge them, if they have not visited a shearing shed at shearing time, to avail themselves of this opportunity to see, hear and smell something that is uniquely Australian.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:003230House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices3230The following notices were given:HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews to present a bill for an Act to change the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and for related purposes.2002-06-05—————The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members3231323109:40:003231Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—Janet Albrechtsen got it right in the Australian on Wednesday, 29 May. She asked a very pertinent question: why do the media gatekeepers shut down debate on child care, especially when critical analysis is involved? The recent reaction to the University of Melbourne academic Dr Kay Margetts and her research on child care borders on the irrational and the bizarre. Dr Margetts's research suggested that children in formal child care for more than 30 hours a week were socially, academically and emotionally worse off in their first year of schooling—an important predictor for later schooling.The suggestion, of course, is not remarkable in itself. Good Reception and year 1 teachers have anecdotally reported that for many years now. In fact, as Janet Albrechtsen pointed out in her article, respected international research has long found that children in care for more than 30 hours were three times as likely to exhibit aggressive behavioural problems. As we know—we ought to know; we probably do not know—the rationale for child care does not exist. It never has. The reality is parent respite. Intrinsically, there is nothing wrong with parent respite. Its rationale is to allow both parents to participate in the economy through employment. Parent respite is the honest term but it is not guaranteed, of course, to be guilt-free. But calling it parent respite would never do. Calling it child care makes everyone so much more comfortable. Quality time is so much better than quantity time. But is that right? All realists know that there are positive and negative aspects in all that we do. Denying the problems of child care—parent respite—is not in the interests of either parents or children or their supporters or detractors. A common mantra with regard to children in this country is that they are our greatest resource. The reality is far different. Attitudes to children in this country are deplorable from both government and the so-called institutions supposedly protecting them. The media report children usually in `gloss and shock' terms—pretty and cute, or violent thugs. Serious issues for children in general, for children at risk and for the provision of a balanced educational framework are given nothing but superficial attention and political correctness based on the denial that any problem exists. It is that denial that Janet Albrechtsen tried to debunk. She was right to do so. Hopefully, in the future, she may also debunk the current mythology surrounding children of single parents, the education of boys, boys harming themselves, the mental illnesses of adolescent girls, the tragedy of petrol sniffing by Indigenous children, the suspension of children from school, and the thousands of children spending every day in our shopping centres unsupervised. Maybe she could also balance that with the thousands of very positive stories about children's real achievements, not just showing them as `cute and pretty'. 323109:43:003231King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—Rugby is the game played in heaven and Clovelly. It was therefore my great pleasure and honour to attend the 40th anniversary dinner of the Clovelly Eagles Rugby Club at the Australian Jockey Club on Saturday, 1 June 2002, as the guest of the club. That dinner, to my amazement, was oversubscribed by more than 270 persons. I have to say it was very well organised by Ms Julie Blomberg and Ms Karina Seyffer. I offer them my warm congratulations on this magnificent occasion celebrating this important anniversary of a great junior rugby club.I was fortunate to be seated at a table with our hosts and their respective husbands, David and Michael, both of whom, I was interested to recall, had played against me when I played for the University of Sydney rugby team. David at that time was captain of the University of New South Wales team. The club has a great history going back 40 years. It was in 1959 that the Randwick Rugby Club first organised a junior competition in the eastern suburbs. In 1961, the Clovelly Eagles were established under the auspices of the Coogee Junior Rugby Football Club.Mr F.W. Maher convened the first meeting, and in 1962 the club was established, with Bill Marchant as president, Bruce Gillis as secretary and Bill Thorburn as treasurer. That year, two teams were entered into the competition, but shortly thereafter the number of teams grew. By 1984, there were a record 215 players and the club had become one of the strongest, if not the strongest, in the competition. The club motif, interestingly enough, is `Play to win, learn to lose'. Can we think of a more appropriate motif for our young sportsmen and sportswomen today? The club is supported superbly by a wonderful ladies committee first established way back in 1961; and those dedicated ladies, who have worked so hard to ensure that their young sons have had such a fantastic club to play with, have been with the club ever since.I want to mention a couple of things that I think are important about the club. It has had some wonderful past players—people like Pat Slyney and Bruce Malouf, and, more recently, the Australian coach, Eddie Jones, who played for the club back in the early 1970s. A current player with the New South Wales team is Chris Whittaker, who actually left the captaincy of the Australia A side against Canada that very afternoon last Saturday to come to the 40th anniversary dinner. Also present were Simon Poidevin and Garry Ella. (Time expired)323209:46:003232Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I rise today to talk a little about interest rates and recent developments in that area. As members may or may not be aware, the Reserve Bank has this morning once again increased interest rates by 25 base percentage points, bringing the rate up to 4.75 per cent from 4.5 per cent. This follows on from a 0.25 per cent rate increase last month and also follows on from comments last week by the Governor of the Reserve Bank to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration that can be interpreted to suggest that rates are likely to increase by between 1.5 and two per cent over the coming months.This is bad news for the range of people who have taken advantage of initiatives such as the first home owners grant and have got themselves into mortgages that are of a significant size. These interest rate increases now compared to previous times of, say, 10 years ago are such that they will have a major impact on individuals' and families' capacity to actually maintain payments. Recent studies have come out from at least two sources that I have seen which point to the fact that, with the increased indebtedness now in place in Australian society, those interest rates increases will be felt particularly sensitively by Australian families.The ABS itself also released some data yesterday concerning the issue of financial stress within Australian families. This data is from a survey that goes back to the late 1990s, but it is the most current detailed study available. It talks about some 2.4 million households reporting two or more stress indicators under the range of indicators that were considered at that time. That basically equates to something like one in three Australian households reporting some form of financial stress. In the circumstances where that was the case then and we have had significant increases in indebtedness occurring since that time, I think we have to be very concerned about the question of where this may end up in the years to come.One particular area that I would like to focus on very briefly is the issue of credit card interest rates. There is plenty of data around now to show that the level of credit card debt in this country is at an all-time high. What is also clear, as we look at that, is that there is some very interesting data around concerning interest rates for credit cards. For example, back in 1989, there was a four per cent difference between credit card interest rates and the cash market rate at that time—some 22 per cent to some 18 per cent. Now we are talking about a difference of over 11 per cent. In recent times there have been some real problems there, and we have got to be very concerned about the non-passing on of these sorts of rate changes. (Time expired)323309:49:003233Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I am particularly pleased to rise in the Main Committee to refer to a very important project on the Sunshine Coast. The federal government has allocated the former HMAS Brisbane to be sunk off Kawana-Mooloolaba as a dive wreck. This will bring many thousands of divers to the Sunshine Coast. It will create an incredible number of jobs and will be a boost not only to the accommodation and tourist industry but to the entire Sunshine Coast economy.I went to see former Minister Reith in relation to the sinking of HMAS Brisbane. I was able to put forward a very strong case for the federal government not only to allocate the ship to Queensland but, in particular, to tie the gift to the fact that the ship should be sunk off Kawana-Mooloolaba at the Sunshine Coast. What is usual in circumstances of this nature is that the state government then funds the preparation and sinking of the ship as a dive wreck. Unfortunately, Premier Beattie—although he initially supported the Sunshine Coast as the preferred site for the dive wreck—was obviously got to by his political mates in Brisbane. He wanted the HMAS Brisbane to be sunk off Brisbane as some form of political largesse to assist the state Labor government in its pursuit of marginal seats and to assist the return of the honourable member for Bowman at the last federal election. I am not going to apologise for the fact that I went to see former Minister Reith and was able to persuade the federal government, for the first time, to actually tie the gift to the fact that the ship should be sunk off the Sunshine Coast.You would think most people on the Sunshine Coast, including the state Labor members on the coast, would be very pleased that I was able to go to former Minister Reith to obtain this gift for our local community. When the Premier refused to fund the sinking of the ship, I had to go back to the minister. Initially it was going to cost $1 million and then the cost grew to $3 million. So the federal Howard government found $3 million to sink the ship off the Sunshine Coast. The three state Labor members have shown absolutely no support for the sinking of the ship. The member for Kawana in particular is obviously one of the worst and most ineffectual members ever to be elected to the Queensland parliament. He has not given this project his support. Premier Beattie is refusing to sign the deed of gift to accept the ship from the federal government so that it can be sunk off the Queensland coast. What Premier Beattie and his three state Labor dud members are doing is risking the sinking of the ship off the Sunshine Coast and risking the tremendous boost this would give to our local economy. I am calling on the member for Kawana and the Premier of Queensland to cooperate with the federal government to ensure the deed of gift is signed so that we can get this tremendous and well-deserved boost for the Sunshine Coast. (Time expired)323409:52:003234Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008KOHoltALP00—I would like to table a petition containing 19,073 signatures. This petition relates to the establishment of a Medicare office in the Fountain Gate Shopping Centre, which is a shopping centre that is on the top border of my electorate. The shopping centre is located in one of the fastest growing areas in Australia. In fact, it is part of the city of Casey, which currently has a population of about 191,000 people. I understand that within the next 10 years its population will increase to about 300,000 people. This particular municipality does not have a Medicare office. It has a Medibank Private office; it has one of the largest shopping centres in the region; it has 20,000 families that have children aged between one and four; it has a large number of people that cannot get bulk billing. It does not have a Medicare office. I find that quite staggering, given that it is a major regional hub, yet for various reasons the Health Insurance Commission and the government will not commit the funding to put this Medicare office into place. The centre has something close to 200,000 shopper movements per week.The Howard government says that it is committed to young families. As I just said, there are 20,000 children aged between one and four within this municipality. There are a lot of young working families, a lot of people who do not have much time to go down to the nearest Medicare offices, which are in Dandenong, which is something like 10 kilometres away; Knox, which is probably close to 20 kilometres away; or Warragul, which is more than 50 kilometres away. So my question is: why is there not a Medicare office there?I understand that since 1996 between 25 and 30 Medicare offices have just disappeared. I understand there is a cap of some 226 on the number of Medicare offices in Australia. When we have approached the Health Insurance Commission about this particular issue they say, `Well, we have got to wait for an office to disappear.' I do not think that is good enough. In a spirit of bipartisanship I mention that my colleague the member for La Trobe, Bob Charles, has actually been lobbying for a Medicare office for some eight years. I am surprised, given that the federal seat of La Trobe is very close to the Fountain Gate shopping centre, that the government obviously are not worried about Bob enough. They would actually put in a Medicare office if they had some concern about that seat.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—That is why he is in the Costello camp.008KOByrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE—Indeed. My challenge to the government, and to the Health Insurance Commission, is this: if you care about young families, as you claim you do, spend the money and put a Medicare office in the Fountain Gate shopping centre, a major regional hub. This has the support of the City of Casey. It has the support of the entire community. All we need now is the support of the government.323509:55:003235Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Today I would like to take the opportunity to support the Howard government's initiatives in the area of workplace relations reform, particularly as I did not have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on workplace relations earlier this year. In March 1994 the then opposition spokesman for industrial relations made some rather prophetic statements in relation to the Keating Labor government's draconian industrial relations legislation. Appearing on Meet the Press, the then opposition spokesman said:... this is a very bad Bill for one simple reason—it is going to lead to higher unemployment because it makes it more expensive, more complicated and more difficult, particular for small business, to employ people. And anybody who's in business, knows that if you make it harder to take on staff, you force employers to find ways around taking on staff. They either get more machines or they get their existing staff to work in a more flexible way, or they put on casual staff and part-time staff.Thankfully for Australians, and particularly for those who suffered long periods of unemployment as a result of Labor's anti-employment laws, that opposition spokesman became our Prime Minister in 1996. Just how prophetic were those words of the Prime Minister, John Howard, can be seen when we consider the rapid growth in casual employment since that time as employers have sought to avoid the most negative effects of Labor's unfair dismissal laws. I am always amazed when I hear those members of the opposition sneering about casual employment and decrying the actions of this government, which has done more than any other to remove the obstacles to employment growth and the provision of full-time jobs. Casual employment is the choice of many but, thanks to Labor, it is the only option many other Australians now have.In an analysis of unfair dismissal laws prepared by Jason Swoon and Dr Helen Hughes for the Centre for Independent Studies in 1999 it was stated: Unfair dismissal laws have created a considerable barrier to employment growth, discouraging employers from hiring workers—especially the young and unskilled. Laws at federal and state level, as well as common law interpretations of employment contract and award provisions, have made termination of employment extremely complex, and extremely expensive for employers if they get things wrong.The astonishing aspect of Labor's current position on this issue is that one of its own virtually admitted, as far back as 1994, that the unfair dismissal provisions of Labor's legislation were an impediment to employment. On 9 June 1994 the Hon. Gary Johns, Special Minister of State in the Keating Labor government, admitted in this place:The government is proceeding with these amendments in advance of a review of the practical operation of the act scheduled for later this year. This action is being taken in direct response to some employers' views that the existing unfair dismissal provisions are an impediment to employment. (Time expired)10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills3235R1447BillsR14413236Debate resumed from 14 February, on motion by Mr Hardgrave:That this bill be now read a second time.09:59:003236Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Whilst uncontroversial, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2002 is very timely, in view of the newspaper reportage of Zainal Abideen Bin Abdullah and his jailing for 3½ years this week in relation to his exploitation of his role as a JP in giving immigration advice in Perth. The report said that over a number of years he took $56,000 from residents of Perth, holding himself out to be influential in immigration circles and obviously defrauding those people. The point to be made is that he is not a migration agent, but it is a relevant indicator of the problems in the field. Vulnerable people, desperate people, with limited knowledge of our legal system, basically follow the advice of such people.The two bills before us are largely technical and concern the current regulatory system for migration agents. They empower the body to continue investigations against agents who voluntarily deregister themselves and also provide for carryover registration where an annual re-registration application is still under consideration by the authority board, as well as allowing for an increase in the registration fee beyond the previous set limit. The opposition supports the passage of the bills without amendment.I would initially seek to trace the history of the regulatory system and detail some of the issues facing it. Immigration policy has of course been an important responsibility of the Commonwealth since Federation. Migration has played an important role in our nation's economic, social, cultural and political development. A formal system of regulation of migration agents is, however, a comparatively recent phenomenon. In many ways, the system we now have is a by-product of the increasing complexity of our own and other countries' immigration laws and practice over the past two decades. That complexity means that more applicants feel the need to seek expert assistance in negotiating their way through the processes. Commercial migration agents can be one such source of expert assistance—although sometimes that expert assistance should be in inverted commas. At the same time, this reliance on others to comprehend and interpret the rules leads vulnerable clients to be exposed to an even greater risk of abuse and exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous operators.Evidence of this unethical behaviour by some migration agents led the former Labor government to legislate to regulate the industry. In 1989, the act was amended to give the minister a veto over who could provide advice, the maximum fees that they could charge and their reporting obligations, and it also created the offences of false and misleading representations. In September the next year, the joint standing committee of the parliament reported that negligent and unscrupulous practices were still in evidence, despite these measures. As a result, two years later, the Labor government amended the act to ensure that only registered migration agents were permitted to provide what was defined as `immigration advice' and to make `immigration representations'.This system of full government regulation was known as the Migration Agents Registration Scheme, or MARS. It was in force between September 1992 and March 1998. Its effectiveness was the subject of a further inquiry by the same parliamentary committee, which produced a report in May 1995 entitled Protecting the vulnerable. The current government was never particularly supportive of MARS and set about changing the regulatory system immediately after its election to office in 1996. Its specially commissioned review reported in March 1997 and supported a staged move towards a system of voluntary self-regulation, beginning with statutory self-regulation for a transitional period of two years. The Labor opposition was concerned about the prospect of voluntary self-regulation and opposed the government's proposals. In this regard, I note that the unethical conduct by migration agents clearly affects the integrity of our migration and humanitarian programs. The coalition's expressed support for voluntary self-regulation of agents is at odds with its stated concern for improving the integrity and compliance aspects of Australia's immigration system. In December 1997, a deal was reached in the Senate between the coalition, the Democrats and Senator Harradine. That agreement provided for a limited period of statutory self-regulation to be managed by the Migration Institute of Australia Ltd on the government's behalf.When the necessary legislation was passed the Migration Institute assumed the responsibility from 23 March 1998, operating under the name of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, MARA. The system of self-regulation agreed with the Democrats and Senator Harradine was initially due to conclude in March 2000. In August the previous year, following a government review, the system was extended until March 2003. A further review is now under way. In the coming months the parliament will be considering government proposals.For the purpose of the act, the migration advice industry includes both the staff of community organisations such as migration welfare agencies and community legal centres operating on a non-profit basis and individuals and firms who practice on a fee charging basis. Migration agents may or may not be lawyers, non-lawyers being able to register if they can demonstrate a sound knowledge of migration law. While they are required by law to be registered by MARA, membership of the institute itself is purely voluntary. It is suggested that only about a quarter of all registered agents are actually members.Under the deed of agreement between the government and the institute, the key functions of MARA are to consider new and repeat applications for registration as a migration agent and publish the resulting register of agents; monitor the conduct of the agents and investigate and mediate complaints; monitor the operation of the code of conduct for migration agents and advise on deficiencies; and coordinate a program for continuing professional development for repeat registrations. MARA's disciplinary powers are essentially restricted to the issuing of a caution or to suspension or cancellation of an agent's registration. It does not have the power to order the full or partial refund of fees, although this can be pursued through mediation. In the case of complaints against practising lawyers, it can also refer their conduct to the appropriate state based disciplinary bodies. Migration agents operating overseas are largely outside the regulatory system unless they themselves are Australian citizens. This is an issue that has been taken up by the opposition, given the proliferation of advisers overseas. The power to prosecute agents who are practising without being registered or involved in migration fraud rests with the department of immigration and not MARA. However, MARA can and does refer to the department such cases as come to their attention.Currently there are over 2,700 registered migration agents. A key challenge facing the system is the very high turnover rate, which exceeds 20 per cent a year. MARA advised last week that it expects 600 new agents to be registered in 2002-03 and that about 360 existing agents will cease practising. It says the annual departure rate has fallen somewhat but the level of new registration shows no sign of abating. Some agents operate on a full-time basis while others may provide occasional migration advice for the purposes of the act. Less than 150 registered agents have more than eight years experience. The average is 3.3 years experience. In this context, the system clearly faces a major challenge in ensuring that applicants for registration possess a sound knowledge of migration law and procedure and that once registered they keep up to date with changes that could impact on the clients. I know from my recent discussions with the Migration Institute that they are well aware of this challenge and that they have been supporting the development of suitable training curricula. They would also prefer to have additional sanctions available to them, such as the power to order an agent to only practise under professional supervision for a set period of time.I turn now to the specific provisions of the two bills before us. Arguably, the most significant aspect of these bills is the provision to empower MARA to pursue complaints against former migration agents who have ceased to practise and, if the complaints are substantiated, to bar them from returning to the industry for a period of five years. The existing scheme only empowers MARA to investigate complaints against registered migration agents. As I mentioned earlier, it has the power to cancel or suspend an agent's registration or to issue a caution. Out of the 149 complaints that it finalised in 2000-01, it imposed sanctions in 20 cases. An emerging problem is that agents can avoid the finalisation of complaints by applying to be removed from the register or by failing to renew their annual registration. According to recent information from MARA, since March 1998 some 20 agents have deregistered themselves or allowed their registration to lapse while complaints against their conduct were being investigated. Significantly, in a number of cases the agent concerned was the subject of multiple unresolved complaints to the body. I note in passing that the vast majority of registrations or failure to renew simply involve agents who have ceased to practise. The problem we are talking about is not a major characteristic of the entire industry. Several hundred agents voluntarily remove themselves from the register each year. In the absence of complaints against them, no adverse inference should be drawn from this fact. As the law stands at the moment, MARA has extremely limited powers in relation to such voluntarily deregistered or inactive agents. It can require them to provide MARA with a copy of the relevant documents held by the agent on a particular client. It can then hold such material and any complaints or adverse reports in abeyance in case the person later applies to be re-registered. It can use such material in considering whether or not the agent is a fit and proper person to be re-registered. However, in the interim it cannot publish anything that would indicate that the inactive agent was the subject of unresolved complaints when he is often still out there in the marketplace regardless of registration.To overcome this problem, the bill empowers MARA to pursue complaints against former agents to finality. This provision will also allow it to consider complaints lodged after the agent voluntarily deregisters, provided that such complaints are received within 12 months of the registration ceasing. If, after proper investigation, the complaint or complaints are found to have been substantiated, MARA will then be able to bar the person from being an agent for up to five years.The bill provides that procedural fairness is to be accorded to the inactive agent and that certain decisions by MARA are reviewable by the AAT, as is currently the case. The number of unscrupulous agents who have voluntarily deregistered in the face of unresolved complaints is small, but it is essential that we provide a clear message that they cannot continue to snub their noses at the regulatory system. It is not good enough that they can cause investigations against them to be brought to a halt, whether temporarily or not.Our prime concern must be with the consumer. For them, justice delayed is justice denied. They should be entitled to have their outstanding complaints finalised by mediation or otherwise. If their complaints are substantiated, they are entitled to know just what penalty has been imposed on the inactive agent. The proposed amendments go a long way towards achieving this objective, and the opposition strongly supports them.The second element of the bill provides for carryover registrations to be granted pending MARA's final decision where an agent applies for re-registration before the due date. Registered agents are required to re-register annually. To do so, they must pay the appropriate fee and demonstrate that they have completed at least 10 points of continuing professional development. In 2000-01, there were 1,865 repeat registration applications. The vast majority of applications were finalised within two months of receipt—80 per cent in the case of non-profit agents, 95 per cent in the case of those that are fee charging. Delays can, however, occur where insufficient information is provided by the applicant or where doubts are raised about the agent's continuing eligibility. In that same year, 12 re-registration applications were refused, mainly because they failed to meet the continuing professional development requirement, and 23 applications were still under consideration.The bill provides that an agent's re-registration automatically continues on a carryover basis if they apply to re-register on time and pay the relevant fee. It further provides that an application for re-registration is taken to have been granted if MARA has not finalised it within 10 months of the expiry of the previous registration. This will give agents some certainty in relation to the duration of their carryover registration and will ensure that the normal circle of registration and re-registration is maintained. Given that relatively few re-registration applications are ultimately refused, it is reasonable to provide carryover registration where MARA has not made a determination. Where questions arise about an agent's continuing eligibility, these should be properly investigated before MARA makes a decision. In these circumstances the opposition supports the amendment. The third element exempts certain forms of in-house assistance on migration matters such as that provided by an employer to actual or prospective employees from the scope of the regulatory scheme. Currently, the act contains broad definitions of immigration assistance for the purposes of the Migration Agents Registration Scheme. Under section 276, immigration assistance includes preparing or helping to prepare a visa or cancellation review application, advising the applicant about their application, and representing the applicant in proceedings before a court or review authority. The act also makes it an offence to make immigration representations to the minister or his department for a fee or other award without being a registered agent. The phrase `immigration representations' is, indeed, broadly defined. Concern has been expressed that some in-house activities by large corporations that have never been intended to be covered by the scheme might technically be found to be immigration assistance or immigration representation for the purpose of the act. Possible examples include where employers give help to actual or intending employees but not to the general public in relation to visa requirements or where major corporations have staff whose duties include making representations to visa decision makers on behalf of actual or intending employees but not on behalf of the general public. The bill enables the exemption of specific kinds of in-house activities that the scheme was arguably never intended to cover. New subsections 276(4) and 282(5) will provide that a person will not be taken to have given immigration assistance or to have made immigration representations in circumstances prescribed by regulation. Any such regulation when promulgated will be disallowable by parliament. The opposition is not opposed to these amendments. The fourth element of the bill concerns the maximum charges that apply to agents who apply to re-register or register with MARA. In considering this matter two elements need to be understood. Firstly, MARA essentially operates on a self-funding basis. It receives registration application fees paid by agents and uses these funds and associated interest payments to meet its operating expenses. There is thus no net cost to taxpayers. In 2000-01 MARA received registration fees of $1.86 million out of the total reported income of $1.9 million, and spent some $1.87 million on operating expenses. Chiefly these were staff costs, rent, legal fees, consultants' fees, travel and payments to members of the board and the conduct advisory panel. The second point to make is that the actual annual registration charges are set by regulation. The legislation simply sets an upper limit, which is indexed annually, on what these charges can be. This upper limit was $1,100 when MARA began in 1998 and is now $1,180. The registration charges vary according to whether the applicant operates on either a non-profit or fee-charging basis and whether it is an initial application or a re-registration. This is justified on the basis of the lesser capacity to pay of non-profit agents who are obviously performing an important community service and the greater cost to MARA in processing initial registration applications as opposed to people who have been in the marketplace and of which they have knowledge and experience.The current charges for fee-charging agents are $1,180 for an initial application and $950 for re-registration. For non-profit agents they are $160 and $105 respectively. The initial registration charge for fee-charging agents has thus already reached the upper limit provided by the act. The Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2002 proposed to increase the upper limit to $1,800 in the financial year 2001-02. It will be indexed annually in line with inflation. I stress again that the actual charges will be set by regulation and are unlikely to be anywhere near the proposed new annual limit. The opposition supports this amendment as well.In the coming months the parliament will again need to consider the future of the current system of statutory self-regulation. The opposition remains committed to protecting consumers from abuse and exploitation and will take a keen interest in whatever proposals the government brings forward for the period after March next year. We are, as I said, concerned about whether policy in this area, despite the rhetoric about tightening and strengthening immigration policy, is driven by commercial considerations of the private sector in this field.The opposition is consciously limiting itself in this debate to the technical amendments contained in the two bills. This does not mean that we do not have other concerns or potential amendments that we could have moved. These include whether other sanctions should be available to MARA. As you have heard in the explanation of the history of this legislation and regulation there would seem to be a case for other sanctions. There would seem to be a history of abuse in this field and that is a matter for future debate.There is also, as I said, the issue of offshore agents. Already we have them in many of the policy areas lobbying MPs about their concerns regarding change—the most recent being with regard to the government's understandable concern with the way in which some people are abusing business migration entry into this country. There are agents overseas with a very large business taking deep interest in this field and the government has to look at whether they are in the future regulated.There is need also for greater efforts to publicise the regulatory system and to warn consumers of unscrupulous practices. I remain unconvinced that the government, MARA or anyone else out there—the institute—are proactive enough with regard to advising prospective clients and clients about regulation and controls in this country. There are very discrete markets for these agents, they often target particular ethnic communities, they gain a knowledge of the particular political conditions in some countries, they have some expertise in that field and they hold themselves out to be such. Unfortunately, the general information in this field does not penetrate those discrete ethnic communities and, obviously, they target the newspapers in that field. The opposition is concerned that not enough is being done to make sure people understand the scheme, and to make sure of people's legal rights in this country and the need to guard against exploitation.The nature of the government's arrangements with the Migration Institute and its processes is a matter that will have to be looked at, as will the level of competence of applicants for registration and the requirement that registered agents regularly update their skills and knowledge. I had a case recently in my electorate where a person who, admittedly, does not do that many cases a year was totally unaware of the government's changes with regard to character tests for spouse entries into this country. He advised a person to launch a fraudulent refugee claim which, in the traditional spirit of this country, is to buy time—two or three years—in the hope of running into somebody in a cafe and marrying them or maybe claiming that some relation has a sore foot and you should live here for the next 20 years. In this case, the person concerned already had a relationship. The person would have gained entry through the spouse but on the advice of this migration agent, who had no knowledge of the character test changes with regard to fraudulent refugee claims and the impact it would have, they faced denial of re-entry to Australia on spouse grounds. That is just typical, unfortunately, of a lack of knowledge of some people out there who are registered as well. We have not moved amendments on this occasion because we are conscious that the amendments to these bills have been before the parliament since 2000 in some cases but were unable to be dealt with before the election. We do not wish to unnecessarily hamper MARA's operations by delaying the passage of worthwhile amendments when there will shortly be an opportunity for a more comprehensive debate.10:23:003241May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I rise to support the two bills: the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2002, which amends the Migration Act 1958, and the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2002, which amends the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Act 1997. First of all I will speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2002. The bill provides a scheme for the regulation of persons who seek to act as migration agents by giving immigration assistance. The amendments proposed by this bill change the scheme for the regulation of migration agents by providing powers to allow the Migration Agents Registration Authority to start or complete investigation of complaints. This investigation can take place even if the agent is no longer registered. The amendments also include a carryover provision for agents applying for repeat registration. As long as agents apply before their existing registration has expired, they will stay registered until the authority has made a decision on their application. A further amendment introduces a mechanism for further defining what kind of activities come within the scope of the registry scheme.I would now like address more fully the major amendment proposed. This amendment will allow the authority to start or complete an investigation of complaints against a migration agent even when they are no longer registered. I cannot stress enough how extremely important this amendment is to stamp out unethical behaviour. Agents will be prevented from being a registered agent for a maximum of five years where a complaint is made, as long as the complaint is received within 12 months after the cessation of registration. Currently, the position is that an agent who the authority has received complaints about can frustrate the authority's investigation by deregistering. Consequently, migration agents who have acted improperly can deregister and leave the industry with an apparently untarnished reputation and avoid the disciplinary provisions of the act. In fact, as the position stands, the authority cannot reveal anything adverse about a former agent in these circumstances.These new provisions will prevent these migration agents who simply deregister themselves or allow their registration to expire from avoiding the disciplinary provisions of the act. Where a complaint has been made out, the bill allows the authority to bar a registered agent for a maximum of five years. The bar may be increased on investigation of a complaint about migration assistance which was given at any time when the former registered agent was a registered agent. Written notice specifying the reasons and the period of the bar must be given to the agent. The authority is able to make public the reasons for the decision. I think that is an important part of this bill. The provisions ensure that agents are accorded procedural fairness and have the opportunity to make submissions before the authority makes a decision barring the person from returning to the industry.Decisions handed down by the authority will also be reviewable on their merits by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The above provisions will expand the powers of the authority to take action on integrity issues and provide much needed protection to clients.I turn now to the re-registration of migration agents. Under the regulatory framework, agents are required to seek registration each year in order to keep working in the industry. This imposes a significant administrative burden for the authority, especially where agents make repeat registration applications very close to the expiry of their existing registration.The bill recognises the administrative constraints by providing for an agent's registration to continue after its expiry date where there is a pending and paid for registration application at the time of the expiry of the existing registration. This provision will ease uncertainty for agents. The situation currently is that if an agent's registration has expired, they are not able to practise until their repeat registration application has been approved. If a decision has not been made at 10 months, the agent's registration application will be deemed to have been granted.This provision is for situations where some time might elapse before the authority is able to make decisions on an agent's repeat registration application. An example of where this might occur is where a decision of the authority to suspend or cancel an agent's registration is stayed because it is the subject of review proceedings. The deemed registration at 10 months will ensure that the normal cycles of registration and repeat registration are maintained, including continued professional development compliance.The bill also provides a mechanism to end uncertainty over some kinds of activities that were never intended to be captured by the regulatory scheme. It sets out certain specific circumstances when a person will not be taken to be giving immigration assistance—for example, if that person does clerical work to prepare an application. Another illustration is where a person is employed in a major corporation whose duties include making representations to visa decision makers on behalf of actual or intending employees of the corporation. Employers who provide this kind of advice to their own employees were never intended to be regulated by the scheme. In summary, the bill's aim is to expand the power of the authority to take action on integrity issues, to reduce uncertainty in the registration process for agents, and provide a mechanism to end uncertainty over activities that were never intended to be captured by the regulatory scheme. This bill will provide more certainty for participants in the migration advice industry. The amendments will also improve the efficiency of the industry regulatory arrangements and enhance client protection. Finally, very briefly, I wish to speak on the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2002. The amendment proposes to increase the migration agents registration application charge limit from $1,100 to $1,800. I commend the bills to the House.10:30:003243Vamvakinou, Maria, MPMs VAMVAKINOU00AMTCalwellALP00—The Labor opposition welcome the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2002. We do so because the migration advice industry has, over the years, developed into an integral part of our immigration system. As such, it is important to ensure that at all times the industry's reputation is credible and above reproach. The migration legislation amendment bill amends some sections of the Migration Act 1958 relating to the regulatory framework for migration agents. The process of self-regulation in the migration advice industry has been an ongoing one. The latest amendments are a further step towards finetuning what many of us know is an industry which remains problematic. In particular, under current arrangements, the inability of MARA—the Migration Agent Registration Authority—to pursue people if they deregister means that these people can elude investigation or reprimand.The bill before us relates primarily to part 3 of the Migration Act 1958, which provides the current regulatory framework for migration agents. The amendments in the bill deal with improving the complaint and disciplinary mechanism that relates to migration agents. Specifically, the amendments in the bill change the scheme for the regulation of migration agents by giving MARA new powers to investigate complaints and bar from registration former migration agents. They allow a carryover period to apply for people to reregister as continuing migration agents until MARA has made a decision on their application. Further, they define what kinds of activities come within the regulations defining the migration agent's role.The opposition supports the proposed amendments because this bill closes some of the loopholes in the regulatory framework. The amendments ensure that migration agents cannot baulk at or attempt to avoid disciplinary actions by MARA by deregistering or not registering at the expiry of their official status. This loophole has in the past given those agents who come under scrutiny the opportunity to evade investigation by simply deregistering or not renewing their registration. By any standard of accountability, this option of opting in and out of the system to avoid investigation or scrutiny is unacceptable. So we welcome the legislation's resolve to close this loophole.Much of the anecdotal evidence we hear around the traps refers to incidents of unscrupulous behaviour that are never brought to the attention of MARA or that MARA, for that matter, has been unable to pursue because of the existing loophole. As long as the complaint is less than 12 months old, no migration agent will again be allowed to use their current registration status to avoid disciplinary actions and charges. The amendments give MARA the power to bar the return of former registered migration agents for up to five years in the event that they have been found to have acted inappropriately. The new power will be similar in action and implementation to the current MARA powers relating to the cancellation and suspension of registered agents.The final amendments ensure that in-house assistance from prospective employers, for example, remains free from the scope of the regulatory change. Again, this clarifies an area which is unclear and, as a result, runs the risk of forcing well-meaning people into inadvertently and unwittingly breaching the Migration Act by offering advice—well intended in most cases but nevertheless a breach which obviously carries penalties.Regulation has always been a part of the migration advice industry—first, with the Immigration Act 1948 and then with the Migration Act 1958, with all its subsequent amendments. The amendments proposed by the migration legislation amendment bill may appear minor, but they are important steps in ensuring client confidence in the professional migration advice industry. Major legislative and committee reviews of the migration regulatory system, including the 1995 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Protecting the vulnerable, have led to further federal government reviews, concluding with a policy of moving towards self-regulation.There is a proliferation of migration agents, with some 2,429 migration agents registered as at June 2001. The migration advice industry is a thriving area for both the legal profession who opt to specialise in this field and also other members of the community who choose this profession as a career. Given the nature of the industry, it is important to ensure that the standard and quality of the advice given is at all times above reproach. The Migration Agents Registration Authority, through its code of conduct, does attempt to address this by requiring agents to improve their skills and knowledge through professional development courses. There still lies a problem, however, and that is the obvious disparity of skills and expertise between those agents who are legally trained as compared to those agents who do not have a legal background but instead are community people—just members of the public who have an interest in the area. This disparity remains as an issue of concern and leaves many wondering what effect, if any, a disparity of skills has on the quality of service that the general public gets from the services of the migration advice industry. The average number of years experience for a registered migration agent is about 3.3. It is obviously not an industry in which people who practise as agents tend to remain on a long-term or permanent basis. Perhaps the fact that people do not see this profession as a lifetime career may add to the perception that it is a good opportunity to make some quick money or even may be considered as an area of opportunity for employment by members of the public who may not necessarily be the best people to be practising in this area. Information from MARA reveals that a common cause of rejection of applications to reregister relates to noncompliance with the professional development course requirements. Perhaps some people do not want, or simply cannot be bothered, to keep up with the professional development requirements because they do not take the professional requirements seriously.I am aware that there are several institutions that offer migration agents training courses. I believe these courses are generally regarded as satisfactory, although some people in the industry feel that the courses are too short in duration and can sometimes fail to cover the complexities of the migration law adequately. The other concern, of course, is that almost anyone can apply and be admitted to the courses, and this raises concerns about the selection criteria and standards. This concern is further compounded by the fact that, as I said earlier, discrepancies occur regarding the parity of skills between those who have a legal background and those who do not. It is much easier to understand why a person with legal training would want to specialise in the area of immigration law, but it is perhaps a little difficult to understand how members of the public with a non-legal background could ever grasp the legal complexities of migration law and, by merely completing a short-term course, can then go out and practise—or cannot practise—on a par with lawyers. It may be necessary, therefore, to further examine the area of disparity as it may yield some existing results.There is a view that those who practise as migration agents should have a legal background. This means, of course, that the profession would no longer be available for members of the public, but that may not necessarily be a bad thing. It is not uncommon to come across the work of migration agents which is sloppy, inept, and often involves plain bad and wrong advice. I will detail some cases later that I think will provide testimony to the consequences of that advice. We have seen this industry makes slow and sure progress in developing a code of conduct that, at this stage at least, obliges migration agents to conduct their business in a professional and accountable manner. Equally, it seeks to give the general public the opportunity to seek recourse if they feel that they may have fallen victim to inappropriate behaviour, usually in the form of wrong advice.Following the 1996-97 review of the Migration Agents Registration Scheme it was determined that the migration advice industry should move to voluntary self-regulation through a two-year transitional phase of statutory self-regulation. The August 1999 review of statutory self-regulation of the migration advice industry recognised the need to enhance the regulatory framework. The 1999 review also found that the industry was not yet ready for full self-regulation for the planned March 2000 inception, due largely to continuing concerns, so an extension of time was given to 2003, I understand. It was noted that, given the disadvantaged and vulnerable nature of people like asylum seekers, non-citizens and people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, extra regulation is necessary to ensure standards are met and continue to meet community expectations. Primarily, the concerns raised were the continuing disadvantage and vulnerability of clients, including their lack of knowledge of their rights within the area, the diverse nature of providers of immigration advice, the continuing low membership rate of the professional association and other national interest issues. Recommendation 1 of the 1999 review states:In view of compelling consumer protection concern, the migration industry should continue to be regulated.The report further recommends the enhancement and expansion of regulation to ensure consumer protection.The government is at times, thankfully, able to see beyond its somewhat usual ideologically driven view of the role of regulation in government where quite clearly there is a demonstrated need. The need for government intervention in the form of regulatory frameworks in particular sectors requires a case-by-case analysis, and the migration advice sector is one such area that begs for attention from government. Clearly, protecting the vulnerable within the migration advice industry and protecting the integrity of the immigration system are examples deserving a strong regulatory scheme. Unfortunately, the legislation does not at this stage address some of the problems I have experienced. One in particular is the proliferation of the middleman. The middleman is often a person, especially a known person in a particular ethnic community, who develops a reputation for being able to fix problems—that is, generally, to obtain visas—or who has means and ways of getting things done. Usually they work with migration agents. In fact, they assist the agent by literally scouting for clients. I have come across people who, after having sought the assistance of these middlemen or Mr Fix-its, have come away feeling pretty duped. One such case involved a family who had come here from Greece for a holiday. They decided that they would like to stay here in Australia. Through their friends and family they were introduced to a known Mr Fix-it, who advised them that the only visa they could apply for that did not require an offshore application was the carer visa. He proceeded to instruct them to make an application and said that he, through his contacts—in this instance, he was referring to a migration agent—would fix it for them When the family came to see us, at the end of their tether, it was revealed that they really did not qualify under this category. The aunt who supposedly needed their assistance was in fact a close family friend. After a couple of years of waiting and going through the processes, and some $20,000 later, they had come to the end of the process, when they learnt that their appeal to remain in Australia under the carer category had been rejected. Mr Fix-it had advised them what to do. In short, it was a scam and they were left the worse off for it.One might argue that widening the scope of who can give advice may increase the middleman syndrome, but I am sure that this would not be a problem, because often the middleman works in an organised manner, almost as a de facto migration agent, and through reputation, rather than being someone who casually gives advice in a specific, casual or one-off circumstance. The legislation does not provide a mechanism for subjecting individuals who are not registered migration agents to scrutiny or accountability.The example I outlined shows one of the more serious shortcomings in the migration advice industry. We have no way of knowing how many incidents such as the one I outlined above take place, because so much of it is anecdotal and reliant wholly on victims coming forward. We will never know unless the victims are prepared to speak up. In the case I mentioned, the constituents were not prepared to name the person, but it was clear that the process of preparation and follow-up, or lack of follow-up, was very dubious indeed. The people were keen to remain in Australia and, although they felt aggrieved and cheated, were not prepared to pursue the matter. These issues will always arise, and the best we can hope for at this stage is that some will come forward, name alleged offenders for proper investigation and, hopefully, give an opportunity for the relevant authorities to institute a crackdown on unscrupulous behaviour. This is very important because the integrity of the migration advice industry relies very much on the calibre, expertise and ethics of those who practise.In my electorate of Calwell, immigration assistance continues to be by far the greatest bulk of our constituency work. Although recorded complaints, as shown by MARA statistics, appear to be minute, my experience in the past decade suggests a strong possibility that many complaints go unheard and unreported. I would like to suggest that there are many reasons why people may not complain. Many who use migration agents are from non-English speaking backgrounds. They often do not know or understand our system. They do not know that there is a process of complaint that they can avail themselves of. They are often not residents and rely solely on the migration agents and others, such as the Mr Fix-its, to advise them. Over the years I have personally come across some pretty alarming incidents where, after having been put through the emotional and financial wringer, people are exasperated and desperate. When all the processes have been exhausted and there is nowhere else to go, they end up in parliamentarians' offices; they come to us for help. I want to draw the Main Committee's attention to the case of a 24-year-old Turkish speaking woman. This is an ongoing case. This woman sought assistance in applying for a fiance visa for her fiance, who currently resides in a Middle Eastern country. A significant person, no doubt a Mr Fix-it in her community, referred her to a migration agent. On arriving at a scheduled appointment with this migration agent—who was funded, by the way, by the Commonwealth government grants in aid for resettlement purposes—she was informed that the waiting list for assistance was three weeks but that she could be assisted privately through this migration agent's registered business at his home address. The woman was charged $800 to be assisted in filling out paperwork and sending correspondence. However, the application was subsequently rejected. The woman was given a guarantee of success in the application and she obviously does not feel that she received value for her money.Another case that highlights this is that of a 28-year-old man who also sought assistance to obtain a spouse application. The referral for the appointment was for an after-hours time at a private address. Again, it was the same migration agent funded by the Commonwealth government. The home of the migration agent was the place for the private consultation. The agent was paid $1,000 for assistance, which required filling in paperwork for the application and preparing associated correspondence. Again, the aggrieved client informed our office that the migration agent had told him that he was guaranteed success with the application. The application is currently being reviewed after being rejected.What I find distressing is that certain migration agents have misled, and continue to mislead, desperate and vulnerable people. These are people who have no hope of meeting the criteria of the category they seek yet, with the advice and assistance of the migration agent, they make the application. Often this charade of service serves a dual purpose: it secures for the applicant more time in this country—because within the current legislation and regulations these actions are legitimate—and, after all, everyone has the right to make an application. I am not sure that I would advocate the denial of that right, but we should be able to feel that migration agents—who are the best placed to determine the likely outcome of a case at a prima facie level—should have the integrity and decency to inform their clients honestly when an application is obviously hopeless. Unfortunately, this does not always happen and people, either knowingly or unknowingly, get taken for a ride. Finally, there is the case of a constituent currently on a student visa, who was advised by a migration agent that to renew their student visa would be too timely and financially consuming and that they should apply for refugee status instead. The student was charged $500 to be assisted in filling out the paperwork associated with the application. The applicant had no grounds to apply under this scheme and was accordingly rejected. The rejected applicant has subsequently been hampered in their attempt to regain a student visa.Certain migration agents are making up to an additional $3,000 while some desperate people wait in vain and get fleeced. The most abused categories are `refugee' and `relative carer'. I have found that these are very popular categories for migration agents to use as a mechanism for helping people to prolong their stay, with vague promises that all will be okay in due time. Naturally, when all is not okay, people feel cheated and look to parliamentarians' offices for some sort of help. The only thing we can do for them at that stage is tell them the truth. It is obvious that there is no chance for success and that the clients have no case right from the outset but, on the advice and encouragement of certain migration agents, the applications are lodged anyway. To what extent they would have proceeded if they had been correctly and strongly advised that the course was hopeless in the beginning is a question always left unanswered. Often we may never know, and it is too difficult to surmise the quality of strength or relevance of the application until such time as the process has been gone through. There are circumstances where the hopelessness of a case is evident from the outset and, instead of advising clients accordingly, migration agents demonstrate a propensity to say nothing and, at worst, encourage clients to pursue hopeless applications.The MARA code of conduct is supposed to discourage this behaviour, but I can tell you that many migration agents out there are doing a roaring trade by misleading desperate people. When their efforts and application come to nothing, often these clients feel an accomplice to the process, so they may not necessarily act out their desire for justice and compensation for bad immigration advice. Unscrupulous migration agents often take advantage, knowing that their actions are safe from scrutiny because they know the nature of their clients.I welcome the migration bill and the amendments to the act as well as the regulatory framework concerning the migration agents in the industry. I see it as a step in the right direction because, as I mentioned at the outset, it is necessary to protect the integrity of the industry and offer protection to its clients.10:50:003248Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise to speak in support of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2002 and the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2002. I also wish to support the contribution of previous speakers. The purpose of the first bill is to amend the Migration Act 1958 in a way that improves the administration and the regulation of migration agents and the migration advice industry as a whole. The second bill advocated an increase in the charge limit with respect to the registration application for migration agents. Under current arrangements, the Migration Agents Registration Authority, otherwise known as MARA, administers the registration of migration agents.In general terms, a migration agent is someone who uses their knowledge or their experience of the migration process to provide assistance to immigrants. In 2002 there were approximately 100,000 settler arrivals. This figure included 70,200 people under the non-humanitarian program and 12,000 under the humanitarian program. The remainder was made up of New Zealand arrivals and people who changed category upon arrival, as well as long-term residents. Migration agents service predominantly onshore claims. As more people come to Australia either to work or to settle the industry is set to grow.The migration agents industry is not homogeneous. As previous speakers have mentioned, there are 2,429 registered migration agents as of 30 June 2001. Of these, 34 per cent have legal qualifications while only 17 per cent have practising certificates. In 2000-01, 369 agents were deregistered. The most common reason was lapsed registration or a decision to no longer continue as a registered migration agent. One of the principal reasons for refusing repeat registrations was non-compliance of agents with the professional development requirement. In 2000-01, 4.9 per cent of all registered agents had complaints levelled against them while 95.1 per cent were complaint free.Although it was first thought in the mid-1990s that the migration advice industry should move to voluntary self-regulation, by 1999 the idea was opposed by the government and other interested parties, including consumers and the industry body, the Migration Institute of Australia. It was felt that self-regulation would weaken the MIA and reduce compliance with the industry standard and some regulatory control was therefore necessary. In 1998 the MIA became the Migration Agents Registration Authority and therefore was referred to from then on as MARA. The main functions of MARA include the following: to maintain a register of migration agents; to investigate complaints against migration agents and to take the necessary disciplinary action required; and also to oversee professional development of migration agents, which should be ongoing. Although MARA has only ever had jurisdiction over registered migration agents, it does have the power to cancel or suspend their registration. Under present arrangements, once an agent is deregistered they are no longer under the jurisdiction of MARA. The first bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2002, will permit MARA to commence or complete investigation of complaints against migration agents whether they are registered or no longer registered. It will also enable MARA to prevent a migration agent from being re-registered for a maximum of five years where a complaint has been proven. MARA will therefore have the power to act, refuse, cancel or suspend the registration of an agent based on the factors set out in the legislation. The benefit of this amendment is that it allows MARA to start and complete investigations of an agent when they are registered or within 12 months of the expired registration. It will ensure that migration agents who have avoided disciplinary action simply by deregistering can now be investigated. In the past MARA was not able to investigate a complaint levied at a deregistered agent. As a result, an agent was able to deregister to avoid that particular investigation and re-register at a later time. MARA, therefore, was unable to investigate or take action. Under the new provision of this legislation, MARA will be able to prevent a former agent from re-entering the industry for up to five years and to state publicly the reasons for its decision.In many ways the provisions in this bill complement the MARA current powers in the area of discipline and publication. Agents that are the subject of an investigation will be entitled to make a submission before the authority decides on their inclusion or exclusion from the industry. This must be done within 28 days of the notice being given. It is important to note that MARA can only act on an investigator complaint about a former registered migration agent if the complaint is received within 12 months of that person ceasing to be a registered migration agent.The provisions in this bill are, therefore, providing greater integrity and fairness within the industry and benefits to both the migration agent and the client. The agent is defined as someone who provides immigration assistance. This can include preparing or assisting a visa application or a cancellation review application for an applicant, informing the visa applicant or cancellation review applicant of the outcome, and representing the visa applicant or cancellation review applicant in proceedings, before either a court or the authority.A new subsection to the Migration Act 1958 contained in this bill will ensure that any person performing immigration assistance for a fee who is not a registered agent will be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years. In addition, immigration representations will not be able to be made by unregistered persons in circumstances prescribed by the regulation. Under the current framework, migration agents are required to reregister each year to continue to work in the industry. Each year MARA receives about 1,800 repeat applications and between three to five meetings a week are set aside to decide on these applications. The situation compounds when an agent reregisters very close to the expiry period of the current registration.At present, if an agent's registration has expired, they are unable to practise until their repeat registration has been approved by MARA. The changes at stake under the provisions of this bill will mean that an agent's existing registration will continue until MARA makes a decision on their repeat registration. Where a registration application has not been decided within 10 months of the expiry date of registration, registration will be taken to be granted at the end of that period. This provision will alleviate some of the administrative burden encountered by MARA with re-registrations each year. It will enable continuity in an application for a client and it will reduce uncertainty for migration agents. By enabling an agent to stay within the system, the normal cycles of registration and repeat registration can be maintained, including the obligation to undertake continuing professional development while working within the industry.As previously noted, one of MARA's chief reasons for refusing repeat registrations is the non-compliance of agents with the professional development requirement. The bill enhances the power of MARA while simplifying procedures that benefit all of the parties concerned. As a package, the bill ensures much greater transparency, particularly of migration agents and their industry. With the demand for migration agent services set to increase, the measures outlined in the bill will provide an effective system of checks and balances within the industry itself and it will ensure that high standards are consistently met. People using the services of a migration agent can, therefore, be assured of the utmost industry integrity and client protection.The financial impact of these provisions is minimal. However, there would be savings in the time spent by MARA in dealing again with those reregistrations and the associated administration costs. Resources could therefore be more effectively used to improve the integrity of the industry, through effective investigations and by refining the regulation governing the role and function of migration agents.The second bill in this cognate debate calls for an increase in the charge limit in relation to the registration application of a migration agent. One of the functions of MARA is to monitor the conduct of registered migration agents. In order to become registered, a migration agent must pay a relevant application fee, as set out in the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Regulations 1998. The Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Act 1997 sets out the general charge for all migration agents and their applications, and also sets a general inflation-indexed charge limit. This pricing regime provides a certain amount of flexibility to set different levels of charge, depending on different circumstances. For example, in 1997, the act set out an initial limit in relation to applications for registration. For the year ending 30 June 1998, that limit was $1,100. By 30 June 2001, the indexed charge limit was $1,180 and on 1 July 2001 the charges were increased to $1,180 for a registration application and to $950 for a renewal. This means that the application charge has met its limit. According to the 1997 charge act, the registration application charge cannot exceed the charge limit, and a higher charge is therefore required for any future increases. When the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2001 was introduced into the House of Representatives in August 2001, the opposition supported the legislation. All funds raised through these charges and renewal charges were paid into consolidated revenue and used to assist MARA to carry out its statutory duties. It is imperative that these bills be passed. This will ensure that the complaints against migration agents are properly investigated and acted upon, and that professional development of all migration agents particularly is of an ongoing and high standard. I am very supportive of both these bills, and I ask that others demonstrate their commitment to improving the standards for all involved in the industry by showing support for the legislation.The migration advice industry is a rapidly growing one. As our work force becomes more global, many companies draw workers from worldwide labour markets. The increase in overseas business people seeking visas to work in Australia is indicative of that change in global direction. A survey prepared by the Business Advisory Panel in 1999, entitled Business entry in a global economy: maximising the benefits, found that between 1992 and 1998 the business skills category was made up of 77 per cent of business owners and 13 per cent of senior executives, while 10 per cent were investment linked and two per cent worked for established businesses already in Australia. A requirement under the business skills category is that all arrivals be subject to mandatory monitoring of their efforts to engage in business in Australia. A survey conducted in the 36 months after the arrival of business owners found that 85 per cent of those listed as business owners in the business skills stream were engaged in business, that 76 per cent of the businesses were new and that 65 per cent of those were businesses involved in exports. So they certainly make a great contribution to our export effort, as well.The survey highlights the significant input, from both the skills and the financial points of view, of those in that particular business skills scheme. It also demonstrates the increasing interest in doing business with Australia, for a variety of reasons and from a variety of destinations around the world. The projection that Australia's growth rate will continue to surpass that of other industrialised countries in 2002-03 indicates the growing interest of many to do business in Australia.The most recent increase in the Australian dollar, particularly against the US greenback, shows that investor confidence is shifting away from the US and looking more favourably at Australian shores. As Australia becomes more enticing to overseas investors and business people, the demand for migration agents will also increase. There is already a trend in international companies with offices in Australia to utilise the skills of in-house migration agents. This trend will continue, and migration advice and the industry will expand and therefore become much more diverse.The bills that we are considering today will ensure that measures are in place to protect the interests of the applicant and also of the migration application process. It is imperative, having regard to the increasing number of people who are interested in doing business in Australia, that appropriate measures are set out to ensure consistency, without limiting opportunity. Increased powers for MARA to investigate an action on a complaint by barring a former migration agent will enable much more improved control of the industry. It will increase confidence in the migration advice industry, as well as for agents and visa applicants. An increase in the charge limit will assist in the investigation process and also in ensuring that quality professional development is ongoing.These regulatory and administrative changes will ensure that the industry maintains a high level both in the quality of migration agents and in the delivery of services to clients. Therefore, I support these bills.11:06:003252Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2002 is substantially the same as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2000. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, noted in his second reading speech to the original bill, on 29 November 2000, that—and I quote:The primary aims of this bill are to expand the powers of MARA to take action on integrity issues and to reduce uncertainty in the registration process for agents. The expansion of MARA's powers provided by this bill will allow the commencement and completion of investigations of complaints against migration agents even if they are no longer registered. I note that this legislation is therefore a considerable departure from the existing regime whereby a registered migration agent can simply deregister to avoid disciplinary proceedings from MARA, thereby maintaining a technically unblemished record. Today's bill is yet another example of the debacle known as voluntary industry self-regulation. What is voluntary industry self-regulation? Thanks to advice that I have received from the Parliamentary Library, the term `voluntary industry self-regulation' is understood to mean that there is no legislative framework for the industry apart from consumer protection mechanisms such as small claims tribunals and the potential for clients to take legal action against agents under the Trade Practices Act 1974 and/or civil action for damages.The history of abuse by migration agents is legendary. It was the Commonwealth Labor government who, in May 1995, formed a joint standing committee on migration, from which a report was produced titled Protecting the vulnerable. The Howard coalition government took office in 1996. The Parliamentary Library notes that, in 1996-97, as part of the Commonwealth legislative review program, and in response to the committee's report, the government conducted a further review of the migration advice industry—MARS. As a result of both these review processes, the government decided that the migration advice industry should move to voluntary self-regulation through a period of statutory self-regulation.At this point, it is prudent to ask the question: what is `agency'? The third edition of the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary defines `agent' as a person who acts for another in business, politics et cetera; an agent who acts on behalf of his or her principal. And who is the principal in this case? The principal is the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The agent is acting in agency for the minister, and therefore on behalf of the Australian public. As the minister, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, correctly notes in his overview of this bill as described on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum—and I quote:... the Act provides a scheme for the regulation of persons who seek to act as migration agents. In general terms, a migration agent is an individual who uses, or purports to use, his/her knowledge of, or experience in, migration procedure to give what is defined in the Act as “immigration assistance”.It is timely to understand the size and complexity of the migration advice industry. I note there are three distinct types of person acting in the migration industry. Firstly, there are registered migration agents. These are migration agents who are registered with MARA. Secondly, there are non-registered migration agents. Logically, these are persons acting as migration agents who are not registered with MARA. Thirdly, there are legal practitioners. These are persons registered with the law societies of their respective Commonwealth jurisdictions who give legal advice on immigration matters. Legal practitioners may or may not be registered migration agents. For completeness, it may also be noted that there are migration agents who hold legal qualifications but who are not registered legal practitioners within the meaning of relevant legal practitioner legislation in the respective states and territories.Herein lies the first of the fundamental issues of this debate. What is this issue? It is the vulnerability of the client. Who are the clients who use migration advice services? Almost invariably they are the great masses of migration and temporary visa applicants throughout the world who are seeking to enter Australia. They are also without exception human beings, a point that is often forgotten by this government in a great many of its policy decisions—a point I shall return to in a moment. Why are these client applicants vulnerable? There are a host of reasons. The main reason may be summarised in the following way. Firstly, they are often deficient in their comprehension of the English language. Hence, not only can they not understand the language but English common law is equally paradigmatically foreign to them. Secondly, they lack legal knowledge of the fine but significant distinction between registered and unregistered migration agency and the concept of a legal practitioner and the relationship to a migration agency. They also cannot understand the complexities of one of the most complex areas of Commonwealth law, which is migration legislation. Thirdly, they are often desperate persons seeking a better life in Australia. The media is flush with story after story of people literally risking their lives in order to arrive on our shores, using unseaworthy vessels across treacherous waters. They breach visa conditions or simply lie to the Australian government by using bogus passports. They routinely breach visa conditions to simply have the luxury to physically remain in Australia, legally or otherwise. They do this because they cannot understand or receive the assistance they need for legitimate migration. Fourthly, they are financially destitute. Their income levels deny them the ability to obtain the considerable sums of money necessary for the fees to enable them to get the kind of advice they require.The government will allege that this vulnerability in the hands of the clients is precisely the reason why this bill is being brought into the House today. Their argument is regrettably and fundamentally flawed. Why is their argument flawed? Here are the facts. First, they reviewed the migration advice industry in 1996-97. Second, they adopted a graduated scheme of self-regulation—first statutory self-regulation and then full-blooded voluntary regulation. Third, in the light of the near total collapse of public interest accountability in the migration advice industry, they belatedly introduced today's bill. What is today's bill really all about? It is about the introduction of stronger, more coercive powers in the hands of MARA to perform their policing duties against both registered and now non-registered migration agents. Let us examine the nature of the moral goods in question. There are four main moral goods in question with respect to the migration advice industry. First, there is the moral good of the public interest. Migration is but one of a host of border protection functions for which the Commonwealth government is charged with responsibility. The moral good here is that migration and border movements will be administered with due care to protect Australia's interests while not permitting the illicit trafficking of goods, prohibited or otherwise, or illicit movements of people across Australia's sovereign borders. Second, there is the moral good of the client. The client, invariably a visa applicant, is deserving of human rights in the processing of their application. They deserve application of the rule of law, administrative law principles of the bias rule, probative evidence rule and the audi altarem partem rule—that is, the right to be heard. In short, they are deserving of the minimum rights of natural justice. This includes their rights against the government and the migration agent. With these rights come obligations. These obligations principally mean that they will be honest to the people of Australia: they will not lie; they will demonstrate integrity in making their applications. The third moral good is that of the interests of the migration agent themselves. This includes protection of their profits, their rights as migration agents to practise freely and without harassment from government agencies, and their right to give advice in assisting the client to choose their destiny in making prudent choices about which visa and about when and how that person should be legally bound with the Australian government. Perhaps most significantly, the fourth is the national interest. In my view, the national interest is distinguished in this case from the public interest in that the national interest deals with the Australian government as a body politic in its own right. It is thus distinguished from the public interest in that the public interest deals with intangibles that affect the Australian polity as a whole. The national interest here is found in the contractual obligations between principal and agent—that is, between government as principal and the migration agents to which they give licence to participate in the migration advice industry.Herein lies the problem with today's bill. The bill is predicated on a presumption and implied assertion that there must be voluntary self-regulation of the migration advice industry. This assertion is false. In whose interest does the migration agent act? Technically, they are the agents of the Commonwealth government, but in reality the history of migration agents here in Australia more closely reflects migration broking than it does agency. What is peculiar to migration broking? Let us look at some basic facts. Who pays a migration agent? The answer is that the client does. Compare that to a real estate agent. Who pays the real estate agent? The answer is that the vendor pays. In the conveyancing of real estate, for example, the purchaser pays his or her 10 per cent into a trust account held by a stakeholder, usually either the vendor's solicitor or, if there is no vendor's solicitor, the vendor's agent. The point here is that the agent does not see the money until the full settlement is effected. The money remains the property of the vendor until settlement is fully effected.Compare this with a migration agency. The migration agent may or may not have a trust account, but the fact remains that the money is the agent's from day one. The government, as principal, has no role in the contract between migration agent and client whatsoever. Yes, there are regulatory controls, but it is a fundamentally different relationship from that of an orthodox agency.Herein lies the fundamental flaw in this process. The flaw is that the migration agent is not really acting in agency at all. The interests of the migration agent are those of a migration broker. There are, regrettably, a large number of migration agents who actively engage in visa shopping for their clients. By this, I mean that, unlike the obligations of the client, the visa applicant—obligations to which I referred earlier, such as honesty et cetera—the migration agent presents a smorgasbord of visa options. A common sight in a migration practice is affording different visas, even though they may not demonstrate the best reflection of a visa applicant's intention to enter Australia. For example, a single applicant may be variously eligible for a tourist visa, a student visa, a long stay temporary business visa, a protection visa, a refugee visa or a business migration sponsored or independent visa. There are almost hundreds of subclasses of visa. The selection of a visa is not the problem. The most important thing is to ascertain the actual intention of the applicant. Therefore the fundamental question that every migration agent must ask is this: is it the visa applicant's intention to visit Australia only for a specified period of time or is it the intention to permanently migrate? The question is not `What visa can I possibly get for this applicant that gets my client through the door?' Certain migration agents ask an even more sinister question: `What processes can I invoke to protract the client's application for as long as possible in order to extract maximum fees and profitability from them?' I do not say that all migration agents are like this. Indeed, it is fortunately a statistically small percentage. However, those migration agents that do seek to exploit vulnerable, often desperate, applicants bring the entire migration advice industry into disrepute. For example, the MARA 2000 annual report indicates that, with 2,180 registered migration agents, there were 177 complaints lodged during the year 1999-2000, a decrease from 195 in the previous 1998-99 period. The number of non-registered migration agents is not stated in the MARA report, but I understand it to be in the order of a staggering 4,000. Add to this the number of legal practitioners—some 12,000 in New South Wales alone—and you see the number of people that potentially may offer legal or administrative advice on immigration law. The government has opted for the worst scenario: a halfway house between the provisions of this bill, which seeks to increase the coercive powers of MARA, on the one hand, and refusing to abandon the demonstrated failure of voluntary self-regulation of the migration advice industry on the other. This government has failed to understand one basic fact: that the administration of the migration advice industry is a public responsibility. You cannot privatise a fundamental function such as border protection that has profound public and national interest implications. This bill attempts to rein in a migration advice industry that is chronically out of control. This government has systematically gone privatisation mad. It has sought to self-regulate the broadcasting and banking industries, and attempted to privatise the quarantine service, with equally catastrophic results in each case. Could you imagine the government's attempt to privatise the quarantine service at a time of mad cow disease and the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease throughout Europe? The functional equivalent of this outbreak—a collapse in border protection—is reflected in this bill.The bill seeks to arrest the outbreak of bogus visa applications that end up costing both the client and the taxpayer. These cause immeasurable harm to often innocent participants—those human beings who deserve the same respect as Australian citizens but are relatively powerless because they lack legal standing precisely for the reason that they are not Australian citizens. The government have again demonstrated their utilitarian ethic of seeking the cheapest, most cost-effective method of administering the migration advice industry by simply taking their hands off the wheel and thinking that it will be all right for the industry to run itself. The government have abandoned their public interest and national interest obligations in favour of achieving financial savings.The real remedy is to admit that the administration of the migration advice industry is fundamentally a public one. A modern migration agent has little, if any, incentive to abide by their fiduciary duties as agents to their principals—the Australian public, represented by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. If this government were serious about regulation of the migration advice industry, it would restore public accountability and make this industry the exclusive domain of the Commonwealth Public Service. Yes, it would be expensive, but it is concomitant with our obligations as a government to the applicants and, most importantly, to the public interest and the Australian public to ensure that our borders are protected, that visas are validly issued and that certainty and uniformity are present in the system.When I consider the large number of constituents attending my office in Lowe who have been stung by very excessive fees—bled dry by many tens of thousands of dollars—but are still unsuccessful in their visa applications, I can only have the greatest empathy for them. These are the people who have usually also suffered great hardship, including persecution, family separation and other harm. For these reasons, I will be making my own representations to my colleagues in the Senate on the points that I have raised here this morning.Finally, I think it is outrageous that the government starves the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs of proper resources and expects electorate offices like mine—and the offices of the member for Prospect, who was here today, the member for Stirling and the member for Melbourne Ports; I was talking with them before I came here to make this speech this morning—to act as branch offices for the department. That is outrageous. The proper thing to do would be to properly resource the department, but there is the expectation by the minister and the government, passed on to officers of the department, that the electorate offices will provide a branch office service for the department. The amount of immigration work involved in helping people who come to offices like mine is very, very time consuming. I do not see why electorate officers should be expected to effectively be de facto migration agents and migration lawyers because the department does not have the resources.I have the greatest sympathy for the officers of the department. The service I get from people like Sam Harris in Sydney is second to none—and I have conveyed that previously to Philip Ruddock—but I think it is disgusting that this government continues to starve the department of resources and expects electorate offices to do all this immigration work. No officers of other government departments come around to electorate offices like officers of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs do to give us training in how to, effectively, do their work. Why are they doing that? It is because people are coming to our offices as a result of not being able to get the sort of service that they should be getting from the government since the government has starved the Commonwealth Public Service.I speak with some authority on this because I spent 28 years in the Commonwealth Public Service before I was elected to federal parliament. Day in and day out in my office people are coming in to get help because they do not feel they are getting the right advice from the department. The only reason they are not getting the right advice is that the department does not have the resources. The department wants to help them but does not have the resources. What do the staff of the department do? They say, `Go and see your federal member of parliament; he or she will fix you up.' I know that the member for Prospect and the member for Stirling will say the things I am saying, as will members of the government, about the branch office service they are providing on behalf of the department in their electorate offices. I think that is outrageous, as I said earlier, and something has to be done about it. A message from this debate that I want conveyed to the minister and the Prime Minister is: do something to give more resources to the department so that it can more properly make applicants aware of their rights and not leave them to the mercy of the small minority of sharks who are operating as migration agents or say, `Don't worry, the member of parliament's electorate office staff can do interview after interview and provide the information.' The department itself should provide officers so that they can provide advice and assistance so that the proper information can be conveyed to the client. That is a very important point to make in this debate because something has to be done because those most vulnerable members in the community—the applicants—are being denied their rights and they are relying on electorate offices to do the work of the department. Something has to be done about it.11:26:003257Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Few, if any, other nations in the world have such a good reputation in creating a multicultural society as does our country. It is a reputation that has been built upon constructive policies from federal governments of both persuasions, policies that have encouraged understanding and tolerance and promoted the successes of migrants in our country. Many on our side of the House believe that this reputation has been under threat since the Howard government came into office. My electorate of Prospect has one of the highest representations of migrants of any electorate in this House, making it one of the most ethnically diverse communities in Australia. Within my electorate of Prospect—these are census figures, not mine—more than 120 languages are spoken, and 52 per cent of the population of the local government area of Fairfield were born overseas. People have come to my electorate from overseas over the years and have made a wonderful contribution to both the development and the success of our community through their cultural organisations and their activities. Like most migrant families who come to our shores, many of those in my electorate have worked unbelievably hard. They have paid their fair share of taxes, they have abided by Australia's laws to the letter, they have raised their families, they have cared for their children and their grandchildren, and they have contributed overwhelmingly to their local community. However, many people remain separated from their family and their loved ones who are still living in their home country. Helping these people unite with their families and friends through the correct channels of our migration laws is one of the most rewarding aspects of public office, even though I have to agree with the member for Lowe—in an electorate like mine it probably accounts for 92 per cent of our daily work. Throughout the years I have seen many families brought together from overseas. I know how desperate some of my constituents are to be united with their loved ones, and often they will pay any price or investigate any avenue to have their family members join them. Unfortunately, there are elements in our society who play with the hopes and the desires of people to bring their families together. They take advantage of the lack of experience and understanding that so many new arrivals have with our laws.When I first entered parliament in 1990, I said in my maiden speech that I would vigorously pursue the unscrupulous migration agents who have disingenuous intentions of assisting and representing the people of my electorate. Throughout my years in this parliament I have constantly supported legislation which aims to protect the people who are likely to be taken advantage of by profiteering migration agents and I am glad to see that the government has decided to clamp down on some of these practices by introducing this bill.The practice of providing migration assistance and services in return for a fee is quite a legitimate profession and is practised not only by registration migration specialists but also by solicitors and legal professionals. I am sure there are some very good agents around who do give advice, but voluntary self-regulation, for example, does not work. I would like to refer to the Bills Digest No. 81, where they put it so very succinctly:... there is considerable potential for abuse by agents and a history in the industry of exploitative conduct, affecting both:- consumers, who are often in a vulnerable position because they do not speak English and because the nature of the market is such that it is not easy to discern good service providers from unscrupulous ones, and- the national interest, since unethical conduct on the part of agents affects the integrity of the migration and humanitarian programs.I have, however, seen too many of my constituents taken for a ride by those who claim they are offering to provide migration assistance and representation but are later found out to be giving false or misleading information at great expense. Some of the most recent cases have shown that people have spent over $5,000 on representation and still have not received their desired outcome—nor will they at times. They turn up to my office only to discover that much of the service they have paid for could have been provided at no cost whatsoever. One particular constituent recently had been advised by the Refugee Review Tribunal that his case for refugee status was unsuccessful. The agent who was representing him then went on to advise him of his options, which included appealing to the Federal Court or making a submission to the minister for immigration under which he would be entitled to a bridging visa E. The agent advised that the minister was likely to take several months to decide on the submissions and that their client would be allowed to stay in Australia on a bridging visa E. The letter went on to say that the cost of representation to the minister, including the cost of obtaining the bridging visa E, would be $1,500.I have over the years made countless representations to the minister for immigration on these matters, and time and time again constituents contact my office expressing concern at the amount of money they have been spending on migration matters. The many complaints to my office only serve to confirm that there remains an element of people who would prey on the vulnerability of people by seeking large sums of money from them in return for assistance, whilst knowing full well that the migration decision will not result in the desired outcome. The minister would be fully aware of the celebrated case of one particular individual who presented himself to people as a Liberal Party operative, claiming connections not only to the minister but directly to the Prime Minister. Fortunately, he was found out and the courts dealt with him. I believe every person who speaks on this bill can bring up case after case—in fact, I could use the next couple of hours bringing in cases out of my files of what we encounter on a daily basis in an electorate such as mine. The fact remains that there needs to be more protection put in place to ensure not only that those agents who are disingenuous are caught and punished but also that people are made aware that there are persons out there who have no genuine desire to represent their interests and who only seek to make profit out of our migration system.The Bills DigestNo. 81 put out by our Parliamentary Library, which I referred to earlier, shows that on 30 June 2001 there were 2,429 registered migration agents; 35 per cent of registered agents were female and 65 per cent male; the average age was 42; 827, or 34 per cent, of all registered agents possessed legal qualifications; and only 411, or 17 per cent, of agents have practising certificates as lawyers. In 2000-01, the MARA received 600 new applications for registration and 865 repeat registration applications. And according to statistics collected by MARA, fewer than 150 agents have more than eight years experience as registered agents. The average number of years experience is only 3.3. Many times we have found that the type of advice given by a number of these people to our constituents is information which is just so readily available from our department of immigration through a simple phone call.I find all practices of false and misleading representation on migrant cases totally abhorrent. The complexities of Australia's lawful and comprehensive migration laws should not be used by people who only wish to make a profit out of the vulnerability of others. A problem which this government has allowed to emerge is that agents can often avoid the finalisation of complaints by deregistering or by failing to renew their registration, thereby discontinuing the complaint. That is why I am pleased to see this bill before us in the House; it will hopefully to put a stop to that.This bill will empower our Migration Agents Registration Authority to further investigate complaints of agents who have failed to reregister. If found to be substantiated, the MARA can bar the agent from being a registered agent for a period of up to five years. I would make it longer: I would make it for life. The practice of people posing as migration agents, with the only aim of abusing the system and exploiting people, must be stopped. In supporting this bill I also call on the government to ensure that justice is seen to be done and that appropriate regulations are set up to protect the people who oftentimes cannot speak the language, who do not know our systems and who are very easily conned into handing over their hard-earned money for something that in most cases is of no value to them whatsoever.We must also ensure that adequate services are provided for newly arrived migrants. The migration process is difficult and migrants require considerable support to adapt to a new culture, live in a new environment, learn a new language and deal with bureaucracy and gain employment. Any successful migration policy should provide funds for these essential services and recognition of those community organisations that act as providers and helpers.While I agree to this bill, I would like to highlight some of the ways in which this government has damaged our reputation as a tolerant, welcoming society. The aim of Australia's immigration policy has for many years been to balance humanitarian responses and the natural desire of families to be reunited with a vision for the overall progress of Australian society. However, in recent times the Howard government has consistently failed to encourage family reunion policies, which in part has led to the vast increase in the confusion among migrant families regarding Australia's migration policies. The Howard government has slashed the number of places available for family migration and, in doing so, caused a great deal of stress and anxiety to many people in my electorate who feel they may never see their parents again.We do have a government that says it is pro-family, a government that says it wants to build a tolerant and understanding Australia. However, what this government says and what it delivers are often two different things. The attacks on family reunion have caused many of my constituents great hardship. Their desire to be reunited with their parents or siblings has been prolonged by this government's policies. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs' own statistics show that family visas fell sharply from 68.7 per cent of the total migration program in 1995-96 to 46.7 per cent in 1997-98. That is just in one 12-month period. In 2000-01, the figure fell further to 41.5 per cent. The government also cut the aged migrant parent entry visa in 1999-2000 to just 500 places. To cap or to restrict the number of direct family members that can be reunited in Australia only serves to reinforce the idea that Australia does not believe in the success of multiculturalism. It shows no faith by the Howard government in the idea that migrants can come to our country and start a new and successful life and, at the same time, look after their families. There are many cases of family reunion where families have made a great commitment to our country. They have come here with goodwill and they have been accepted by our nation. Yet, in return, when they want to be reunited with their parents, brothers, sisters or direct family, this government tells them that it is not good enough and their family will not be reunited with them as they could therefore become a burden on the taxpayers.The common theme of this government's migration policy seems to be that every application for migration is viewed with suspicion. Since the 1996 election, when this government took office, Australia has seen a resurgence in the politics of race. The politics of race prospers in a climate of fear. The introduction of the politics of race has damaged international reputation. Our regional neighbours still have to cope with the influx of asylum seekers. Australia cannot afford to allow itself to drift towards a destination defined by no more than current trends, ideologies and annual migration adjustments. We need a comprehensive approach to population policy. It needs to include targeted and clearly defined incentives.I was recently going through some questions on the Notice Paper. I found a question asked by my colleague the member for Reid. The answer by the minister recorded in the Hansard of 14 May 2002 makes interesting reading. I suggest that most members of the House should read it. They will know what I am talking about and why I am becoming so emotional over some of the problems of my electorate. Fairfield, in the migration stream of family, had 3,958 entries in the previous period, and in the migration stream of humanitarian it had 3,459. I read those figures into the Hansard because, compared with the rest of the nation, my electorate alone has only 2,000 fewer migrants settling in it than does the whole of Western Australia. My electorate is but one of the 150 federal seats in this parliament, but it has more people coming in one year to settle in it than have South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory. It is interesting to note, too, when you read the statistics from Victoria as well as Queensland—and the figures for Queensland show that my electorate alone receives only 2,000 fewer than the whole of that state does—there is not one local government area that comes anywhere near the number of settlements that have come into my electorate.I would remind the minister, too, that in his local government area of Baulkham Hills from the migration stream of family he had 696 arrivals, whereas I had 3,958. In the Prime Minister's electorate, Ryde had 904 but, of course, from a different migration stream altogether from those settling in my electorate. Looking at the migration humanitarian stream, again, in the minister's electorate there were 233 people and in the Prime Minister's electorate, 268. In my electorate, there were 3,459 arrivals in my local government area. In other words, in that particular period, from both of those streams 7,417 people settled in the local government area of Fairfield.Most of these people have English as a second language. In fact, when you go out to speak to them and to their children in the schools and when you speak to community groups who are there to advise, assist and help, you hear that they have tremendous problems in settling in. They have tremendous problems because of the numbers settling there. Governments of both political persuasions have tried to convince some of our migrants to move to other states or other areas, but it does not seem to be happening. I suppose that if we were to go to their country and not have command of their language, we too would go to settle where a friend knew a cousin of an uncle of a sister or a brother. We would go to their area and settle with them because we would feel we would get the advice, help and assistance we needed in those first couple of months in a new country, from someone with whom we had some type of relationship.You have to understand and appreciate that, when you have such a volume of people coming in, it is in the concerns that are being expressed on a daily basis by these people—over what they feel are inadequate services being provided by the government and more importantly over what they, because of their own lack of understanding, are being subjected to by migration agents—that some of harshest cases come to light. I would stress to the minister that, regardless of what happens with our migration program in the future, one of the things that we have to provide in communities such as mine is the wherewithal by which advice can be rendered and education can be provided, and by which community groups who are there to serve the people at no profit to themselves—they do not charge and do not have a fee—are at least given the help and assistance needed in order to carry out that particular job. I would further like to say that, as the member for Lowe had expressed in his speech in the debate, I have only the most outstanding praise for the staff in the department of immigration. We are constantly working through them and with them—otherwise the minister's office would be so inundated with representations that he would probably never be able to do anything else except handle my correspondence. Nevertheless, we have direct input into the department. Mr Sam Harris and those people who work to cover our particular region are second to none, not only in their credibility but in their expertise and in the help and assistance that they provide. I too would support the cry from outside of the House that the people employed in the department of immigration do need more assistance. In fact, they could probably do with a lot more people to handle the work flow which I have just illustrated by the numbers I have provided. They are numbers that I have not exaggerated. They have been provided by the minister and provided in Hansard.When we talk about where we should be going in the future, both as a government and as an opposition, we need more strong bills like these to make sure that we weed out the unscrupulous people in the community and that there be harsher penalties for them. I would plead with the minister that, when we are looking at another change and reform to migration agent legislation, we do not have the five-year period in which they cannot be reappointed: I believe that anybody who takes these people for a ride should be barred for life. I do not believe they should ever just have a five-year sentence saying, `You're just being a bad boy, and therefore we will let you come back in five years time.' Get rid of them completely! There is no room for them in society when, by taking money from them, they have really used other people's vulnerability, sorrow and desire to be reunited with their families.In the limited time left, I want to particularly bring to the attention of the House a very sad case I had recently, where a pensioner had come out here after being separated from her family. Many years later, she finally found her daughter and did everything she could to get that daughter reunited with her. But of course the daughter had married and had family in the other country, and the story goes on—there were other people over there and, therefore, another whole part of the family. When she came to me she was desperately, on her pension, trying to pay back a loan she had got—not through the bank, because they would not lend to her, but through another lending agency—for an unsuccessful application to try to be reunited.As I said to her in the first place, she could have paid for a trip to go and visit her daughter three times over, and there she was still struggling to try to pay back that money after having no success. Case after case like this comes to light, where people could have been told up front. The department of immigration people would know and would have provided the advice to her; the same as we do on a regular basis. If we do not have the advice, we will ring the department immediately in their presence and get that advice at no cost to them. She would not have been subjected to the problem that she has today and still have the disappointment. She has no chance of even seeing her daughter in the foreseeable future. I plead with the minister: let us keep tight regulations in place as far as these people are concerned. I also say quite levelly to those migration agents and lawyers who are doing a good job: this legislation is really not about you; it is about those who are not doing the right thing. If lawyers or migration agents who are registered take offence at any of the words that have been stated, I say, `If the shoe fits, wear it. If it does not, you are clear; you do not have to be worried about it, nor should you be disturbed by any bill that is brought before the Main Committee in tightening regulations, which this bill is now about to do.' I commend the bill to the Main Committee. 11:46:003262O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Like the electorate of the previous speaker, the member for Prospect, Corio has a high percentage of people from non-English speaking backgrounds who have settled in the electorate. I do commend the member for Prospect for her contribution to this debate; she always makes an insightful contribution, a no holds barred contribution. She said some very important things about the operation of migration agents that I hope the minister takes on board.The Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2002 and the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2002 continue the process of refining the legislative framework governing the operation of migration agents, and the opposition will be supporting the measures contained in the bills. This legislative framework is necessary because of, firstly, the unique structure of the industry and the need to ensure uniformity in industry standards and practices—given that the industry is comprised of lawyers, non-lawyers and community workers—and, secondly, the particular vulnerability of non-English speaking consumers of the advice services provided in this industry. Indeed, this is an industry which in the past has been unfortunately burdened by exploitative conduct by some of its practitioners, which in turn has compromised the integrity of the immigration program.There would not be a member of the House with a significant proportion of his or her constituency from a non-English speaking background who has not had the unfortunate experience of having distressed constituents in their office who have paid out thousands of dollars in a fruitless immigration pursuit. Good, honest advice up front would have saved that constituent the money that has been expended and a lot of personal and family trauma. I note in the legislative brief provided by the Parliamentary Library that in 1999 only 25 per cent of registered agents were members of the industry association, the Migration Institute of Australia. I would imagine that figure has not changed dramatically since then, so the task of ensuring compliance with industry standards would be extremely difficult without this regulatory framework being in place. As described by the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, there are three major amendments proposed by the legislation. Firstly, the legislation will prevent an applicant seeking to be a registered migration agent from being registered where the Migration Agents Registration Authority has made the decision to bar him or her for a particular period and that particular period has not ended. Secondly, the legislation will provide the Migration Agents Registration Authority with the power to bar a former registered agent from being a registered migration agent for a maximum period of five years if, after investigating a complaint in relation to his or her provision of immigration assistance as a registered agent, it is satisfied that the subject matter of the complaint is made out. Thirdly, the legislation provides MARA with the power to investigate or complete an investigation of a complaint about a person at a time when he or she is no longer a registered agent.These amendments are necessary to provide the Migration Agents Registration Authority with the legal capacity to pursue unethical, unscrupulous and dodgy migration agents who have previously used the device of unregistering to escape investigations of complaints against their unethical conduct. As explained, it provides the Migration Agents Registration Authority with the capacity to exclude a former agent who is found to have engaged in exploitative or unethical conduct from being a registered agent for a period of five years. This is a measure that honest agents, the migrant community and the general community would strongly applaud, support and welcome.People in the community are getting sick of offenders who transgress in an unethical way the legal framework that governs the operations of their industry and then, once they are found guilty of that offence, get a further bite at the cherry further down the line. I am of a similar view to the member for Prospect—that people who are found to have committed unscrupulous acts or engaged in unethical conduct in this particular area ought to be banned for more than five years from operating in it. Most agents who operate in this field are honest and ethical and give value for money advice, but there is always a section of each profession that chooses to operate below the line of reasonable and ethical conduct and those people need to be weeded out to preserve the overall integrity of the system.The advice given by migration agents, in some cases for a fee received, is given in the context of considerable trust placed in the agent by the client. Often considerable emotional investment accompanies the migration application. In particular, many people of non-English speaking backgrounds who do not understand the complexities of the immigration program and the changing law around this whole area of policy put great faith in the advice of their migration agent in these matters. It is vitally important that they receive the best, most accurate and most professional advice that they can access—hence the need to continually refine the legal framework that surrounds the operation of migration agents. We on the opposition side will be supporting the legislative measures that are contained in the bills before the House.In this whole area of immigration policy, members who deal with this on a day-to-day basis are confronted with the very strong emotions and family investments that I mentioned earlier. I would like to mention one particular example. It clearly demonstrates how important it is to members of Australia's ethnic communities that this particular area of policy operates well. I refer to the Jovanoski family, a young family who had been trying for over six years to get their parents to Australia. The sponsor in this case is a hardworking and well respected and established businessman with a very young family. They made every effort to comply with all requests, but experienced quite extraordinary obstacles to getting their family to Australia. It was very important for the Jovanoski family, because they work long hours in their business, they have young children and they really do need that extended family support that most of us take for granted in our working lives. There was an initial delay in the lodgment of the application at the overseas post as a result of inadequate information that had been given. Of course, this was the cause of significant frustration to the family. In the meantime, the government's capping legislation was introduced so they missed out on having their application processed in a more speedy manner. Then followed a prolonged and complex process during which requests were made by the embassy at various stages to resubmit documents that had been already sent and lodged in compliance with the original instructions by the embassy concerned. Some 16 letters were sent by me on their behalf to the post before we got a result in this particular case. As a result of the problems and lengthy delays in the processing of the parents' applications for permanent residency, which was exacerbated by the queuing system, the family decided to apply for a visitors visa with a long-term stay of one year. The family is overjoyed that a year after the lodgment of this application it has been accepted, but they still talk with anger and frustration about the delays in processing their parents' application. That is still pending and still likely to take many years. I hazard to guess the financial burden that would have been placed on that family if they had not had access to the expert advice given by Geelong's Migrant Resource Centre and the support they have received from my office. CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—A very good centre.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNOR—The minister has made the comment that the Geelong Migrant Resource Centre is a very good centre. I am pleased that he has made that remark. In the context of this debate I would like to pay particular tribute to the community workers who are registered migration agents in this field for the enormous work they do in providing professional and caring advice to migrant communities all across Australia. That is not exclusively to migrant communities but they certainly do serve those communities well. The Geelong Migrant Resource Centre is a part of that network and it is a very important interface with ethnic communities in my community. These community workers usually operate out of the migrant resource centres. They provide not only a migration advisory service for their clients but also a range of other support advice to some of the most vulnerable members of our community. I would like to particularly pay tribute to the community workers in the Geelong Migrant Resource Centre who have served their community over a long period of time in this area very well.Seeing the minister is here, I should declare a personal interest in this matter from the outset for members of this House. My partner happens to be one of the community workers at the MRC. But I am of the view that, because one is a partner to a politician, one is not automatically excluded from some form of recognition in this place if it is well deserved. My tribute includes other community workers who have made a dedicated and professional contribution in the area of migration advice and the other workers at the MRC who support their efforts. In Geelong we have two workers, Grazia Shrimpton and Toni Siketa, who have given distinguished service to migrants in this area over many years. They are held in very high regard by the communities they serve. It is not only their contribution but the contributions of all the staff, capably led by Jordan Mavros, that have established a fine reputation of service to Geelong's ethnic communities.In recent years we have seen the range of functions performed by the Geelong Migrant Resource Centre expand substantially to now where the centre provides a full range of support services, including employment services, to Geelong's ethnic communities. It has in the past played a pivotal organisational role in mounting one of Geelong's premier community festivals, the Pako Festa. The minister kindly graced us with his presence at this festival recently. I am pleased that this function has returned to the people who know the needs of Geelong's ethnic communities best, the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council, after a disastrous experiment in recent years that saw organisational control pass to rank amateurs posing as professionals. You can read between the lines there in whatever capacity you like.I understand that Anne Patterson, of the MRC, will have an organisational role in next year's festa. It is heartening to see that an extremely capable and competent person who has a deep understanding of Geelong's disparate ethnic communities and can relate to these communities has been given a role in organising next year's Pako Festa. If there were an early election, the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, who is present in the chamber today, probably will not get another chance to visit the festival in his capacity as minister, as there will be a Labor minister there to do the honours. But should the term of the government continue, we do invite him, if he is still the minister, to attend the festival and enjoy our hospitality. As he has observed, it is a unique event in the life of the Geelong community.We have seen the avenues of advice to Geelong's ethnic community on migration matters change considerably in recent years. When I became the member for Corio in 1993, we had an immigration office which served the wider community as well as Geelong's ethnic communities. The Howard government closed that office. There were several staff there who served the Geelong community very well. That office was closed down and in the main the function was privatised. We saw some of Geelong's legal firms get involved in the provision of advice in this area. The other avenue of advice is the community sector—the Migrant Resource Centre, as I have just explained.I have alluded to the fact that the community workers who operate in this area are extremely important, not only as migration agents but because they interface with a whole range of community based organisations in my electorate. They are often the first port of call for Geelong's migrant community on a range of matters that are related not only to migration but to other areas as well—for example, housing, health and legal representation.The opposition will support this legislation. I endorse the comments that were made by the member for Prospect. Why don't we just weed out those people who transgress in this area? They are leeches on the system. We ought to cut the cancer out. Anybody who is found guilty of an offence in this area, under this legislation, has the right of appeal under the normal processes available to other citizens of Australia if they think they have been wrongly done by in regard to the investigative procedures that are designed to ensure compliance with the legislative framework we are debating today. They ought to get a minimum period of 10 to 15 years. They should be weeded out of the system, because they bring down the integrity of the whole immigration system when they transgress. We are dealing here with some people in our community who are extremely vulnerable, who place great trust in the agents they go to in order to seek advice, and they pay a lot of money to get that advice. I make that suggestion to the government. I think it is excellent that they have moved in the way set out in this legislation. I commend the minister for these initiatives. They will receive the support of the opposition in their passage through the parliament.12:04:003266McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I am pleased to speak today on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2002 and the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2002. These bills are welcome amendments to the Migration Act 1958, to improve the arrangements for the regulation of migration agents. The area of regulation of migration agents has been an area of interest to me for quite some time. Migration agent work is carried out by a number of professionals, including lawyers, community groups and registered migration agents. This profession needs to be more highly regulated to stop some of the shonky practices I have seen in my short time in the House.As the electorate of Stirling is very multicultural and my staff and I deal with many and varied queries about migration cases and issues, too often I have had constituents come to my office with an immigration problem. After speaking to them I find that these people are usually at the last stage of the process, that of the Migration Review Tribunal. I have sat down with the constituent and found that they have spent thousands of dollars on a migration agent. In a lot of cases the migration agent has really done little for their clients other than helping them fill in their application forms. I thought what the member for Prospect said was of interest about the stats being that many migration agents only have 3½ years of experience. That may account for some of the lack of knowledge and skills of those people.I have seen a case where people were charged about $3,000 just to get initial advice from a migration agent. In this case, the migration agent took advantage of some desperate people who did not speak English very well and who had little chance of getting their relative into the country without an extremely long wait. Yet the migration agent had not told these clients such basic information as the average waiting time, the fact that the relative was classified in the minister's regulations as coming from a high risk country, and that they needed supporting evidence.Recently I had the case of an individual who rang for an appointment with me. When I met with this person—he had told my staff he was a constituent—it turned out that he was a migration agent who wanted letters of support for some of his clients. When I quizzed this individual about what he was doing for his clients, I was amazed at his total lack of knowledge of the whole migration area. I was extremely annoyed that this person was charging his clients a lot of money to get me to write a letter of support for them. I threw him out of my office.I tend to baulk at writing letters of support for applicants. I find that they are not particularly useful in helping a constituent's application. The procedure in my office for dealing with immigration cases is quite simple. We can provide a conduit to get information from the department about the progress of applications. We regularly use the parliamentary liaison officer to get this information for constituents. We also assist by referring constituents on to community organisations that are funded to assist appeals. An example of a community group that does great work in assisting with Migration Review Tribunal cases is the Catholic Migrant Resource Centre in Perth. As can be seen from some of the examples I have given, as well as from those given by the members for Prospect, Lowe and Corio, it is essential that the Migration Agents Regulation Authority, MARA, be given expanded powers to take action against migration agents who have been shown to lack integrity in their dealings.I commend the minister on extending the powers of MARA to include an ability to investigate migration agents who are no longer registered. Previously, this was an escape hatch for unscrupulous migration agents: `So you get investigated by MARA? There is a simple solution to that. Just deregister and the investigation goes away.' These people were then leaving the industry without any question marks over their integrity. MARA is now able to prevent someone who has an adverse finding against them from entering the industry. Also, more importantly, MARA can make this public. By making this information public, MARA has been provided with a great tool to deter migration agents from doing the wrong thing. Threat of exposure is a great deterrent.I note with interest the new section 311A for the Migration Act 1958. This section deals with the powers of disciplining migration agents who have deregistered. There is one clause that I am not totally comfortable with. This is the new subsection 316(1B) of the act, which is inserted by item 18. This subsection limits the complaints about former registered agents to a 12-month period from when the agent is deregistered. I think that this period should be longer. Sometimes it takes more than 12 months for allegations to come out, especially in cases where the actual investigation of an issue and its subsequent publication prompts other people to make a complaint. Another area of the act that will enable MARA to regulate the industry more effectively is the carryover provisions for agents applying for repeat registration. This provision allows agents to remain practising so long as they apply prior to the expiration of their existing licence. This allows the agent to keep practising until the decision has been made. This clause is extremely helpful to the industry, as it removes uncertainty. In an attempt to ensure that MARA makes decisions on registration more efficiently, there is a clause in the act where, if MARA has not made a decision within 10 months, the repeat registration application is deemed granted. This also provides an agent with some sort of natural justice. Previously the agent was under investigation and was not able to work, as their licence was under scrutiny.I support the member for Prospect's view that five-years debarment is not long enough. I agree with her that these people should never be allowed to come back into the industry. Rehabilitation works on one level, but I have usually found in my 27 years of community work that people who lack integrity do not seem to have many mechanisms or training courses for learning what integrity is about. Another change, which I feel warrants commenting on, is a flexible mechanism that has been introduced for further defining what kinds of activities come within the scope of the regulatory scheme. This is a positive step, because it outlines the types of activities which constitute immigration representation. This allows employers to do preliminary work on behalf of their employees in cases of immigration matters related to their employment. This point will also provide increased protection for the clients. I also support the increase in charges for migration agents. It reflects on their professionalism and it reflects that agents must take their responsibilities seriously when undertaking migration work. A fee like this reflects other fees in professional industries.What does this bill achieve? It provides a stronger regulatory framework that will help ensure that the levels of professionalism set by some members of the industry are applied to all members. It provides certainty for those members of the industry who adhere to high standards of professionalism. It clarifies the appeal process for agents who are engaged in a dispute with MARA over their licence. It also allows the review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of cases where agents have been deregistered, in an arena where justice and procedural fairness are practised and are highly regarded.I would like to use a case study to highlight a problem with the clause which exempts from the scope of the regulatory scheme certain forms of in-house assistance on migration matters, such as that provided by an employer to actual or prospective employees. This could be misused. I will quote from a campaign flyer in the campaign against slave labour. It states:In 1997 the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs granted a business visa to Rados Stevanovic to work in Australia. His sponsoring employer, St Nicholas Serbian Orthodox Church signed a contract that he would be paid in accordance with Australian labour laws. However for the past 4 years Rados has been treated with contempt. He has been subject to intimidation and extreme exploitation and forced to live in a shed with only a sink to bathe in. For 4 years Rados has painted murals inside the St Nicholas Orthodox Church at Blacktown. His works of art have won the admiration of not only churchgoers but the whole community. He worked long hours, day and night and was only paid $50 per week. Contrary to the legal requirements the sponsoring employer did not have workers compensation or medical insurance for Rados. For 4 years the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has failed Rados and many other guest workers. The Federal Government is allowing tens of thousands of guest workers to come into Australia to `work' with sponsoring employers. The Department does not monitor or audit these employers at all. Many of these workers are used as cheap labour. Rados advised the Department in January 2002 and nothing was done.This is a real problem that needs to be addressed. I have had examples of similar cases in Perth, including one with a local Thai restaurant which imported Thai workers and kept them as virtual slaves. It was only when a worker was injured and somebody who could speak the language got a bit of an understanding of his situation that this was brought to the attention of the department—and I must commend the department, because they raided the restaurant and took immediate action to do something about this unscrupulous employer's treatment of these people. The department needs to ensure that employers do not take advantage of a clause in this bill to escalate the exploitation of guest workers.I support the member for Lowe in his call for more resources for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. It is a department that has very difficult work to do for clients who usually are very stressed and often do not understand our very well-developed processes that take some time to work through when are you applying for a visa. This is very time-intensive work. I support the call for more resources and I also call on the department to look at providing training for staff in electorate offices like mine. As the most multicultural electorate in WA, we do a lot of this work, often at the expense of work for other constituents and groups. Again, because people want someone to come in when their family member is dying or ill or else there is a wedding, there is usually a short time frame to work within, and that puts a lot of pressure on us. We would also be helped by having some training and resources. I commend the minister and would like to let him know that I, with the Labor people, will be supporting these amendments because they will bring regulatory soundness and good practices into the industry. 12:15:003269Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLPMinister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs10—in reply—I thank all members who contributed to this debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 2002 and the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2002. This legislation is about enhancing the scheme for regulation of migration advice industry participants and all those who seek to practice as migration agents. The primary aim of the legislation is to expand the powers of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, known as MARA, to take action on integrity issues. MARA is responsible for lifting the standards of the industry as well as ensuring consumer protection for a vulnerable client group. It does this through a rigorous disciplinary process, which presently only extends to those people who are actually registered as migration agents.If a person providing immigration assistance is unregistered, the normal criminal and consumer laws still apply. For example, it is a criminal offence, under the Migration Act, to work as a migration agent in Australia if you are not registered. However, MARA's disciplinary and investigatory powers do not currently apply to former agents. This has made it possible for migration agents against whom a complaint has been made to simply deregister by either asking for their name to be taken off the register or allowing their registration to lapse, thereby avoiding any sanction by MARA. This legislation will ensure that MARA can take action against those former agents. Complaints against a migration agent will be able to be completed even after an agent leaves the industry. MARA will also be able to impose a bar on the return to the industry of a former agent, as long as it is satisfied a complaint has been made out.These bills ensure agents who apply for repeat registration are not disadvantaged by any delays in the processing of their applications. They also provide MARA with a flexible mechanism for further defining what kinds of activities come within the scope of the regulatory scheme. The later amendments will allow regulations to be made, setting out specific circumstances in which registration as an agent is not required when providing immigration assistance. This regulation making power could, for example, be used to clarify the status of employers who provide advice to their own employees on migration matters. These are very important issues. They are ones which certainly have deserved the close examination they have received today in the Main Committee. However, a number of points have been made by members which I believe, for the record, need to be discussed. There certainly has been support, which we welcome, from the opposition. But there certainly is some concern from the government with the opposition suggesting we are not serious in our commitment to upgrading the standards of this important industry, and this needs to be addressed. We are certainly dealing with a minority of people in the migration agents' industry: maybe five per cent of them. It is important for us to come down hard on them and provide mechanisms for MARA to deal with them and, as the minister responsible, I am certainly looking for specific examples. Members opposite today have given examples and made some general comments and, understandably, they have not put the sources of those on the public record. But, if they are asked to substantiate those and want to process them further, I am certainly happy to facilitate such action—because, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, as you would understand, we need to make sure, if these examples do stand the test of scrutiny, we can bring about some change to the processes of those who are bringing an entire industry into disrepute. That is what this legislation is about.The member for Lowe made an interesting contribution today, as is often the case. He ranged across a wide range of portfolio matters. But he certainly got it 100 per cent wrong when he suggested this is an industry which is in full self-regulation. It is simply not the case to say this migration industry runs itself.The member for Lowe certainly showed me a kind of analogy to whatever that episode in Yes, Minister was that suggested the most efficient hospital in the public hospital system was the one without patients when he suggested that his electorate office would be a great place to work if only people would not bring migration problems to him. I think constituents in the member for Lowe's electorate would be somewhat shocked to think that he is not interested in dealing with migration related matters as he should—as we all should, as members of parliament. I am surprised that the member for Stirling, who has now left, and others decided to endorse the member for Lowe's observations.I think the member for Prospect had it right: it is certainly true to say that helping people find their way through the maze of immigration law is, as she said, one of the most rewarding aspects of being in public office. With the member for Prospect's experience across three levels of government, I suspect that she is far more on the money than the member for Lowe in that regard. The member for Stirling and the member for Lowe talked about the need to train their staff on migration related matters. I know my department provides training to electorate officers because there is a realisation that we are, rightly, often the first port of call for constituents who seek some assistance in order to gain a certain migration outcome for a member of their family or a friend or whatever. So it is important that that particular training is made available. The suggestion by the member for Lowe that more staff and more money need to be afforded to my department is always welcome, and I am hoping that the Treasurer was listening to his contribution and will consider that in detail. But the facts are that we have more money and more staff than ever before in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs—and rightly so, because we are involved in important nation building work in the proper settlement of people in this country. We ensure there is integrity in the immigration system so that everybody who comes to this country can hold their heads high and say that they have passed all of the extensive tests.Migration agents are not a compulsory way of accessing the migration system. People who try to suggest otherwise in their contribution need to be debunked. There is, however, in some cultural groups within our community a traditional expectation that there will be facilitators or gatekeepers in accessing governments because that has perhaps been their experience in another country. One of the things that I am doing as the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs is attempting to show adult migrants to this country that our systems are different here—by purpose designed criteria and syllabus within our Adult Migrant English Program, for instance—to try to overcome some of that.Language skills should also not be seen as some point of exploitation in most cases, because it is true to say that migration agents tend to have a bit of a culturally specific marketing device. It tends to be people from a particular community with skills or abilities, or perhaps simply an eye for a way of having a job and building a business, who become migration agents, providing they meet all the qualifications expected. They bring with them, and hire as staff, people with a particular cultural or language skill, which obviously brings them, rather than a competitor down the street, a certain amount of trade and traffic through the door.So it is important to acknowledge that there were members opposite who, by the way they were talking about the need to ensure that people were not exploited and that people were getting the right advice, were of course endorsing the government's very strongly held and consistent view on maintaining the integrity of the migration system through ensuring that people such as the illegal workers that the member for Stirling talked about are detained and dealt with, as they should be. We do not need people suspecting that some who have come to this country fall into a category of those who have not come to the country in the right way.I will make one final observation about the contribution of the member for Prospect. Despite her very reasonable and well-fashioned observation of being able to assist people, I am surprised to find a member from such a culturally diverse electorate as Prospect in fact is suggesting cultural disharmony and division—promoting the idea of politics of race. These sorts of comments are very unhelpful, and it is important for all of us from both sides of this place to be very mindful of the leadership role we should play in talking up all we have achieved in this country, not talking it down. I was surprised that the member for Prospect went down that path.Finally, I note again that the amendments made by this bill will enhance client protection as well as improve the efficiency of the industry regulation arrangements. They will maintain the government's ongoing commitment to integrity on all fronts when it comes to immigration settlement matters. The bill makes important changes which deserve the support of all members. I welcome the support of the opposition, and I commend the bill to the House.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills3271R14413271Debate resumed from 14 February, on motion by Mr Hardgrave:That this bill be now read a second time.12:26:003271Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLPMinister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs10—in reply—I want to thank members for their contribution to this debate. The Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment Bill 2002 increases the charge limit for registration applications by migration agents. Under the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Act 1997 a charge is imposed on an individual who applies to the Migration Agents Registration Authority—the MARA—to be registered as a migration agent. The amount of the charge actually payable by such a person is set out in the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Regulations 1998. The bill therefore will not increase the actual charge payable. It will, however, provide a degree of flexibility for future increases in charges to ensure that the Migration Agents Registration Authority has adequate resources to carry out its important statutory responsibilities. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Ministerial Statements32723272Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane:That the House take note of the following paper:East Timor-Ministerial Statement, 15 May. 12:27:003272Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—I am pleased to speak today in this debate on the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on East Timor's independence. Of course in my case, for 5½ years as shadow minister for foreign affairs, East Timor was a major preoccupation. A number of speakers I note in this debate already have remarked that East Timor's independence represents both the end of a long road and the beginning of a new journey. It is indeed the beginning of a new journey, one in which the East Timorese people will finally make their own way in the world and determine their own destiny.For more than a quarter of a century, Australia's foreign policy and defence establishment dismissed the issue of East Timorese independence. It was considered little more than the pipedream of some independence and left-wing activists. The establishment was confident that Indonesia would never let go of East Timor. East Timor's incorporation into Indonesia was taken as irreversible. Indeed, East Timor's independence was considered to be contrary to Australia's national interest. It was argued that an independent East Timor would destabilise the Indonesian archipelago and be a strategic liability for our country. Our diplomats and strategists certainly never contemplated that one day a democratically elected Indonesian president would visit Dili to celebrate the inauguration of East Timor's independence. Yet that is exactly what happened almost three weeks ago.For some commentators, East Timor remains much more a problem than an opportunity for Australia. A sober assessment of East Timor's prospects was recently published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, headed by former defence deputy secretary Hugh White. According to Dr White, if East Timor's internal security problems are not urgently addressed:East Timor will be drawn into a vicious circle of rising crime and lawlessness, economic stagnation and political instability. It all sounds very familiar—the pattern of failed states we have seen in the Solomon Islands, and which threatens PNG ... On the strategic level, we [Australia] should be concerned that a weak and unstable East Timor would seriously destabilise our neighbourhood.No-one doubts East Timor's formidable challenges. Few former colonies have achieved independence accompanied by so much destruction and with so little infrastructure and so few resources. But the Strategic Policy Institute's assessment, I put to the House, is much too bleak. Indeed, it is very reminiscent of the foreign policy and strategic orthodoxy that saw Australian policy makers for so long resist the idea of East Timorese independence. The proposition that developments in East Timor, even under the most pessimistic of scenarios, could seriously destabilise our regional neighbourhood is greatly exaggerated. If one wants to find the source of instability and conflict in the Indonesian archipelago, you can find them in Aceh, Moluku and West Irian but not in East Timor. These, of course, are all internal Indonesian conflicts that need addressing by Jakarta through the restoration of the rule of law and respect for human rights. While, for its part, East Timor poses no threat to the stability of our neighbourhood, local security issues are still very important. A resurgence of cross-border anti-independence militia infiltration cannot be entirely discounted. It is most likely that there will be a need for an Australian military presence in East Timor for some time to come. A worrying rise in local crime and lawlessness is also of concern. Further strengthening of East Timor's police force is highly desirable. It would be a mistake, however, to view East Timor's challenges through the narrow lens of security. The real challenge is very much broader. It is the task of nation building in all its aspects. Australia's commitment to assist this task is significant. Our initial humanitarian effort in the years 1999 and 2000 totalled around $81 million. Subsequently $150 million over four years in bilateral aid was pledged to ensure certainty for East Timor in the transition period and early independence years. These contributions are quite considerable, but they should be kept in perspective. Our current East Timor aid program of approximately $40 million per year is only about half what we allocate to Vietnam and only a fraction of the $350 million we spend each year in Papua New Guinea.We could also anticipate that broader international assistance to East Timor will diminish in the years ahead. In the end, the international community focus will move on to other countries and regions. Over time, Australia will need to do much more, and we should be laying the groundwork for that commitment now. Helping to build a stable and sustainable East Timorese democracy is absolutely vital. The Australian Electoral Commission has provided very valuable assistance in helping the management of East Timor's democratic elections. Officers of this parliament have contributed to the development of East Timor's national assembly. We need to continue this work to help East Timor build its institutions. A strong and effective democracy rests on a strong civil society. Australia's aid is helping by partnering Australian and East Timorese organisations working on reconciliation and peace building, human rights, strengthening the rule of law and providing support for the new nation's most vulnerable people. We will need to maintain this engagement over the long term. Likewise, a strong democracy cannot be built without attending to the needs of all East Timorese, especially the vast majority of people who live in the rural areas. Projects involving water supply, sanitation, community development and health in rural districts must be given high priority. I was pleased to note in the foreign minister's speech during this debate reference to Australia's support for microfinance programs offering small loans to poor people in rural communities to start small businesses and generate much-needed income. Australia and East Timor have reaffirmed their commitment to the joint development of the Timor Sea petroleum reserves, recognising the importance of these resources in promoting East Timor's economic development. It has been a matter of particular satisfaction to me to see the adoption of the 90/10 revenue sharing arrangement for Timor Sea petroleum and gas exploration. The negotiation of this agreement was difficult and should have been pursued by the Australian government in a more positive manner. But the outcome is very satisfactory, with the signing of the new Timor Sea treaty. The commitment of both Australia and East Timor to expeditious development of the Bayu-Undan and the Greater Sunrise gasfields will be vital in replacing aid dependency with a measure of economic self-sufficiency.Australia now has a new independent neighbour and—I know everyone in the House shares this sentiment—that is something we can truly celebrate. Our own strategic and diplomatic geography has been permanently changed. We must now embrace new responsibilities. This is a great challenge. It is also a great opportunity. Our commitment to East Timor, to help our friends as they make their way in the world, must be enduring and substantial. It must engage not only our diplomats and military personnel but every profession and sector—administrators, educators, engineers, health professionals, private business, non-government organisations and charities. It is common these days to emphasise the value of a whole of government approach. What is essential in this relationship is a whole of society approach.It is also the responsibility of this parliament to engage with our East Timorese counterparts and contribute to the development of our bilateral relationship. In the course of the present parliamentary term it would be appropriate for the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to inquire into the state of our relations with East Timor and consider the further development of our ties across the Timor Sea. I hope that in due course the committee will consider and take up this task as its contribution to engagement with our old friends, our newly independent neighbours.Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 12.39 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing3275The following answers to questions were circulated:3275(Question No. 20)203275Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 February 2002:(1) Further to the answer to part (1) of question No. 2665 (Hansard, 28 August 2001, page 30224), does the International Standard Organisations ISO 14001 standard cover airport noise and toxic emission impacts that occur outside the airport boundary fence.(2) What is his Departments working definition of the principles of ecologically sustainable development and continuous environment improvement in relation to Sydney Airport.(3) Further to his reply to part (6) of question No. 2665, are air quality issues outside the airport boundary fence comprehensively addressed in the Sydney Airport Environment Strategy document; if so, where; if not addressed in the Environment Strategy, did he mislead the House.(4) Further to his reply to part (8) of question No. 2665, did the Sydney Airport Environment Strategy state that impacts outside the Sydney Airport perimeter are not covered in the Environment Strategy but are to be covered in the still-to-be-released Master Plan.(5) Further to his reply to part (9) of question No. 2665, will he list all measures which are being undertaken, or which are planned to be taken, to fulfil Sydney Airport's stated objective to prevent pollution.(6) Does Sydney Airport have a total-airport management plan in the absence of a Master Plan.(7) Is urban airport expansion and development of significant concern to urban communities across the Sydney metropolitan area.(8) Why is the master plan to be exempted from public scrutiny and democratic debate throughout all stages of its preparation by the private airport operator to, and including, final approval stage.(9) Is it in the public interest for Government to prepare and publish the master plan prior to privatisation of Sydney airport; if not, why not.3275Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. ISO 14001 is a generic standard for environmental management systems designed for use by all types of organisations and is not specific to airports.(2) Continuous environmental improvement at Sydney Airport is considered to be a reduction of negative environmental impacts and an increase in positive environmental impacts. Ecologically sustainable development considers the needs of Australians today, while conserving ecosystems for the benefit of future generations. At Sydney Airport, these two principles are achieved through the implementation of the Sydney Airport Environment Strategy, the development of the environmental management system and compliance with the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997. (3) and (4) Air quality issues are addressed in the Sydney Airport Environment Strategy in Section 4.1. This section covers both on airport and off airport air quality issues. The Sydney Airport Environment Strategy excludes pollution generated by aircraft, and noise generated by aircraft movements. Section 1 of the Sydney Airport Environment Strategy also states that noise generated by aircraft will be considered as part of the Master Plan.(5) Sydney Airport has committed to numerous measures to prevent pollution of the environment by airport operations. These are outlined in detail in the Airport Environment Strategy.(6) Management of the airport is a matter for the Sydney Airports Corporation Ltd. I am not aware of a total airport management plan for Sydney Airport. (7) I believe urban communities would be interested in any proposals to expand or develop urban airports. Under the Airports Act 1996, the leased airports are required to prepare master plans outlining their strategic plans for the development of the airport and major development plans for specific development proposals. These plans are required to be released for public comment and communities have an opportunity to make submissions and express their concerns through this process. With regard to development outside of airport, NSW planning law is primarily governed by the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This Act makes provision for State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP), Regional Environmental Plans (REP) and Local Environmental Plans, all of which bind local authorities. Each of these instruments must be approved by the NSW Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. (8) The master plan will not be exempted from public scrutiny. Under the Airports Act 1996 the airport lessee is required to make the draft master plan available for public comment for 90 days prior to submission to the Minister. The airport lessee is required to provide a written certificate summarising the comments and stating that the company has given due regard to those comments in preparing the plan. In considering the draft master plan, the Minister is also required to have regard to the consultations that have been undertaken.(9) The master plan is the airport owner's strategic planning document. Publication of the master plan is in the public interest and the airport owner is required to make the master plan available to the public under the Airports Act 1996. The master plan for Sydney Airport is to be completed by 31 January 2003.3276(Question No. 111)1113276Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 February 2001:(1) With respect to the obligations placed on Certificate of Registration holder for aircraft, how many instances in 2000 and 2001 has the Civil Aviation Safety Authority become aware of where an aircraft owner has failed to pass on maintenance information to an operator, lessor, or maintenance organisation.(2) Of those cases, how many owners were (a) investigated and (b) prosecuted, and what was the outcome of those investigations and prosecutions.3276Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Consistent with the advice provided in response to Parliamentary Question 2215 on 26 September 2001, the Civil Aviation Authority (CASA) has advised the following:(1) and (2) CASA is unable to provide the number of instances in 2000 and 2001 in which the Authority became aware that an aircraft owner has failed to pass on maintenance information to an operator, lessor or maintenance organisation. Failure by an aircraft owner to pass on safety information to an operator, lessor or maintenance organisation is not an offence under the current regulations. In many instances this information was passed to the Authority anecdotally and consequently CASA does not have records. 3276(Question No. 211)2113276Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 12 March 2002:(1) Is he aware of an article titled “Airport's $2bn runway jolt” which appeared on page one of the Australian Financial Review on 7 March 2002.(2) When will the sale process of Sydney Airport resume.(3) Will Sydney Airport face a $2 billion runway upgrade within two years to accommodate new generation passenger aircraft; if so, when will this work commence.(4) How must the runways of Sydney Airport be modified to accommodate new generation passenger aircraft.(5) What will be the impact on market appetite from the collapse of Ansett airways.(6) Does market appetite for Sydney Airport remain strong despite the Ansett collapse.3276Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The recommencement of the sale process for Sydney Airport was announced in a joint media statement issued by the Minister for Finance and Administration and myself on 11 March 2002. (3) and (4) The introduction of New Large Aircraft such as the A380 into regular public transport operations may require an upgrade of facilities at a number of airports around the world. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority will ultimately determine the standards and procedures required for this type of aircraft to operate into Australian airports taking into account any requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The full operational implications for Sydney Airport are therefore not yet clear, but in any event, the timing and quantum of any proposed upgrade of facilities would be a matter for consideration by the airport lessee company at that time. A major airport development would also be subject to the assessment and consultation requirements of the Airports Act 1996 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.(5) and (6) It is expected that the demise of Ansett will not affect the underlying value of Sydney Airport. The Government has been advised that the collapse of Ansett has not substantially affected the underlying level of demand for air travel and that capacity to meet that demand will be provided by other carriers. 3277(Question No. 225)2253277Irwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin83ZFowlerALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 March 2002:(1) When does the Government expect the sale of Bankstown Airport to proceed.(2) Will Hoxton Park and Camden Airports be included in the sale.(3) Will prospective tenderers for the purchase of Bankstown Airport be encouraged to develop Bankstown to allow the use of passenger jet services as previously announced.3277Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The Government announced in March last year that Bankstown, Camden and Hoxton Park Airports would be sold in the second half of this year. There has been no decision made to change that timing.(3) The Commonwealth's parameters for the future upgrading of Bankstown Airport by a private sector owner will be determined in the light of additional work by relevant agencies on the nature of the airspace re-design, and terminal and runway developments required at Bankstown for it to operate as an overflow airport for Sydney Airport.3277(Question No. 288)2883277Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 14 May 2002:(1) What steps have been undertaken by his Department since 11 October 2001 to process Freedom of Information Request No. 01100473.(2) What is the reason for his Department not notifying the applicant of a decision on the request not later than thirty days after the day on which the Department acknowledges having received the request, namely, 10 November 2001.(3) Will his Department reply to the request; if so, when.(4) Will his Department claim exemption from production any document or documents within the bundle of documents that have been requested; if so, (a) for what category or categories of documents will exemption be claimed and (b) in respect of each category of document what are his Department's reasons for claiming exemption.3277Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (3) The Freedom of Information (FOI) decision was made on 19 March 2002 and forwarded to the applicant.(2) The delay in responding to the FOI request was due to the need for the policy area to seek legal advice to clarify arguments to claim exemptions under part IV of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, for tapes of entry interviews and associated documentation. As a result, a backlog of FOI applications, which included requests for entry interview tapes, occurred and took some time to clear. The normal Departmental process of seeking an extension of time with the FOI applicant when delays in processing were expected, was not followed in this case.(4) (a) and (b) Yes, the following exemptions were claimed:· Seven folios were released with deletions whereby text was deleted under section 22 and 41(1) of the FOI Act as it contained names and personal details of individuals not connected with the FOI application and would disclose information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to the application. · Nine folios were exempt under sections 37(2)(b), 40(1)(a) and 40(1)(d) of the FOI Act because release of these documents would, or could reasonably be expected to:- Disclose lawful methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law the disclosure of which would, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures.- Prejudice the effectiveness of procedures or methods for the conduct of tests, examinations or audits by an agency; and- Have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of an agency.Release of these folios could potentially enable persons to circumvent the Department's methods of investigation and enforcement of immigration law and therefore could prejudice the effectiveness of future departmental operations.Section 40(2) of the FOI Act requires that consideration be given as to whether release of this document is in the public interest. Having weighed known public interest concerns against the interests of the Commonwealth with respect to release of these, the delegate found that the public interest did not outweigh the interests of the Commonwealth and that therefore there was not a strong public interest reason which would justify release.· One folio was exempt from release under section 40(1)(d) of the FOI ACT since the release would have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency and the folio was exempt from release under section 37(2)(b) of the FOI Act. Disclosure of the folio under this Act would disclose lawful methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating, or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law the disclosure of which, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the effectiveness.3278(Question No. 302)3023278Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 May 2002:(1) Were the three River Class torpedo boat destroyers Parramatta, Yarra and Warrego the first Royal Australian Navy (RAN) ships to bear the title HMAS.(2) Was HMAS Warrego first constructed in England, then dismantled and shipped to Australia for reconstruction at Cockatoo Island Docks so that Australian shipbuilders would gain experience in warship construction.(3) Have the names HMAS Parramatta and HMAS Yarra been borne on two subsequent vessels each.(4) Following the decommissioning of the first HMAS Warrego on 19 April 1928, has only one subsequent vessel borne the name HMAS Warrego.(5) Was the second HMAS Warrego decommissioned on 15 August 1963.(6) In view of the historical significance of the first HMAS Warrego, will the Minister give vigorous support for the naming of a third HMAS Warrego when the next suitable vessel is constructed for the RAN; if so, when might this might occur; if not, why not.3279Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No. When the then Commonwealth Naval Forces were re-designated the Royal Australian Navy in 1911, all major vessels were then entitled to become commissioned as His/Her Majesty's Australian Ship (HMAS). It should be noted that Warrego was not commissioned into the Royal Australian Navy until 1 June 1912. (2) Yes.(3) Each of the names Parramatta and Yarra have been carried by a total of three ships. Additionally both names will be used again, in the case of Parramatta on an Anzac Class frigate and Yarra on a Huon Class Coastal Minehunter.(4) Yes.(5) Yes.(6) The name Warrego will be considered alongside a number of other names of significance when the construction of the next suitable vessel is authorised.3279(Question No. 317)3173279McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 14 May 2002:(1) Did the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on 14 December 1982 table ILO Convention No. 155 - Occupational Safety and Health, 1981.(2) Did the Convention enter into force on 11 August 1983.(3) In his answer to question No. 176 (Hansard, 21 March 2002, page 1655) did he state that the law and practice in all the States and Territories are in compliance with the Convention.(4) What steps has the Government taken to ratify the Convention.3279Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Yes.(3) Yes.(4) The Government has not taken steps to ratify Convention 155. Convention 155 is one of many ILO instruments that will be the subject of a general discussion on an “integrated approach” to existing occupational health and safety labour standards at the International Labour Conference in June 2003. At the 24 May 2002 meeting of the Workplace Relations Ministers' Council, Ministers noted that the ILO is currently reviewing this convention and agreed to consider progressing ratification when this review is completed.3279(Question No. 356)3563279McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 May 2002:(1) What changes were made in the membership of the United Nations Human Rights Commission at the meeting of ECOSOC on 29 April 2002?(2) What resolutions were sponsored or co-sponsored by Australia at the session of the Commission?(3) What was the result of those resolutions which came to a vote?(4) What are the names, positions and qualifications of the persons who represented Australia at the session?3279Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 29 April 2002, the Economic and Social Council elected the following countries as members of the Commission on Human Rights: Australia, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ireland, Paraguay, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, United States of America and Zimbabwe, effective 1 January 2003.They replace Burundi, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia, Italy, Nigeria, Portugal, Spain and Zambia.(2) Australia was the principal sponsor of two resolutions - 2002/76, the Role of Good Governance in the Promotion of Human Rights and 2002/83, National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Australia also co-sponsored forty-four other resolutions, as follows: 2002/13 The situation of human rights in parts of Southeastern Europe2002/14 Situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo2002/15 Situation of human rights in Iraq2002/16 Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan2002/17 Cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies2002/18 Situation of human rights in Cuba2002/20 Situation of human rights in Sierra Leone2002/21 Adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living2002/30 Human rights and extreme poverty2002/32 Access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS2002/36 Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions2002/38 Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment2002/40 Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance2002/43 Independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and the independence of lawyers2002/46 Further measures to promote and consolidate democracy2002/47 Human rights in the administration of justice, in particular juvenile justice2002/48 The right to freedom of opinion and expression2002/49 Women's equal ownership of, access to and control over land and the equal rights to own property and to adequate housing2002/50 Integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations 2002/52 Elimination of violence against women2002/55 Tolerance and Pluralism as Indivisible Elements in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights2002/56 Internally displaced persons2002/57 Rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities2002/61 Human rights of persons with disabilities2002/63 Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and the International Decade of the Worlds Indigenous People2002/64 Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 19942002/65 Human rights and indigenous issues2002/67 Situation of human rights in Myanmar2002/70 Human rights defenders2002/74 United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education2002/77 The question of the death penalty2002/78 Status of the International Covenants on Human Rights2002/79 Impunity2002/81 Protection of United Nations personnel2002/82 Regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asian and Pacific region2002/84 Human rights and thematic procedures2002/85 Effective implementation of international instruments on human rights, including reporting obligations under international instruments on human rights2002/87 Advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights2002/88 Assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights2002/89 Situation of human rights in Cambodia2002/92 Rights of the childN/ASituation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of IranN/ASituation of Human Rights in ZimbabweN/ASituation in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation(3) The following draft resolutions were voted upon. Votes are recorded as for-against-abstained: Draft Resolution NameResultVoting Resolution NumberCombating defamation of religions as a means to promote human rights, social harmony and religious and cultural diversityAdopted - Roll-Call Vote36-14-32002/9 Composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human RightsAdopted - Roll-Call Vote36-14-32002/80 Draft Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or PunishmentAdopted - Roll-Call Vote21-28-42002/33 Effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rightsAdopted - Roll-Call Vote29-15-92002/29 Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rightsAdopted - Roll-Call Vote40-0-132002/86 Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executionsAdopted - Roll-Call Vote36-2-142002/36 Further measures to promote and consolidate democracyAdopted - Roll-Call Vote43-0-92002/46 Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rightsAdopted - Roll-Call Vote38-15-02002/28 Human rights and international solidarityAdopted - Roll-Call Vote38/15/02002/73 Human rights and terrorismAdopted - Roll-Call Vote32-0-212002/35 Human rights and unilateral coercive measuresAdopted - Roll-Call Vote38-6-92002/22 Human rights in the occupied Syrian GolanAdopted - Roll-Call Vote29-2-212002/6 Human rights situation of the Lebanese detainees in IsraelAdopted - Roll-Call Vote34-2-172002/10 Integrity of the judicial systemAdopted - Roll-Call Vote34-0-192002/37 Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territoriesAdopted - Roll-Call Vote52-1-02002/7 Promotion of the right of peoples to peaceAdopted - Roll-Call Vote33-15-52002/71 Promotion of the right to a democratic and equitable international orderAdopted - Roll-Call Vote32-15-62002/72 Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including PalestineAdopted - Roll-Call Vote40-5-72002/8 Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intoleranceAdopted - Roll-Call Vote37-11-52002/68 Situation in occupied PalestineAdopted - Roll-Call Vote52-1-02002/3 Situation in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian FederationRejected - Roll-Call Vote15-16-22N/A Situation of human rights in CubaAdopted - Roll-Call Vote23-21-92002/18 Situation of human rights in Equatorial Guinea and assistance in the field of human Adopted - Roll-Call Vote32-1-202002/11 Situation of human rights in IraqAdopted - Roll-Call Vote30-3-192002/15 Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of IranRejected - Roll-Call Vote19-20-14N/A Situation of Human Rights in the SudanAdopted - Roll-Call Vote25-24-42002/16 Situation of Human Rights in ZimbabweNo Action Motion26-24-3N/A Strengthening of popular participation, equity, social justice and non-discrimination as essential foundations of democracyAdopted - Roll-Call Vote29-7-172002/34 The adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rightsAdopted - Roll-Call Vote37-14-22002/27 The question of the death penaltyAdopted - Roll-Call Vote25-20-82002/77 The right to developmentAdopted - Roll-Call Vote38-0-152002/69 The situation of human rights in parts of Southeastern EuropeAdopted - Roll-Call Vote41-0-112002/13 The use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determinationAdopted - Roll-Call Vote36-8-92002/5 (4) The Australian delegation to this year's Commission on Human Rights comprised Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officers based in Geneva, New York and Canberra. Some delegation members did not attend the full six-week session, due to other work commitments. All Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officers in the delegation have direct responsibility for aspects of the work of the Commission on Human Rights. OfficerPositionHE Mr Leslie LuckAmbassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Australian Permanent Mission to the Office of the United Nations, GenevaMr Peter Heyward Counsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Australian Permanent Mission to the Office of the United Nations, GenevaMr Rod SmithAssistant Secretary, International Organisations Branch, Canberra. Member of the delegation from 24-26 April 2002.Ms Jennifer MeehanFirst Secretary, Australian Permanent Mission to the Office of the United Nations, GenevaMr Lloyd BrodrickFirst Secretary, Australian Permanent Mission to the Office of the United Nations, GenevaMs Robyn MudieFirst Secretary, Australian Mission to the United Nations, New YorkMr James ChoiExecutive Officer, Human Rights and Indigenous Issues Section, Canberra. Member of the delegation from 3-26 April 2002. Mr Gerard OakesDesk Officer, Human Rights and Indigenous Issues Section, Canberra. Member of the delegation from 9-17 April 2002. Ms Vanessa SzaboIntern, Australian Permanent Mission to the Office of the United Nations, GenevaMr Douglas StewartIntern, Australian Permanent Mission to the Office of the United Nations, GenevaMs Pamela PaullAdministrative Assistant to the Delegation, Australian Permanent Mission to the Office of the United Nations, Geneva3283(Question No. 368)3683283Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 May 2002:(1) Is he aware of the “Strike Hard” anti-crime campaign launched last April by the Chinese Government; if so, can he say how many (a) arbitrary arrests were made by Chinese security forces and (b) summary executions took place.(2) Can he confirm that the “Strike Hard” campaign included (a) renewed efforts to suppress Chinese citizens from forming trade unions, (b) renewed arrests of church leaders, including catholic and protestant “home church” ministers, (c) the imposition of stringent new regulations on internet usage and (d) censorship on bulletin board services and internet chat rooms.3283Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The following is the answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) and (b). Yes. It is not possible to count with accuracy the number of people subject to arbitrary arrest and execution in China. In its 2001 report on human rights in China, the US State Department estimated that more 2,000 people were executed in that year after summary trials.(2) (a), (b), (c) and (d). No. Breaches of human rights such as those listed are widespread in China, though they are not necessarily the result of the Strike Hard campaign.