2002-06-244012REPS416702002-06-24—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Privilege416712:31:004167Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. The matter that I wish to raise, which has had coverage in the Australian today, is that on 4 June I received a visit from three representatives of Telstra Corporation. During that discussion relating to matters associated with my shadow portfolio, I received a threat of legal action with respect to a press release that I had issued in the wake of evidence given by a Telstra staff member to Senate estimates hearings approximately a week previously. The matter I wish to raise today is that the clear message that I interpreted from this was a threat to sue from Telstra, the government business enterprise, not from the individual concerned. The person that I had allegedly defamed was not present at the meeting, and the threat to take legal action against me was delivered on behalf of senior Telstra executives clearly on behalf of Telstra, the organisation.The matter has not been made public until today, and a number of members of the House have suggested to me that I should raise this. I do so with some reluctance, quite genuinely, because I believe that freedom of speech is an important value in our society and therefore I do not particularly mind running the gauntlet of potential defamation actions. The courts have a job to do. If it is alleged that I have said something as part of my doing my job which defames an individual, then I am quite happy to be judged in the same way as anybody else. But I am concerned about possibly being seen to have condoned this threat by failing to raise it as a matter of privilege, and I am conscious of the fact that I did not raise the matter initially. It occurred on 4 June, and 5 June would have been the first available opportunity for me to raise it in the House. I must confess that it did not occur to me in the context of a matter of privilege, but I now raise it with you, Mr Speaker, and ask whether any transgression of the rights of members to conduct their affairs on behalf of their constituents without fear of intimidation or threats has been committed. I think the concern is that this matter has been pursued with me not by the individual Telstra employee whom it is alleged I defamed but by the organisation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I indicate to the member for Melbourne that I would have thought the matter was raised because of the publicity given to it over the weekend and today. In that context, I think he has acted properly in bringing it to my attention at the first available opportunity today. I will look at the case and determine whether or not a case does exist to be presented to the Committee of Privileges.Committees41674167416712:34:004167Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 46—Treaties tabled on 12 March 2002, together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—Today I present a report to the parliament which contains the results of an inquiry conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into 13 treaties tabled in the parliament on 12 March 2002. Specifically, the report deals with:· the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER);· a status of forces agreement with the Kyrgyz Republic;· a treaty to amend an existing agreement with New Zealand on joint food standards;· a protocol to the double taxation agreement with the United States of America;· an agreement on customs law with the Netherlands;· an agreement with France on the employment of dependants of mission officials;· a social security agreement with the United States of America and amendments to an existing social security agreement with New Zealand;· agreements with Egypt and Uruguay on the promotion and protection of investments;· a child protection convention;· a convention on the recognition of higher education qualifications; and· a convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings.In the view of the committee, it is in the interests of Australia for most of these treaties to be ratified, and the committee has made its recommendations accordingly. More specifically, the committee considers that:· the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) will ensure Australia's trade interests are not disadvantaged when island states in the region begin to negotiate free trade agreements with other countries;· the status of forces agreement (SOFA) with the Kyrgyz Republic will protect Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel deployed there to support coalition forces' operations in Afghanistan;· amending the existing agreement with New Zealand on joint food standards will update the joint Australia-New Zealand food standards system and give effect to food regulatory reforms which will have health benefits for Australians;· the agreement on customs law with the Netherlands will facilitate the exchange of intelligence and information to help the Australian Customs Service combat terrorism and transnational crime;· the agreement with France on the employment of dependants of mission officials will address what has been a significant disincentive for people interested in applying for overseas postings and thus enable the Australian government to have the best possible representation overseas;· the social security agreement with the United States of America and amendments to the existing social security agreement with New Zealand will enable Australian residents to move between these countries, confident in the knowledge that their entitlements to benefits will be recognised in each country and that each country will contribute fairly to support for which they are eligible;· the promotion and protection of investments agreements with Uruguay and Egypt will benefit Australian investors by providing them with a range of guarantees relating to non-commercial risk;· the child protection convention will help resolve a number of problems encountered by Australian authorities and parents embroiled in international child custody cases;· the Lisbon convention will facilitate the recognition of Australian academic qualifications overseas and help Australians wishing to work in countries that are parties to the convention; and· the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings will enhance the security of our citizens by placing an obligation on Australia to aid investigations and prosecutions of convention offences by other states and, where appropriate, to investigate, prosecute and punish alleged offenders within our jurisdiction.In the case of the proposed protocol to the double taxation agreement with the United States of America, the committee has decided not to recommend ratification of the proposed treaty action pending the receipt of better information concerning its net benefit for Australia. With regard to this particular treaty proposal, the committee has recommended further that the Australian Taxation Office consult with the Australian Treasury and other interested parties to develop an effective methodology to quantify the economic benefits of double tax agreements. I commend the report to the House.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Before I recognise the member for Swan, I point out that according to the blue the debate was meant to conclude at 12.40. However, given the privilege matter, I do not intend to take too much time out of the member for Swan's comments; I just ask him to bear in mind the fact that, without any authority, we are running beyond the time the blue had indicated.12:39:004169Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Thank you for that indulgence, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to make some brief comments in support of report 46 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties which relates to 13 proposed treaties for ratification by the Australian government. These 13 treaties cover a range of different areas, as has already been mentioned by the member for Curtin. There are three about which I would like to address some remarks.First is the protocol to the double taxation agreement with the United States. The overall effect of this agreement is to update the double taxation agreement between Australia and the United States, as the existing arrangement reflects positions agreed to in the 1970s. It is suggested that this agreement will assist with strengthening bilateral commercial relationships between Australia and the United States, which should ultimately benefit our economy through increased trade and investment. However, the committee's concerns about the loss of taxation revenue to Australia, projected to be in the order of $190 million per year, must be noted. These concerns are particularly important given that the committee saw little evidence of the potential benefits derived from forgoing this revenue. It is on this basis that the committee declines to support binding treaty action until it receives additional and more detailed evidence of the overall benefit to Australia.The child protection convention facilitates international cooperation between state parties in the interest of protecting children. Just as we should support measures to deal with war crimes, so should this parliament support measures which afford greater protection to children. This convention will achieve that through the elimination of potential conflicts of jurisdiction between different countries and the provision of international recognition of measures to protect children. Subject to clarification of any potential conflict between proposed Queensland state government legislation and Commonwealth government legislation, this convention deserves the full support of the parliament. The committee has recommended that the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department consult with state and territory departments to ensure harmonisation of proposed legislation and effective implementation of the convention.Finally, there is the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. All Australians were outraged by the events of September 11. The Australian Labor Party recognise the need for effective legislation to deter future acts of terrorism and punish those responsible for these heinous crimes. We continue to support effective legislation that achieves these objectives. However, it must be noted that the government is yet to produce such legislation, despite several attempts. I again add my voice to those on this side of the House to implore the government to get its act together in this regard.This convention will increase the effectiveness of existing Australian legislation relating to acts of terrorism. The committee noted that there were some concerns about the terminology and definitions used in the convention, but it is believed these are outweighed by the high degree of consensus within the international community that the actual wording will be appropriate. The committee is satisfied that the convention and associated legislation will not put at risk human rights or civil liberties in Australia. In addition, it places on Australia the obligation to aid investigations and prosecutions of relevant offences, both domestically and internationally. For these reasons, the committee supports this convention.The report tabled today demonstrates the ongoing importance of Australia participating in international treaty measures. Through the treaties committee and the parliament, we are able to assess the costs and benefits of these treaties openly and honestly and then determine if it is appropriate to support them.I want to make some comments regarding the treaty report that we tabled last time in relation to the International Criminal Court. I would again call on the government to bring forward the implementing legislation this week so that it can be passed through both houses of parliament to enable ratification on 2 July. At this stage we have not received any advice that this legislation is to be brought forward, but I would urge the government to do so. Government members know that we cannot ratify unless the enabling legislation has been passed by the parliament.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the member for Curtin wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?12:43:004170Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills4170R15754170Bill presented by Ms Plibersek.12:43:004170Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—Normally, to become an Australian citizen a person must have lived in Australia for two years out of the previous five, with at least one year being in the two years immediately before the application was made. Section 13(9) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 provides that a person may apply for citizenship if the person is a permanent resident and is the spouse, widow or widower of an Australian resident. The residence requirements may then be waived at ministerial discretion if the applicant is the spouse of an Australian citizen and will suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if made to wait. The department has interpreted `spouse' in the Citizenship Act to apply only to legally married spouses and not de facto spouses. Social security legislation, in contrast, has a definition of being `a member of a couple', which includes both married and de facto couples. In migration law, the definition of a spouse includes both married and de facto couples. Provision is made for same sex interdependent couples.The Australian Citizenship for Eligible De Facto Spouses Bill 2002, the private member's bill which I present today, would make access to ministerial discretion available on the same basis for both legally married couples and de facto couples—heterosexual and same sex. My bill has the support of my Labor colleagues. I have written to both the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs to ask that the government consider also supporting the legislation. I believe that the discrimination in the current Citizenship Act, which allows ministerial discretion only in the cases of legally married spouses, is an oversight and can easily be fixed. The original bill was passed in 1948, when the government did not generally recognise any rights for de facto partners and certainly made no provisions for same sex partnerships.This issue came to my attention when a constituent approached me. His de facto partner, with whom he had been living for very many years, wanted to visit her sick mother in Indonesia. The woman's Indonesian travel documents had expired some time ago, because she had been a permanent resident of Australia for a number of years. However, because her citizenship had not yet been granted, she was not eligible for an Australian passport. Of course she was in quite a difficult situation, wanting to visit her sick mother. It was her case that brought this anomaly to my attention, but since the drafting of this bill a number of other cases have come to my attention. Australian citizenship may be required for some jobs, and of course it is also required if you are a person born overseas who wishes to represent Australia in the international sporting arena. In cases such as these it certainly seems to make sense to give the minister discretion to speed up the process of granting citizenship.This power would always remain at the discretion of the minister; I am not suggesting that the power should not be discretionary. What I am asking is that, where the minister has discretion in the cases of legally married couples, that discretion should also be extended to de facto couples—both heterosexual and same sex de facto couples. I believe that because the power remains discretionary the chances of it being misused or opening a new pathway to Australian citizenship are minimal. In addition, I think it is worth considering that this legislation, if it remains unamended, is likely to contravene the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which has a specific prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of marital status. I would certainly like to have the government's support, as I have the opposition's support, in seeing this bill come to fruition.Bill read a first time.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business4171417112:48:004171Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I move:That this House:(1) recognises the invaluable contribution that immigrants have made to Australia's development;(2) believes it is appropriate to recognise this through the construction of a monument in the National Capital;(3) supports the efforts of those who have established the National Monument to Immigration Fund which seeks to achieve this goal; and (4) remains informed of the progress of this project.The genesis of this motion comes from the real birthplace of Australia's diverse culture. I refer to Cooma and the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority, which are in my electorate of Eden-Monaro. Last year I was approached by a number of people from the Cooma district—including Gianni `Johnny' De Bortoli, Geoff Bowland, Dugald Mitchell, Vin Good and Renee Burns—seeking my support for a project which would appropriately recognise the great contribution that immigrants have made to the development of Australia. The many speakers that will follow me in speaking on this motion will probably talk about great examples of that input into Australia's development from a diverse range of people from various parts of the world.The reaction from colleagues to this motion has been extraordinary. We could have had significantly more people standing to talk on this motion. In fact, a number of my colleagues expressed frustration that they missed out on an opportunity to speak on this motion. I should particularly mention that Phil Barresi and Teresa Gambaro were very keen to speak on this motion but unfortunately were not quick enough in informing the whip's office and have missed out.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member will refer to members by their electorates.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—Sorry. The member for Deakin and the member for Petrie are now on the record as having supported this motion. I want to concentrate on the Snowy scheme to some extent, because this is where this motion has come from. It was a nation building project because of the infrastructure and the diversity of people who came to Australia to work on that scheme.A couple of years ago, in 1999, we had the 50-year anniversary of the Snowy scheme. Many thousands of people came back from various parts of Australia—from wherever they had gone after the scheme was completed—to celebrate that 50-year anniversary. One of the great scenes I recall was down in Cooma, where we have an avenue of flags of all the countries that participated in the building of the Snowy scheme. In fact, we had a presentation of additional flags, because some of those countries that were involved in the original scheme are now several countries. So now we have flags of those new countries in the avenue of flags.In the order of 100,000 people came from more than 30 countries to work on that scheme, over 25 years. When you think about that, it is quite remarkable—over that 25-year period, about 100,000 people came from various parts of the world, from more than 30 countries. That scheme was a great investment in Australia. Those people, after working on the scheme—some of them for a short period, some of them for many years—then moved on to other parts of Australia. But many of them stayed in that Cooma region, and their families are in that region. Today we still have that very broad range of representation from so many parts of the world.That representation is increasing. Now we have the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, which was the consulting arm of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority. It is now a private company. With its headquarters still in Cooma, it is working all over the world and bringing people from other parts of the world to Australia. Engineers from Korea and India and those sorts of countries are now working with the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. They are countries that were not involved in the original Snowy Mountains scheme, so the diversity is becoming greater.My personal connections with it go back to when I started university. My very first lecturer in Surveying 1 at the University of New South Wales was Henry Werner. He came to Australia to work on the Snowy Mountains scheme, and after working on the scheme he went on to become a lecturer at the university. Jack Freislich was a surveyor from South Africa who came to work on the Snowy scheme and then ended up at the university. Some years later, when I was working in Darwin, one of the surveyors that I had to deal with from the Northern Territory government was Brett Hochman, who had worked for the Commonwealth government at Woomera and places like that after leaving the Snowy scheme. You find these people spread all over the place in different areas. They brought fantastic technical skills of the day—skills that were not here in Australia—and helped build Australian skills from that point on.This project came about, firstly, because of Johnny De Bertoli, who I mentioned before. Johnny is an example of the kind of person of that era that we hear about so much, and we also hear about the country he came from. On 7 August 2001, the Cooma-Monaro Express said:Johnny arrived in Australia from Italy in 1957; he returned to Italy to marry Rosetta and the couple spent their honeymoon on the boat bound for Australia. They settled in Berridale—which is just out of Cooma—in 1959, Johnny having worked firstly in the Victorian Alps, Sydney, Cooma, Canberra and Berridale. He joined the SMA as a model maker (he made the two models in the Visitors Centre) and also worked as a building contractor, security guard and taxi operator.So he has provided a diverse amount of input for the region and he is one of the people involved in this project. He had written to the National Capital Authority about the prospect of building a memorial in the national capital, and they came back to him in very supportive terms. They said:The Authority considers the creation of ... a steering committee essential for the successful completion of any memorial project.They also commented that he might wish to approach an eminent Australian with an interest in the contribution of immigrants to be the project's patron. The letter from the National Capital Authority also went on to say:The Authority would work with your committee to identify a suitable site for such a monument.After a number of meetings with various people, a public meeting was held on 10 September 2001—of all dates—to progress this project. Out of that a steering committee was formed. Geoff Bowland has taken on the role of chairman of the steering committee, Johnny De Bertoli is the vice-president and Dugald Mitchell agreed to be the secretary of that committee for the National Monument for Immigration Fund—the subject of this motion. They have put a statement of purpose for this project and I will go through that. The proposal in that statement is:To utilise the fund to build a national monument in Canberra which aims to recognise the contribution to Australia of the many migrants from around the world who have made Australia their home and who have enriched our country through their presence. Why? The statement says:It is important to enhance the understanding of the Australian people of the benefits which migration has brought to our national community. By partnering with the National Capital Authority in Canberra, they hope to secure a site of lasting prestige in our national capital. As I said, the steering committee for the fund has been established. I also mentioned that the National Capital Authority said that they should have an eminent Australian as a patron. In fact, they have the Snowy hydro as the patron of this organisation. It is intended that the committee will work closely with the National Capital Authority to capitalise on the expertise of the authority in managing projects of this type. It is intended that the successful design of the monument be decided by a group of eminent persons after the conduct of a national design competition. Construction of the monument will be managed by the National Capital Authority. Fundraising is now something which is a major issue that we have to address.Congratulations must go to Johnny De Bertoli, Geoff Bowland and Dugald Mitchell along with other committee members for what they have done so far. It is a very appropriate project for the national capital, and I commend them for their vision. It is a national project and therefore I think that it is appropriate that with this motion we challenge all members of this House to promote the project in their electorates, have input into it and help raise the funds that will be necessary to put together a wonderful memorial to the contribution that immigrants from all over the world have made to the development of Australia. I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr Lindsay—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.12:58:004173Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—I strongly support the motion recognising the significant contribution of immigration to Australia's development. Given the strains to community harmony that we have experienced over the past year, I only regret that we are not doing so through a formal government motion. Today's debate is timely for two reasons. Three months ago we saw the arrival in Sydney of Australia's six millionth migrant since the Chifley Labor government inaugurated our world renowned postwar immigration program. Then last week the Bureau of Statistics released the first results of the last census. They revealed that over 4.1 million Australians were born overseas, more than a fifth of the entire population. In my own electorate in Western Sydney, the figure is more like 48 per cent of the population.More significantly, the census provides fascinating data on the self-reported ancestry of Australians. It provides a vital snapshot of our collective family history. Over 6.7 million respondents describe their ancestry as being Australian; nearly 6.4 million describe themselves as English; nearly two million answered that they were Irish; and 800,000 spoke of Italian ancestry. Also, 740,000 said that they were German; 560,000, Chinese; 540,000—very importantly—Scottish; and 375,000, Greek. The census shows that many of those who describe their ancestry as English, Irish or Italian not only were born in Australia but also have parents who were born here.This demonstrates the far-reaching impact that immigration has had on the demography of our nation. These findings demonstrate both the historical achievement and the continuing challenge of Australian nationhood—that is, to achieve unity in diversity; to respect the cultural, ethnic and religious diversity of our peoples; and, simultaneously, to accept the common obligations of citizenship and of English as our national language. It also emphasises that multiculturalism has relevance to all Australians, not just first- or second-generation migrants. It is in this context that I am happy to support the concept of a national monument to immigration. We can hold different views about the name, the location or the design, but the concept itself has great value. It is interesting to observe how the coalition have once again come full circle on such matters. In the wake of the shocking events of September 11 last year and the Tampa affair, they have cleverly exploited anti-immigrant and, more particularly, anti-Islamic feeling for base political reasons. Now re-elected, they seek to portray themselves as the `living in harmony party'. In relation to whether Muslim-Australians can integrate as successfully as Asian-Australians, the Prime Minister told the Australian on 4 May:`I'm confident, yes, but it needs a community effort and it needs leadership from me ...He also said:Some of the attitudes towards people of Islamic or Arab descent, yes I'm worried about that ... This doublespeak is now becoming an accepted pattern. A perceptive article in the Age by Tony Wright argued that Mr Howard is a practitioner of `dog whistle' politics on immigration and indigenous issues. This refers to his tendency to simultaneously send contrasting messages to different audiences, with a bland and seemingly benign surface message being accompanied by a `dog whistle' message pitched at those who are wedded to less sophisticated and less tolerant approaches. Needless to say, this is yet another electoral stratagem that the coalition have imported from American Republican friends.We first saw the pattern in Mr Howard's August 1988 comments that the rate of Asian migration should be slowed down `so the capacity of the community to absorb it was greater'. Last month on 4 May he grandly and publicly attempted an abject apology, telling the Australian:My instinct is that Asian-Australians are very much part of the community now. I think it—their integration—has been quicker. I just don't hear people talking about it now, even as much as they did five years ago, and I have an electorate that is very Asian.I think that is a very interesting factor in his conversion. An important point in relation to this apology is that at the time he made those remarks he actually denied that his comments were anti-Asian. And now, a decade or so later, we are seeing an apology.I warmly welcome the motion by the member for Eden-Monaro. We are indeed a nation of migrants. It is fitting that we make greater efforts to acknowledge the very significant contribution that immigration has made to our economic, cultural and social development. It has had a very big impact on our national psyche. I was at the 23rd Conference of the Ukrainian Federation of Australia at the weekend where former Senator Jim Short recounted his own family history of his father going down to Bendigo Station to meet incoming migrants and of the impact that that had upon him in getting to know the people of the Baltic countries and of Eastern Europe. We are a settlement country like Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Immigration has had a deep impact on our nation. I very much commend the motion. It follows the US practice at Ellis Island. It is a very overdue motion.13:04:004174Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I can only observe—and I think it is a very great shame—that on a motion as important as this, on a motion that is of such great value, the member for Reid seeks to politicise it. Those in the gallery who listened to that speech just a moment ago would have been thinking to themselves, when the member for Reid talked about what the government did in relation to the Tampa, that the main support for the government's position came from migrants who came here legally. I think that shows the politicisation that the member for Reid has attempted to bring to this motion.According to the census, 28 per cent of Australians were born overseas—that is, one in four of us. Look at the gallery: perhaps one in four of the people there were born overseas. We come from 200 different ancestries, the chief being English, Irish, Italian, German, Chinese, Scottish and Greek. I think it can be fairly said that Australia is the most culturally and ethnically diverse country in the world today. What a proud heritage we as Australians all have—that is, to be the most culturally and ethnically diverse community in the world. That underlines why it is important to be considering at this time a national monument.A national monument is certainly something that the parliament should be very seriously considering, and I know that it will. The member for Eden-Monaro referred to members of the House who want to speak on this motion because they feel passionately about it, as I do. My electorate certainly strongly supports the concept of a national memorial. I think that the National Capital Authority, whose duty it will be to find an appropriate site, to secure that site and to choose an appropriate design, will be easily convinced that that is the way this project should proceed.I am very mindful of the benefits that migration has brought to this country. In my mind, there are three outstanding benefits that have occurred because of migration—culture, business and science. In relation to culture, I can think of no better example than Favardin Daliri, who is the current manager of the Townsville-Thuringowa Migrant Resource Centre. Farvardin fled Persia—he calls himself a Persian; but these days the country is called Iran—and is of the Baiha'i faith. He and his family are among some of the most delightful, energetic and thoughtful persons you could wish to meet. He has brought his culture to this country and, because of his religion, he has brought his stories of persecution. It enriches our country to know exactly what has occurred in his country. He has not lost the links with his culture; he has brought his culture to our country. I have spent many enjoyable hours in his company talking about Iran.The Koreans who have come to Townsville have brought Korea's largest business investment in this country—a half a billion dollar zinc refinery. That has just been marvellous and has allowed all sorts of cultural exchanges. If I might just digress and make a prediction, I think Korea will win the World Cup in soccer—and good luck to them, if they do. In the short time I have left, I would like to pay tribute to the six million migrants who have come to this country since 1945. There has been a bit of an imbalance in the number of males and females who have arrived in Australia: about 3.1 million males and 2.8 million females. Almost 600,000 people have arrived under humanitarian programs, initially as displaced persons and more recently as refugees. I support Australia's migration program, and I support a lasting and fitting tribute to immigrants in the nation's capital. (Time expired)13:09:004175Vamvakinou, Maria, MPMs VAMVAKINOU00AMTCalwellALP00—I would like to support the honourable member for Eden-Monaro's motion, as I believe that it is indeed time to consider some form by which we mark and celebrate the foundation stone of Australia's contemporary society. I say `contemporary' because this great country of ours has a very ancient history and has evolved from a land with an Indigenous past to a land which, after having experienced the onset of European settlement some 200 years ago, has grown into a vibrant, contemporary democracy with a society of people that is multicultural in nature.I suppose it is timely to begin thinking about recognising and honouring the fact that Australia is a product of an active and ongoing immigration system. The immigration process that has been taking place in the last 200 years has built and established contemporary Australia. It is important to acknowledge that every single Australian, except our Indigenous Australians, hails from some corner of the world. We have come here at various stages of our history from Great Britain, Ireland, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, the Baltic States, Asia and, in more recent times, the Middle East and Africa. These immigrants, who are now various generations of Australians, built this country piece by piece, stage by stage. They came here bringing their youth and their dreams, their hopes and their aspirations, their energy and their drive and their skills and their labour. They built this country literally from the ground up. In addition to this, and more importantly, they brought with them a rich cultural and linguistic inheritance, with customs and traditions that would add to a tapestry that almost 200 years later has evolved into a rich and dynamic identity—an evolving contemporary, multicultural identity that makes Australia a unique place in the world.When we turn our thoughts to how we may celebrate or commemorate immigration as the driving force of our development, it is appropriate that Canberra, our national capital, be the place where a monument stands. However, I must say that I have some reservations about referring to it as a `monument' because the connotation is that we are honouring something that has ceased to be. The reality is that immigration has not ceased, and as more and more new immigrants join our Australian family, the more this country will benefit from their contribution now and in future years.I would like to suggest that, in contemplating how we commemorate our immigrants, we consider the Immigration Museum in Melbourne, as it is an outstanding commemoration of our immigrant history. The museum was established during the term of the former Victorian Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett, who is himself a great advocate for multicultural Australia. The museum not only serves to recognise the invaluable contribution that immigrants make to Victoria but it does so in a creative, visually dynamic and evolving manner.Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to meet Mr Gianni De Bortoli, who, I understand, initiated this very important concept, so I am not fully aware of what progress has been made regarding this matter. However, I have read the correspondence sent to Mr De Bortoli by the National Capital Authority, and it certainly appears that a lot of time, money and effort are required to achieve this end. Naturally, one worries about the prospects of success, especially where a great deal of money is concerned. I would like to suggest that the federal government consider becoming a major stakeholder in this project. In fact, we should congratulate Mr Gianni De Bortoli for his initiative but, if this parliament is really serious about commemorating and recognising the contribution of immigration to the development of contemporary Australia, we should not only support Mr De Bortoli's efforts but embrace his idea and make it a Commonwealth government project, funded and coordinated by the Commonwealth government. I am certain that taxpayers would like to see the fruits of their labour go into building a national symbol, but not too grandiose a symbol. Perhaps one could be built along the lines of Ellis Island in New York or maybe we should look to the Immigration Museum in Melbourne as a place or a symbol that marks the single most important foundation stone of contemporary Australia—immigration.My personal view is that an Australian Republic will just as easily serve as the perfect commemoration of contemporary Australian society because it will enshrine in our political system an equality of status for all Australians, no matter where they migrated from or when. But, in the meantime, we on this side of the House will take an active interest in the progress of Mr De Bortoli's proposal and will press the government to consider taking this opportunity to build on this initiative, because it is time for such recognition in the national capital.13:14:004176Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—I wish to support the private member's motion proposed by the member for Eden-Monaro for a fund for a national monument to immigration and I note that the proponents of the project are now in the gallery. I welcome the opportunity to both recognise the contribution that Australian migrants have made to the development of this nation and support the proposal to construct a national monument with this purpose in mind.Since the Second World War this country has taken in almost six million migrants from over 130 countries and has created a uniquely cohesive society. There have always been problems—there have always been pain, hardship and controversy—and there always will be. But transcending all of this is the overwhelming reality that our postwar experience with migration has been uniquely successful because of our migrants' contributions to our nation, and not just to our economic prosperity but to all aspects of Australian life.In acknowledging the contribution of migrants it is essential to acknowledge the importance of multiculturalism. As I have long said, the fact is that the massive wave of postwar migrants to Australia committed to our legal and democratic institutions. At the same time they created schools, religious institutions and voluntary associations to preserve the components of the distinct heritages they valued. This commitment and these institutions were the basic ingredients of multiculturalism. They were not concocted by politicians or bureaucrats. They were not imposed by some elite. They were not the artefact of some so-called ethnic industry. Multiculturalism was made possible because of the commitment of our grandparents and of our parents.I also believe that Australia owes an enduring debt of gratitude to Malcolm Fraser for having the courage, foresight and statesmanship to institutionalise multiculturalism and demand that government departments, statutory authorities and services respond to the needs of our ethnically diverse population. I can do no better in illustrating Malcolm Fraser's historic insight than to quote from his seminal 1981 speech on multiculturalism, in which his starting point was:... the recognition and appreciation of the fact that the Australian population is derived from a wide variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and that these backgrounds are important to the way Australians see themselves. The sheer duration and magnitude of immigration into this country, the plain facts of the composition of Australia's population, mean that even if we wished otherwise ethnic and cultural diversity can neither be ignored nor readily extinguished.We know that the attempt to enforce conformity holds high costs both for the individual and the society. It denies people their identity and self-esteem. Ultimately it poses a real threat of alienation and division. We cannot demand of people that they renounce the heritage they value, and yet expect them to feel welcome as full members of our society.Multiculturalism is concerned with far more than the passive toleration of diversity. It sees diversity as a quality to be actively embraced, a source of social wealth and dynamism. It encourages groups to be open and to interact, so that all Australians may learn and benefit from each other's heritages.Multiculturalism is about diversity, not division—it is about interaction, not isolation. It is about cultural and ethnic differences set within a framework of shared fundamental values ... Insisting upon a core area of common values is no threat to multiculturalism but its guarantee.Not least, multiculturalism is about equality of opportunity for the members of all groups to participate in and benefit from Australia's social, economic and political life. No society can long retain the commitment and involvement of groups that are denied these rights. If particular groups feel that they and their children are condemned whether through legal or other arrangements to occupy the worst jobs and housing, to suffer the poorest health and education, then the societies in which they live are bent on a path which will cost them dearly.The prevalence of these views and the understanding of multiculturalism articulated and implemented by Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister have meant that Australia is a more tolerant, just, open and prosperous society—a society based on the best of Australia's values. The sailing has not always been smooth but I am perpetually optimistic about the character of Australia and the strength of our best values: the belief in basic rights and social justice, the respect for other points of view, and the commitment to equality of opportunity and support for those experiencing tough times. A monument in the national capital is a fitting way to recognise the enormous contribution of migrants to Australia. It will also serve as an important reminder of what we as a nation are capable of. (Time expired)13:19:004177Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—There is no doubt in my mind that the greatest part of Australia's post World War II history is our immigration and the enormous benefits that migrants have brought to the Australian nation. Australia changed forever after World War II. We became a different nation. We are a different nation today from what we were before we had six million or so migrants come to our shores and build a new life here for themselves and for their families. In the electorate that I represent, in particular the Latrobe Valley, we have benefited enormously from migration. We had people from all around the globe come to the Latrobe Valley. They came from Italy, Greece, Germany, Malta, Ireland, Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom—from many different countries around the world. They came to work and they made an enormous contribution to our state and to our nation. People did not come to Australia to loaf around, sit around and do nothing. People did not come to freeload; they came to work. This was the great part of the Latrobe Valley migrant experience.We never had any room for any of that redneck or racist attitude which exists in some elements of our society where people say, `Migrants don't fit in. They don't mix. They don't get along. They don't work. They don't do anything.' We never had time for that in the Latrobe Valley, because the migrants we had were too busy working with everyone else. It is pretty hard for you to have that view about people when you are working alongside migrants from other countries and they are bending their backs and working just as hard as you are; when they are living in your street and their kids are playing with your kids; when they are sending their kids to the same school that you are sending your kids to; when you are going to each other's birthdays and to holy communion and confession together. This has been a great part of the success of multiculturalism in the Latrobe Valley. Migrants came to work, and they worked hard. They made an enormous contribution to not just the Latrobe Valley but the state of Victoria, whose manufacturing base is so much built on the low-cost, efficient electricity which is produced in the Latrobe Valley and which was really built through the hard work of that new migrant work force which arrived in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.We often make the mistake, when we talk about migrants and multiculturalism, of talking about how we have to be a `tolerant' people and how we have to `tolerate' someone speaking another language next to us or `tolerate' looking at someone wearing clothes other than a suit and a tie or traditional European dress, as if `tolerating' is the best we can do. I think we get it fundamentally wrong when we start at that point—because that is all about barely being able to repress your hostility towards a group of people or a person. That is not how I feel. I think multiculturalism is a celebration: a celebration of who we are and how we see ourselves as a society; a celebration of what people bring to our society; a celebration of who they are, how they treat their families, how they worship, how they live their lives and how they conduct themselves. We have so much in our nation to be proud of. We have so much to be proud of in the effort and contribution migrants have made to Australia and to the way that we live today: in food, culture, music and literature—in so many different areas.People from all walks of life and from different parts of the world have come to Australia, knowing that the thing that will differentiate them, the thing that will define whether they are successful in Australia or whether they will make a great or an exceptional contribution, is how hard they work, their efforts, the love they give people and the genuineness they give to our nation. It will not be based on whether they are black or white, Muslim or Christian, or any of those other things. That is something which sets us apart from just about any other country in the world: the great acceptance we have in Australia that you define yourself by the work you do and the type of person you are, not by any other stereotype or label. In the Latrobe Valley we have long said that we were practising multiculturalism long before the phrase was ever coined, and I think that is true. The great differential for us has been that migrants came to work and worked hard. Migrants came to make a contribution and they did just that. Migrants came and changed the Latrobe Valley and made it a better place, and they made our nation a better place too. (Time expired)13:24:004178Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I am very pleased and honoured to support my colleague the member for Eden-Monaro in his private member's motion for a fund for a national monument to immigration. It is particularly pleasing to me that the initiative for this national monument comes from Cooma. Cooma is a place I remember fondly. As a young fellow I came to Canberra in the early sixties to go to university, and I played rugby league for Canberra. Cooma and other teams from around that area were in the competition, and I distinctly remember the first game I played. It was on a very cold day in a little town called Dalgety when we played against Utah Island Bend. Apart from a sprinkling of Kiwis and maybe one or two Australians, the teams list on the board in the local pub looked like a page out of a telephone book from Warsaw or Prague. It was very significant that the integration of the migrants who worked in the Snowy had led to them adopting rugby league as their game on weekends.I represent this parliament on the National Archives Council. I was at a meeting about a fortnight ago when, over lunch, one of the staff said to me, because my parents had migrated here back in that era, `Would you like me to dig out your migration file?' I had never thought of doing that, and they produced it for me. Some of the documents in that file are very interesting. I would like to read into the Hansard some words on migration during the 1940s following World War II and Australia's role in accepting those migrants. Under the heading `Displaced Persons Scheme', it reads:At the end of the Second World War many thousands of people who had been brought to Germany from occupied countries to labour in German industry were unable or unwilling to return to their homelands because of the occupation by the army of the USSR (mainly Poland and the Baltic countries—Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia—as well as Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, etc.) These people came under the care of the International Refugee Organization (IRO); they were screened, given the status of Displaced Person and housed in camps in Germany, Italy and Austria.On 21 July 1947, the Commonwealth Government entered into an agreement with the IRO covering resettlement of European Displaced Persons (or `DPs' as they were commonly referred to) in Australia.Under this agreement, the IRO undertook responsibility for provision of transport and the care of the Displaced Persons until their disembarkation in Australia. The Commonwealth undertook selection in Europe and responsibility for reception in Australia, placement in employment and care after arrival.Eligibility for selection was initially based on standards of age, physical fitness and the ability to do manual work. At first, Australia was only interested in accepting single Baltic people, however restrictions on nationality were relaxed as the scheme progressed. As Australia's annual quota increased the Department of Immigration accepted other nationalities which included Czechoslovaks, Yugoslavs, Ukrainians, Hungarians and Poles.The scheme was extended. The document continues:All applicants within the worker age limits under this scheme undertook to remain in the employment found for them by the Commonwealth for a period of two years from the date of their arrival, ...Then it says:To ensure suitable arrangements for the reception of the DPs and their absorption into the community, the Commonwealth set up Reception and Training Centres principally at Bathurst and Greta in NSW, Bonegilla in Victoria, and Northam in WA.My parents were actually in Bathurst. It goes on:When the IRO wound up its activities in 1951, the Commonwealth agreed to receive those Displaced Persons already accepted for migration whose passages had still to be arranged. This continued until 1954, bringing the total number of arrivals under this scheme to approximately 170,700.This was at a time when Australia's population was barely seven million. The integration of these people into the Australian community and their contribution to the culture and history of Australia should be, I believe, celebrated by a national monument in Canberra. (Time expired)13:29:004179Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—I am happy to support this motion, the core of which is to set up a national monument to immigration in Canberra, the very heart of the nation. It would be a potent, practical recognition of the importance and power of immigration in Australia's history, particularly in the last 50 years. I come from an electorate that was started in 1949, an electorate that in fact was built on postwar migration. The Bankstown that I grew up in after my birth in 1951 was only of about 2,000 people, growing to about 5,000 people, and was effectively a rural area of Sydney based on an Anglo-Celtic heritage. There was not much variation and there was not much diversity, and the dominant culture was absolutely that.Make your way back in time over 100 years to the Australia of the gold rushes, when Australia was an entirely different place. People from all over this planet were drawn to both the goldfields in New South Wales—near Oberon and Bathurst and out through western New South Wales—and the goldfields in Victoria—around Ballarat and Bendigo—and Australia had an extremely diverse community of people who worked hard to win wealth for themselves and, in doing so, for the country. But at the end of the 1850s most of those people left. Most of the groups of people went elsewhere—some to the United States, some returning to Europe and some going to China. Australia was increasingly left, during the great period of development from the 1860s through to the end of the 1880s, with what we had before, a dominant Anglo-Celtic culture, and so it was in Blaxland in 1949. The people who came to the migrant camps in Villawood and Chullora included my sister-in-law, Ursula, her brother, Martin, and one of their parents—their mum, who was in the camp in Chullora; their dad was in Bonegilla. It was not just a two-year stint that people had to do when they came to Australia and when the fathers signed up, in large part, to go and work on the Snowy Mountains scheme or to do any job that was required of them. In the case of Ursula and Martin, it took more than eight years for that family to actually come together to live as a family.An immigration monument in Canberra needs to recognise not just the diversity of the population but the toughness of Australia's history and how hard the people working on the Snowy and the other migrants who came to help build Australia in the fifties and sixties did it, because they did not come to a country that welcomed them, in the same way that the people who came to the gold rushes were not greatly welcomed by the existing population. People who came in that period understand the unwillingness of the population. What they met was misunderstanding, a lack of recognition of where they came from, what their importance was and what they were doing.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Blaxland will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed.418013:33:004180Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I move:That this House:(1) notes the Government's plan based on the recommendations of the Private Health Industry Medical Devices Expert Committee to remove speech processors from Appendix A, Schedule 5 of the National Health Act 1953, meaning the withdrawal of private health funding for upgrades and replacements for cochlear implants (bionic ears); and(2) calls on the Government to find a way that the profoundly deaf, especially children, can continue to secure upgrades and replacements for their cochlear implants by requiring private health funds to continue to cover the cost of the prosthesis.Some weeks ago I was approached by a young man in my electorate by the name of James Harlow. James is a bright 10-year-old who came to me requesting I tell the parliament what he thinks about the federal government's imminent moves to take cochlear implants and upgrades off the private health schedule, forcing his parents to pay up to $10,000 for future upgrades and replacements. James spelt out his situation in the following letter:Dear Mr RuddCan you please ask Mr Howard if he can make sure people with Cochlear Implants get help when they need help?When I couldn't hear in grade two and three, it was terrible and I was very sad. One day when I was dancing at a competition, my processor didn't work. I couldn't hear the music and I was really mad. It's not fair sometimes. My audiologist helped me a lot but there was a long time to wait to get my problem fixed. Every day I asked my mum and dad when I could get the broken implant taken out and get a new one. Every day was a long time and I don't have a long time. I don't understand why I had to wait so long. I wanted my sound fixed straight away. I love hearing my brothers talking and I love to dance. Everyone kept saying be patient but it was hard. I am happy now because I can hear again.There is a new processor that can help me. Now mum and dad are really worried because the new 3G costs a lot of money and its hard to get it. There are lots of kids who have the 3G already and its not fair because I need it too. I feel like I can't wait and I wish to get the 3G soon so I can listen to my Irish Dancing music and be happy.When I grow up I want to be a doctor or maybe an Irish Dancing Champion. It would be really nice to hear like other people and I am glad someone is trying to make processors do this. Maybe one day, Cochlear can make it perfect so I can get my timing right in my dances.Can you please ask the government to understand about our stuff? Mum says we can get the 3G if the insurance helps us. If they don't help us, then I will have to wait too long for my new bte. I can't wait.From JamesWhat a fantastic letter! There are many cochlear implantees like James in my electorate of Griffith, and across the country there are more than 1.8 million hearing-impaired Australians. Approximately 72,000 of them are severely or profoundly deaf.The bionic ear or cochlear implant is an Australian invention which was first trialed in 1978 by Professor Clark of the University of Melbourne. It is used by severely to profoundly deaf people for whom hearing aids are of little or no benefit. It is only fitted to one ear—usually the deafer of a person's two ears. Since its first trial, 45,000 people across the globe have been fitted with a cochlear implant bionic ear, with about 60 per cent of the market dominated by the Australian manufacturer Cochlear Ltd. About 2,000 Australians—approximately 50 per cent of them children—have been fitted with bionic ears.The cochlear implant comprises two parts. The first is an internal component which must be surgically placed inside the skull just behind the ear. This involves a delicate three-hour operation under general anaesthetic. The second part is an external fixture, or speech processor, which connects around the ear. This is mapped, via computer technology, to each individual's unique hearing needs and is essential to the working of the implant. It is this speech processor that needs updating or replacing every two to five years as a result of advances in technology and wear and tear. This is the latest technology in speech processors and supposedly adds an incredible range of sound, including whispers, to existing technology. One young student in my electorate has been advised by his audiologist that this new processor is a `clinical' need for him.The crux of the current problem lies with the fact the bionic ear is currently defined as a `prosthesis' under the National Health Act 1953. The current issue has arisen from the federal government's review of private health funding of prostheses under schedule 5, as defined under the National Health Act. To help with the review, former health minister Michael Wooldridge established the Private Health Industry Medical Devices Expert Committee—PHIMDEC—to assist with determining items for listing on this schedule.Due to the strict definition of prostheses—stipulated in an outdated act which was implemented 25 years before cochlear implants came into being—PHIMDEC has recommended that any upgrades or replacements of speech processors not be covered by private health funds. This is due to the fact a prostheses, as required by the definition, should be `surgically implanted'. Therefore, the initial operation to have the internal part of the bionic ear inserted would be covered, as per appendix A of schedule 5, but any subsequent replacements or upgrades would not, as under appendix C.Currently, the federal government, through Australian Hearing, subsidises hearing services for children up to 21 years as well as veterans and pensioners. Cochlear estimates approximately half of its clients are insured by private health funds. The federal government budget allocated $1.9 million for the four-year period from July 1997 to June 2001 and a reduced amount of $1.6 million for the four-year period from July 2001 to June 2005 to Australian Hearing to provide child recipients—those up to the age of 21—with access to improved and updated speech processors.At the above funding level, only 80 speech processors a year would be able to be funded. As there are currently 1,000 children with implants, this funding is expected to run out by June 2003 at the current rate of replacement. There is a waiting list in just one Brisbane clinic of 25 children who are in `imminent need'—the words of an audiologist—of the new technology about to be released. This clinic deals mainly with clients covered by private health care. Cochlear implants in Brisbane are also conducted at the Mater and Royal Brisbane hospitals.The new speech processor costs between $8,000 and $10,000, although Cochlear is offering the product at half price for the first 12 months—that is, about $4,500. Other processors cost an average of $5,000. Figures provided by Cochlear show the estimated cost to adequately fund replacement speech processors for children and for pensioners and veterans is less than $1,500 per recipient per year. Cochlear argues that such expenditure would be offset by savings, particularly in special education provision, as children with implants are more likely to be integrated into mainstream education, thus reducing costs for special educational aids. Other funding benefits would be a reduction in future social security payments as recipients are fully integrated in society.It was originally intended that cochlear implants be delisted from the health benefits schedule as of 1 February 2002. This meant that private health insurance companies would no longer be required to reimburse recipients of cochlear implants for the cost of upgrading or replacing their speech processors. However, on 28 February 2002, the Department of Health and Ageing's Private Health Industry Branch issued the revised schedule 5—`Benefits payable in respect of surgically implanted prostheses'. Contrary to earlier advice, this schedule did include provision of replacement speech processors for cochlear implants. But this came with a catch. The circular accompanying this schedule noted:Further to advice received by the Department, previously advised Schedule changes in relation to a small number of items have been deferred pending further considerations. This list included speech processors.During the recent budget estimates hearings, departmental officials were questioned over the deferral decision. I am advised that they confirmed that replacement processors remain on the schedule and, although PHIMDEC has recommended their delisting, the decision to act on that advice had been deferred. The official also stated that they were: ... seeking some further information from private health funds as to how these items might be included on their ancillary tables and how affected members might be notified. ... No further action will be taken in relation to the listing of replacement speech processors while that review is in progress.At this point I wish to recognise that the health minister currently has this under review. However, I am sure the minister understands that the cochlear community faces a situation where it is in a state of limbo. First, there was a decision made by the federal government to take speech processors off schedule 5. This caused great angst and heartbreak for thousands of Australian families. Then, through word of mouth, it was revealed that this decision had been deferred and placed under review. It is now midway through June and cochlear implantees have no idea what will happen next. They wait in the hope that the health minister and the federal government will see that they have a genuine need and will continue to facilitate access to speech processors. My fear is that this government's attitude of what I would describe as contempt towards health care in Australia will continue to see yet another community disadvantaged.In recent weeks we have seen a myriad of very inappropriate decisions from the federal government in this respect. We have seen it in relation to pharmaceuticals and in a range of other areas. The government should provide a standard of health care that allows people access to vital services. This is not occurring and health services and provisions continue to be put on the chopping board. I call on the federal government to make a long-term commitment to Australia's cochlear community today and to keep speech processors on schedule 5 as defined under the National Health Act 1953. This will ensure that people like young James continue to enjoy something we take for granted—the ability to hear.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?83CMcFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—It being almost 1.45 p.m., it seems to me appropriate that debate should be interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate will be resumed at a later hour this day.Statements by Members4182418213:43:004182Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Hurlstone Agricultural High School, a selective government school at Glenfield in my electorate, is one of Australia's greatest schools—a school of uncommon excellence, heritage and morale. Last Friday I was privileged to attend Hurlstone's assembly in honour of its post World War II veterans—old boys who served our nation in Korea, Malaysia and Vietnam. I congratulate all those involved in the ceremony, especially Mr Douglas McGrath, a Vietnam veteran, a great Hurlstonian and a member of the legendary 1964 First XV that won the Waratah Shield. Doug gave one of the best speeches I have ever heard—a speech that captured the enduring spirit and courage of this wonderful school. It was a moving and inspirational presentation.The post World War II veterans have lived up to Hursltone's motto, `Pro patria'—For our country. They remain an inspiration for us all, now permanently remembered at the school through the unveiling of an honour board in Hurlstone's hall of honour. I am proud not only to have attended Hurlstone as a student but to now represent the old school in the seat of Werriwa in this House of Representatives. If all our schools were as good as Hurlstone, all our problems and worries as a nation would soon be over. It was a wonderful ceremony at a wonderful place of learning. Pro patria!418313:45:004183May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Today I would like to pay tribute to Mr Eddie Joseph, who is the managing director of Poly Optics in my electorate in Burleigh Heads. I recently had the pleasure of presenting Eddie Joseph and his team with an AusIndustry certificate of achievement in recognition of the innovative lighting systems that they have produced over the last 10 years. The company have been in receipt of a $978,000 federal government R&D grant, and they have certainly been able to put that grant to very good use. The company have been formulating fibre-optic technology for almost 10 years, but the success they have achieved over the last few years has been phenomenal. The company have brought to the market a lighting system that transmits white light over long distances with a minimum of light loss. With the huge savings that will come from this for high-rise building, it really is an incredible achievement for this very small company. I congratulate Eddie and his team at Poly Optics for what they have achieved and for what business is going to achieve with this new lighting in the years to come.418313:46:004183O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I rise to tell the House of the experience of one of my constituents who last month tried and failed to contact the ATO by phone regarding his BAS deadline. Over the month, he tried calling the business information line about 30 times. More often than not he was on hold for approximately 20 minutes and then cut off. On one call he was on hold again for around 20 minutes and then an automated message said, `Our operators are very busy at the moment. Please call back in a few days.' So, just for a bit of fun, we tried ringing the first 10 of the 12 numbers on the `ATO It's Quicker By Phone' card. Three of the numbers were engaged, two were no longer in service, one was on hold for a minute and then put through to an engaged signal, two calls were put through to an operator within one minute and one automated number never even gave you an operator option. We then spent 15 minutes on the general line before we were answered by an operator, who then attempted three times to put us through to someone who could help us with our BAS inquiry. In total it was over 40 minutes before our query was answered. We were told that if he could not make the BAS deadline the next day he could ring through the figures by 6 p.m. the next day—that is, of course, if he could make it through on the phone line. And this government claimed that no business would have difficulty complying with BAS!418313:48:004183King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—The past week has seen an escalation of the campaign that is waged against innocent Israeli civilians by those organisations that mastermind suicide bombings. In the last few days alone, 30 Israelis have lost their lives, and countless more have been maimed and injured by this form of terror. Few of us can understand the fear that must be in the hearts of those that can never know whether the bus they board, the cafes where they relax or the shopping centres where they take their children will be the next target for terrorists. During a visit to Israel earlier this year I met one of the victims of terror, Loren Blum, in Mount Scopus Hospital. He was working as a chef in a cafe that was bombed. He will not work again. It is therefore not surprising that there is currently an international campaign under way to have suicide bombing declared by the United Nations as a crime against humanity. As of this morning, over 70,000 people have signed an electronic petition supporting this campaign, and I will shortly be lodging a petition from Australian citizens myself. There is a strong case that this suicide bombing campaign is a crime against humanity in the terms of international treaties and law. The current campaign is a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, resulting in murder, great suffering and serious injury both to body and mental and physical health, as under article 7 of the 1998 Rome Treaty. A United Nations declaration would assist in making that even clearer, and I commend the proposal to the House. We must ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes—the organisers and those that recruit, arm and advise the bombers—are brought to justice. If Palestinian authorities are not prepared to do so, then the international community must.On another matter, I also remind the House that this week is National Deaf-Blind Awareness Week. Last week in error I referred to it as National Blindness Awareness Week when speaking about a blind member of my staff, Skye Banning. I would encourage members to think about those with such disabilities during this week. (Time expired)418413:49:004184Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Tory Maguire's report `Noise targets missed', which was plastered on page 9 of today's Daily Telegraph, correctly exposes the Howard government's broken promises on aircraft noise. It is obvious that the government is not interested in fairly sharing aircraft noise, as evidenced by its refusal to make Airservices Australia implement the now five-year-old long term operating plan for Sydney airport that would ease the unfair noise burden suffered by the residents of Sydney. Worse still is the government's arrogant disregard for residents trying to make a legitimate complaint. The reported fall in complaints in today's Telegraph, which refers to the same period last year, is phoney when you consider that the government is now forcing residents to pay for the privilege to register a complaint about aircraft noise. In October last year, the seven day a week toll-free aircraft noise enquiry line was replaced by an inferior `toll-fee' service. You will no doubt be aware that I raised this in the House last Monday. Whatever the Howard government may say, the truth is it has had five years to honour its promises to the long-suffering noise affected residents of Sydney. Moreover, the Howard government is only interested in fattening the calf for the kill and abandoning Sydney residents in the expectation of maximising the sale price of Sydney airport. Once again, I call on the Howard government to fix Sydney's aircraft noise problems before selling the airport and to honour its promises. (Time expired)418413:51:004184Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It gives me great pleasure to draw the attention of the House to two distinguished residents of the Sutherland Shire, both of whom I presented with the Centenary Medal in Miranda last Friday. Edith White was born on 14 March 1900. Her mother passed away only three weeks after giving birth to her, and Edith lost her father when she was only seven. After these losses, she lived in a number of places, including an orphanage in Liverpool. Eventually she was `rescued' from the orphanage by her aunt and uncle. She completed her schooling and got her first job, with a weekly wage of 7s 6d. When Edith's eldest sister died, she moved in to care for her nephews and married George, her sister's widowed husband. Together with George, Edith had 10 children, 38 grandchildren and 66 great-grandchildren.The second medal recipient, Mary Ann `May' Burgess, was born on 18 October 1900 in Ireland. She spent some years in Belfast before the family migrated to Australia. May experienced five months of chronic seasickness on the trip. The first job she landed in Sydney was secretary to the two original Grace brothers. She later married Albert Burgess, and the couple had one daughter. Her saying at the nursing home is, `Old age is not a crime, just a little inconvenient.'These two great Australians have lived through every year of our federation. Through times of prosperity and hard times, they have made a huge contribution to Australian society over our first 100 years. They are worthy recipients of the Centenary Medal.418513:52:004185Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—The crisis of public liability and indemnity insurance for doctors is a problem which the federal government seems less than concerned about resolving, other than by offering a stay of execution until the end of the year. Only the states of New South Wales and Queensland have moved to redress problems through legislative change. Tort law amendments moved by Queensland may not be enough for some, but they do provide a framework and certainty for doctors. The federal government has adopted a wait-and-see approach with no guarantees of a national solution. It is therefore astounding to see a few doctors in Ipswich taking this opportunity as a political means to attack the state government. If these doctors were genuine, they would realise that closing their doors and going on strike would achieve nothing more than frightening the elderly and young families. It is extreme for these doctors to close their doors indefinitely.The issue of the tail is not as it has been described by these doctors. More accurate information indicates that the liability tail is about three years for adults after their injury by a doctor, and three years for children after they turn 18 years of age. I wait with bated breath for the federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony Abbott, to get involved and condemn this unprecedented action by a small group of doctors making a political point. If doctors generally are to maintain their very high levels of public support, an approach on how to work with the government rather than political gestures will certainly keep them away from the rankings of politicians on this scale. Doctors state wide should consider carefully their targeted industrial action and prove to themselves that this will be a benefit to them, their patients and medicine generally rather than a political gesture with no outcomes.418513:53:004185Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise today to congratulate the Pooraka Football Club on their recent successful `Bulls Ball' at the Veneto Italian Club at Beverley in Adelaide, South Australia, on 15 June 2002. Dress was black tie and it was amazing to see all of our young—and older—footballers in such attire. They looked great. In fact, I could hardly recognise them from the football field. Well done, guys! The ladies were not to be outdone either: their gowns were stunning. Although we encouraged them to stand at their tables to show them all off, they were too shy, except for one brave soul.Saturday night was a particularly special night for me as the federal member for Makin, because one of my formal duties was to present a cheque for the club's junior development. That cheque was for the amount of $10,000, which I was very happy to present on behalf of the Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. John Howard, to honour a pre-election promise for the junior development of the club.I congratulate Max Unger, the general manager; Trevor Hill, the chairman; Dan Turner, the president, and his wife, Ray; the junior football president of the club, Ian Martin; the senior coach, Craig Brooks; and all the volunteers and supporters of the club. Well done!418513:55:004185Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Last Saturday week, I attended the official opening of extensions to the Toongabbie Christian School. Tomorrow, students from that school will be visiting Parliament House, so in advance I welcome them to parliament and also take the opportunity of informing the House of some of the extensions to the school. The school is currently thriving. Recently, it underwent a $3.5 million facelift. A 1,100-seat multipurpose centre is one of the drawcards and part of the extension. The centre will accommodate sport and physical education and stage the school's first major theatre production, The Pirates of Penzance, later this year. The extensions also include a number of technology classrooms, a music teacher centre and extensions to the library, which have also been completed.Toongabbie Christian School now has more than 700 students, from kindergarten to year 12—a far cry from the early days in 1981. As a ministry of the Toongabbie Baptist Church, the school teaches a standard curriculum, including bible classes, and encourages a Christian overview. Staff work with parents to support and strengthen the beliefs, attitudes and teachings found in a Christian home. Students travel from Blacktown, the Hills, Holroyd and Parramatta. (Time expired)418613:56:004186Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6CanningLP10—In the House today, I wish to raise briefly one of the most outrageous acts of arrogance that has been seen in Western Australia, perpetrated by the state Labor government supporting an illegal structure on what is public open space which is sometimes called the `Workers Embassy' or `Solidarity Park'. This illegal structure has now been given a heritage listing by the state Labor government. It was built illegally; it is illegal today. It was born of anarchy and it still is a reminder, a testimony and a monument to the anarchy which was perpetrated on building sites and working sites in Western Australia by the unions, now supported by the state Labor government. The structure should not be there. It demonstrates the worst things about militant and ugly unionism in Western Australia, and it is something that we should absolutely deride in this House as a future manifestation of what the unions would do if they had the carte blanche support of the Labor Party in this country.418613:57:004186Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I want to pay tribute to the role played by the Filipino community in Logan City. The Filipino community is very well represented in Logan City. They are a terrific group of people. They contribute to the community very strongly. They turn up at church meetings and are great singers and they welcome other migrant groups into the community with open arms. The Filipinos are model citizens for this country and they do a terrific job. Recently there have been a number of functions—talent quests and the like—attended by in the order of 200 people. Mr Orlando Vargas has been a great contributor. If we can see that sort of behaviour replicated by citizens across this country, we can only be a stronger and fairer society for it.418613:58:004186Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Last Friday night, I attended a farewell function for Charlie Sanderson, the superintendent of the local area command on the Monaro. People would remember that Charlie Sanderson led the rescue in Thredbo in 1997. He was put into the job as local area commander in early July 1997 and almost before he started the job he had to go to Thredbo. He directed the operations there in an incredible way. The way he brought all the rescuers together from the various teams—the fire brigades, the ambulance teams, the police, the SES, et cetera—was quite remarkable.Charlie Sanderson's 31-year career in policing comes to an end at the end of the week. He was a teacher before he became a policeman 31 years ago. He has done a fantastic job in the Monaro, leading the local area command. You could not get anybody more down to earth than Charlie Sanderson. He is straight talking; you know exactly where you stand. He has great management skills. He is still not all that old and I am pleased that, although he is retiring from the police here, the Commonwealth has recognised his skills: he will be heading to East Timor later in the year on behalf of the Federal Police to help establish policing in East Timor. Well done, Charlie, and all the best in the future!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice4187418714:00:004187McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware of comments by Bob Herbert, the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, on AM this morning, when he said:... I'm not sure what the motives of Tony Abbot have been ... the last thing we really want to do here is to link in the issue of industry policy and industrial relations policy.... ... ...I think the important thing is to try and take the politics out of this.Minister, are you concerned that even the industry is now questioning whether you are promoting industrial relations conflict for political purposes? Aren't the jobs of 58,000 workers and the interests of their families too important for you to play politics with?4187Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I would be very happy to see politics taken out of the car industry. In particular, I would be very happy to see union politics taken out of the car industry. The only threat to 50,000 jobs in the motor industry right now is the AMWU, which has been holding this industry to ransom. Three times in the last 12 months the AMWU has stopped the motor industry in pursuit of its own political objectives. Let me quote an editorial from the Advertiser, which says:It remains clear that the AMWU has deliberately laid siege to the industry in its most vulnerable areas. A relative handful of strikers, at the behest of their union, have put at risk thousands of their fellow workers.The only threat to jobs in the motor industry is the AMWU and the members opposite, who have been donated $3 million by this particular rogue union in the last six years.418714:02:004187Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House how Australia will benefit from Holden's announcement that it will next year begin exporting the Monaro to the United States of America? Is the minister aware of any obstacles to further export growth in the auto sector?4187Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the member for Boothby for his question. Of course, the member for Boothby takes a great deal of interest in the workers of the auto sector, particularly in South Australia. We have already been exporting cars from South Australia to the United States, and our government and our policies have established a trading and economic environment that has seen Australia's export earnings go from $99 billion to $154 billion since 1996. It was great to see the announcement at the end of last week that Holden has secured a deal that will see the Australian car manufacturer export 18,000 Monaros per year to the United States of America. Not only are we are selling rice to Japan and exporting camels back to the Middle East; we are also exporting cars to the United States of America. This is a great outcome for the industry.The Monaro, which will be rebadged for the US market as a Pontiac GTO, is being targeted at the high performance or muscle end of the car market. We suggest that the member for Werriwa might buy one of these cars. The deal is going to add around $500 million a year to the already fantastic export earnings of the auto sector. Last year it earned about $4.9 billion for the Australian economy. This will take it well past $5 billion, and we will be well on track to meet our target of $6 billion by 2005. It will also add hundreds of new jobs to Holden's already 8,000-strong work force. We have been focused, as far as the government are concerned, on putting in place policies that generate jobs—972,000 jobs since we came into office. Certainly in this particular industry our policies have absolutely sustained the fantastic growth in export earnings for the auto sector.I also indicated to the House last week some of the concerns of the auto sector in terms of the future of exports, particularly from the CEO of Holden and the President of Ford, with regard to some of the illegal strike action that has taken place in this industry. We have seen the bloody-minded attitude of some in the union movement towards this industry. We have seen comments from union organisers like Mr Tim Murray, who was reported in the Australian newspaper on 1 May. I will not repeat exactly what he said, but he said that he did not give a four-letter word about the industry; he did not care whether the industry closed down as a result of strike action. He said that he believed legal return to work orders were `BS'. Unions have no regard for the legal structures in this country.This illegal strike action could put at risk the 7,000 auto workers' jobs in the electorates of Labor members of this House. You would think that Labor members of this House would have some regard for the jobs of their constituents. Just out of interest, the member for Batman has 110 auto jobs in his electorate; the member for Ballarat, 800 jobs; the member for Bass, 510 jobs; the member for Blaxland, 250 jobs; the member for Calwell, 740 jobs; the member for Chisholm, 400 jobs; the member for Gellibrand, 290; the member for Greenway, 200; the member for Holt, 100; the member for Isaacs, 540; the member for Kingston, 823; the member for Melbourne Ports, 850; the member for Port Adelaide, 585; the member for Scullin, 250; and of course the member for Hotham, the Leader of the Opposition, 520 jobs.So whilst the member for Hotham is out negotiating with the unions about getting the 60-40 rule down to 50-50, which will not really mean a great deal, he might also negotiate with the union movement that they do not put the export earnings of the auto industry at risk and he might negotiate with the union movement—with Doug Cameron and Tim Murray—that they do not put at risk the jobs of all those workers in the electorates that are represented by the Australian Labor Party. Our government take very seriously our responsibility in representing this sector, as does the member for Boothby. It is a significant question as to whether members of the Australian Labor Party do exactly the same.418814:07:004188McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Again I refer to the comments of the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, Mr Bob Herbert, on AM this morning, when he said:No, I don't think we need confrontation in the industrial arena at any time ... Confrontation does too much damage to Australian industry and the vehicle industry is the classic case. It's an industry that's performing pretty well, it's got sales of 27 billion dollars and exports of 7 billion dollars and employs 58 thousand people, the last thing it needs is confrontation.Minister, why is your approach to encourage confrontation in the car industry rather than to encourage productive and negotiated outcomes? Can you explain who gains by your practice of playing politics by inflaming disputes rather than resolving them?4188Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The last thing I would do is encourage confrontation.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister has the call. He is entitled to be heard in silence.ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is warned!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The only people who are trying to encourage confrontation in the motor industry are the leaders of the AMWU. Let me quote from an editorial in the Financial Review:No industrial organisation has done more in recent times to resurrect Australia's reputation abroad for cutting off its nose to spite its face through bloody-minded strikes and pickets than this rogue union—that is, the AMWU. If you want to quote Bob Herbert, I will quote Bob Herbert. He said in a letter which the Leader of the Opposition would have received on Friday:We are concerned that, based on recent experiences in the vehicle industry, there are those in the trade unions who have little regard for the industrial laws.That is the problem: consistent breach of the workplace relations laws by the AMWU, supported of course by members opposite who are completely in the pockets of the rogue militant unions.418814:10:004188Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the importance of measures to ensure the sustainability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and has the Treasurer seen recent comments relating to the future of the scheme and alternative policy approaches?4189Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Forde for her question. I can inform the House that it is very important that this parliament enact measures to ensure the sustainability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In 1990, a copayment of $2.50 was introduced by the Labor Party on the basis of making the scheme sustainable. It was passed into law with the support of the opposition: the coalition parties in the Senate. The nonconcessional copayment when Labor came to office was $4 and by the time Labor left office it was $16.80. It had increased by 4.2 times.It is important, if Australians want access to subsidised pharmaceuticals, that this be put on a sustainable financial basis. As the Intergenerational Report says, as a proportion of GDP, there is no other area of Commonwealth expenditure which will grow faster than the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, increasing to 3.4 per cent of GDP in 40 years time. So those people who are genuinely concerned about the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will support those measures to make it sustainable. That used to be the Labor Party's position. After all, it introduced the copayment, so we know it is not against the copayment.I am asked whether there are any alternative proposals that are being put around in relation to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I came across one while listening to the Sunday Sunrise program on Sunday. The Leader of the Opposition was fresh back from his triumph at the Western Australian Labor Party conference, which gave new meaning to the 50-50 rule: the 50-50 rule at a Labor Party conference means 50 per cent of the delegates deliver the standing ovation standing and 50 per cent deliver the standing ovation while they are sitting.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer will come to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—They were sitting on the outside, but no doubt standing on the inside.DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—He normally turns his back around at this point, Mr Speaker. Yes, resuming conversations is very important at this point.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer will come to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Leader of the Opposition was asked on the Sunday Sunrise program:If you became Prime Minister, would you give us a guarantee this morning that you would not increase the PBS co-payment?Is that a fair question? After all, he is absolutely opposed to it—so opposed to it that he is voting it down in the Senate. The answer was: `We introduced the copayment.' The interview goes on:Glenn Milne: No, will you give us a guarantee?Simon Crean: Hang on, let me address the question ... We introduced ... Glenn Milne: Well, it's a fair question, isn't it?Simon Crean: We introduced the co-payment ...So he is asked: `Will you give us a guarantee not to increase it?' And he says, `Oh no, we introduced it.' So the policy was to introduce it when Labor were in government: `We won't pledge we won't increase it if Labor ever returns to government. The principle is we'll only vote against it while the coalition is in office.' Is it any wonder that the Australian Labor Party have now run out of economic credibility? They are in favour of copayments when they are in office, they reserve the right to increase them if they ever return and they only vote against them while the coalition is in office.The mystery became even deeper this morning at the doors. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was asked the same question. According to AAP, when asked if she could rule out raising PBS copayments if Labor were in government, Ms Macklin replied:We're opposing the government's proposition at the moment.That's where the debate is at this stage.Can we just ask that the moment pass very quickly, please. We will re-introduce the measures, you can return to what has always been your policy and we can end the debate. There is no in principle opposition to the copayment on the part of the Labor Party. They will not rule out increasing the copayment if they ever return to office. They are opposing it at the moment for opportunism. Why don't they do the right thing by the people of Australia?83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: could you ask the Treasurer to stop screaming and shouting?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will resume his seat.419014:16:004190Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Why did the minister threaten to cut support for the car industry unless employers implement the government's industrial relations agenda? Will the minister now withdraw that threat or will he persist in putting at risk the jobs of 58,000 workers and $5 billion in exports? Does the minister agree that the car industry is too important to be the plaything of politicians?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not a question; it is a series of arguments and allegations. I ask that you rule it out of order.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta makes a point of order on the structure of the question. The question, like many questions, is on the edge of what the standing orders allow. It is, however, consistent with what the member for Parramatta will find has been allowed over at least the last 10 or 20 years.83VDr EMERSON—The final part of my question is: will the government still be providing assistance to the industry when the current arrangements expire?4190Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—Thank you, Mr Speaker.83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Rankin has asked his question.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—I thought it was the Brindabellas. Unlike those who sit opposite, our government does have an industrial relations reform agenda. Quite rightly, that reform agenda was identified again on radio this morning. The chief of the Australian Industry Group, Bob Herbert, again highlighted the industrial relations reforms that are needed in the car industry. I have made no suggestion that car industry support will be cut as a result of industrial action, but I can tell you that a number of other people have suggested in their submissions that there needs to be industrial relations reform in the car industry if that car industry is to grow and prosper. Bob Herbert, in the Australian Industry Group submission, called for things like secret ballots and cooling-off periods and allowing the commissioner to intervene. Last week we had the economic writer in the Australian saying that the great fear of the car industry is not tariff cuts but the next enterprise bargaining wage round. To those who have commented on the next car industry package, let me say that there are a number of people who are arguing the case. The next car industry package will be determined by the due process of government, based on the submissions to the Productivity Commission inquiry.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—I seek leave to table a statement from the minister which clearly threatens to withdraw assistance.Leave granted.419014:20:004190Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Following the Electrolux Federal Court decision, can you inform the House what the government is doing to protect freedom of choice for Australian workers? How is the government ensuring that freedom of association remains the cornerstone of the government's workplace relations agenda? Are there any alternative policies in this area?4190Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Cook for his question. I am aware of a Federal Court decision last Friday which gives the green light to compulsory union levies, which gives the green light to a form of industrial conscription, which unions are interested in to reverse the calamitous decline of membership over the last decade. If this decision is not reversed by legislation or on appeal, hundreds of thousands of Australian workers will be subject to a union tax of $500 a year. This is compulsory unionism by the back door. It is an attempt by certain militant unions to go back to the bad old days of `no ticket, no start'. This idea that you can demand payment for so-called services that have not been requested in advance is nothing but a scam. If a business tried to do this, it would be guilty of an offence under the trade practices legislation.I have been asked about alternative policy. Let me quote the most successful Labor leader of recent times, Premier Bob Carr. He rightly said:You can't put a tax on other members of the workforce and a state can't require the collection of union fees from non-unionists.Not surprisingly, in this as in so many things, the Leader of the Opposition has shown a lot less backbone. Predictably, the Leader of the Opposition supported the right of unions to demand money from strangers. In doing that he did not declare a pecuniary interest even though the 10 largest union donors have given $27 million to the Labor Party in the last six years. The member for Hotham did not declare a personal interest even though he was only able to man his polling booths because the unions bussed in workers.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 145. The minister is not being remotely relevant to the question. If he wants to behave like the Mike Tyson of industrial relations, pull him into order.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The unions did not just bus in the workers, they bussed in the local member.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, this is entirely relevant. It is about the hold that the unions have. The member for Hotham is one of the very few members of this place who have never lived in their own electorate.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will return to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—This government is determined to protect freedom of association. This government has legislation in the parliament and if members opposite were determined to protect the ordinary rights of Australian workers to join or not to join trade unions they would support the government's compulsory union levy bill.419114:24:004191Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is it the case that after 23 days of disputation the BHP Western Port dispute was only resolved when the Australian Industrial Relations Commission became involved and that when the umpire got involved the dispute was settled within 24 hours? Minister, doesn't your act currently prevent the umpire getting involved to direct the parties to bargain in good faith? If you are serious about improved industrial relations, will you agree to introduce legislation to enable the umpire to get involved earlier in resolving disputes, or do you just want to continue playing politics with these issues?4191Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition is anxious to curry favour with union leaders today because on the weekend no less a person than the leader of the CFMEU in Western Australia, Kevin Reynolds, said:I personally haven't been very impressed with his leadership.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 145, the minister is clearly defying your previous ruling and moving outside the question.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister has been speaking for 24 seconds. It is somewhat premature for me to determine how relevant his answer is.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Kevin Reynolds said:It was a disaster the day Kim Beazley gave it away. I only wish he'd come back.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the same standing order raised by the member for Lilley, how can an answer relating to the comments of a building official in Western Australia relate to a question about a steel industry dispute in Victoria? It is clearly out of order.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister was asked—BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—It is out of his jurisdiction.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lyons is warned! The minister was asked a question about whether the bill that he was introducing would provide earlier intervention by the umpire, in this case the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. I am listening to the minister and I invite him to come back to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, after being invited back by Kevin Reynolds, was quoted in the Canberra Times. He said:I have given myself 12 months to think it over. I do not reject the idea that I would contest again.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will relate his remarks to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—On the subject of the Industrial Relations Commission—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The minister is clearly abusing your rulings.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the Manager of Opposition Business have a point of order on relevance?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—The point of order is on relevance. The minister has moved well beyond what the question was about.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition business will resume his seat—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition business will resume his seat or I will deal with him! The minister has been speaking for less than a minute and I think he has been interrupted on four occasions with points of order. It was reasonable for me to expect him to come to something relevant to the question and I invite him to do so.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Let me make it very plain. The BHP Western Port dispute ended at precisely the moment the unions concerned were threatened with powerful sanctions under the government's Workplace Relations Act. The dispute ended when the unions were in breach of an injunction from the Federal Court and were threatened with sanctions for breach of that injunction. That was the point at which the dispute ended. I am all in favour of giving the Australian Industrial Relations Commission more power to order cooling off periods in the event of intractable industrial disputes. If members opposite were serious about helping the Industrial Relations Commission to resolve industrial disputes they would support the genuine bargaining bill that this government has before the parliament now.419214:29:004192Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Is the minister aware of people still in Indonesia with the intention of travelling unlawfully to Australia or beyond? Can the minister inform the House of the government's measures to dissuade those people from travelling unlawfully and whether there are any other views on the government's strategy?4192Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Forrest for his question. I know of his interest in these matters. I recently had the opportunity in his electorate of talking to a large number of people about these issues. In relation to the very specific question he asked, we have received information from a variety of sources and, in putting that together, it gives us a picture of what is happening in Indonesia at this time.The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have told us that they have made findings in relation to a number of people who have approached them. It is in the order of 500 people. The UNHCR are now seeking to find places for them in resettlement programs abroad or away from Indonesia. It is also estimated that another 1,500 people, and possibly more, either are in Indonesia with the International Organisation for Migration or, if they have not made contact with the IOM, remain in the country seeking various outcomes. Obviously, those in the hands of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are waiting for resettlement; others have been electing to go home. I think the IOM at the moment have something in the order of 170 people—Afghans in the main—waiting to be repatriated. Some are still waiting to be processed, but others are waiting to travel unlawfully to Australia or to other countries.A year ago our estimates were that there could have been as many as 3½ thousand people in that position, and the Indonesian government thought at one time that there were as many as 5,000 people in that position. The implication of that is very clear—that is, the measures that we have been implementing have been having some effect, and that has been a very important outcome. You have to ask yourself: why, when you have measures that are having a positive impact and protecting your interests, would you want to walk away from them? That to me is the most important question that the opposition has to answer at this time.A number of measures play a part in sending a very strong message to people smugglers. They include Operation Relex; mandatory detention; the ability to ensure that people are able to be processed and, if they are found not to be refugees, to be removed from Australia; and the capacity to be able to land people—particularly if you are not able to return them—in places that are excised from our migration zone, such as Christmas Island, Cocos Island and the Ashmore-Cartier reef, and to be able to process them where they cannot access a determination system which is inevitably more generous or which some people believe will lead to very different outcomes in terms of whether or not they are found to be refugees.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—And the Federal Police.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Yes, I will acknowledge the role of the Federal Police and others. It is a multiplicity of measures that we have been taking. The opposition see these measures as being somewhat like a menu: that they can pick and choose. They say, `We think that some work and that we can put the others to one side,' as if you could wait and pick them up at another time if you wished. The fact is that the totality of those measures has been working and, particularly in relation to the question of excision—83TRudd, Kevin, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Griffith!83TRudd, Kevin, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Griffith is defying the chair.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—you know that excision has never been an abandonment of Australian sovereignty. You were prepared to accept excision in relation to Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Ashmore Reef. I notice that the member for Werriwa said on Friday night that he did not see it as being terribly significant that they were excised from the migration zone because they were closer to Indonesia, and he was almost prepared to say that they ought to be part of Indonesian territory, not ours. The fact is that there are people intent on travelling without authority into this region. The fact is that we have had advice that there ought to be additional excisions in order to ensure that those arrangements continue to work to our benefit. They are not an abandonment of our sovereignty. It is an exercise of our sovereignty. But where does the Labor Party stand on this matter?Government members interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Yes, the Labor Party are about surrendering. The Labor Party are about surrendering to the people smugglers and abandoning Australia to their aspirations to bring people here without authority—unless you think that this is in some way an aberration. If you think that the Leader of the Opposition is really still serious about border protection, look at what he and his party are now saying about mandatory detention. The Labor Party are now saying, `We think mandatory detention is only necessary to identify people for security purposes and for character assessment, not for processing and not for holding people for removal. It is only necessary for those purposes.' Every time the Labor Party go down that route and give succour to the people smugglers—not defending before their own councils the policy that they have supported and adopted over the years, walking away from it; not prepared to take the argument up to them—we see the Labor Party wanting to adopt failed policies that have been implemented elsewhere. We know that, when you allow your system to be overrun with large numbers of asylum seekers—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister has the call. The member for Sydney!0J4Mr RUDDOCK—You know that you only have to look at what has been happening in Europe. You know—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will address his remarks through the chair. 0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Mr Speaker, I simply want to make this point—83LGillard, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lalor!0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Essentially, mandatory detention has enabled us to have people properly processed. If they are found to be refugees, we honour those obligations. It means that, if people are found not to be refugees—and we have a large number of people like that held in detention now—we have them available for removal. We know the alternative policies that have been implemented, particularly in Europe, and which they are now questioning. In Britain and France, they can tell you what happens. If you process people and you do not have them available for removal, what you find is that you have something like they are faced with in Britain now: 270,000 people who have simply disappeared and are not available for removal. In France, they admit that, in all of the studies that they have undertaken, 90 per cent of failed asylum seekers disappear into the community.I would admit that Australia has been very different in relation to those matters. I would admit that when Labor was in office—and perhaps for the member for Grayndler it is a matter of noting this—there were very low rates of apprehension of people who were unlawful in the Australian community. But we have lifted that up to the point where one in four unlawfuls in the Australian community are located every year. We have been able to deal with these issues very successfully.83LGillard, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lalor is warned!0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I think it is important that the Labor Party do not forget the lessons of the past. I think they ought to get a bit of resolve and decide that they are going to go into their own party councils and defend the policies that they know work, instead of abdicating in relation to border control.K26Latham, Mark, MPDK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Werriwa made some comments about the minister at the dispatch box. I found the words offensive, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPK26Latham, Mark, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am not being assisted by the present exchange between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the member for Werriwa. I did not hear the comments made by the member for Werriwa, which puts me at a distinct disadvantage. I expect all members to treat each other with the sort of courtesy which the electors expect us to treat each other with. I call the member for Bruce.419414:40:004194Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you recall saying five years ago to customers being squeezed by banks:It's important that customers shop around.And do you recall repeating that advice on many occasions since, including as recently as last Friday? Isn't it the case that over those five years bank fees paid by households have leapt by more than $1 billion per year? When are you actually going to do something to help battling Australian families with the burden of bank fees?4194Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—One of the most direct things that the government did to help Australians with bank fees is that we abolished $1.2 billion of financial institutions duty.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne!CT4Mr COSTELLO—One of the brains trust of the Labor Party then says, `You gave them GST.' There is no GST on financial services. YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Just on everything else.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Oh, a small problem: so now it is on other things.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer will address his remarks through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—You asked me about financial services. I give you the answer that this government very directly abolished $1.2 billion of financial institutions duty, which was not supported by the Labor Party. In addition, we have a program for the abolition of the other remaining tax on banks—the bank account debits tax—and an agreement with the states for that to be abolished in a couple of years time; so that is very direct relief for Australian families in relation to fees.In relation to the fees which the banks themselves charge—not taxes; they are not charged by the Commonwealth or in addition to the states—as I said on Friday, I believe that there are many of those products which are offered by the banks where the fees are high. They are too high for the people who are using them. That is why I think it is very important that new products are introduced, for example, the no-fee accounts which allow up to a number of transactions for no fees. In addition—I do not want to name all of the companies—I notice that there is currently advertising on the television screens of Australia a new foreign entrant which advertises accounts for no fees for unlimited transactions. It is a very good product for people who are worried about fees to take up. I understand that the take-up in relation to that new foreign entrant has been quite substantial for those reasons.The most important thing for the consumer is to get the kind of product which will not charge fees or will charge fees only where the consumer is doing exceptionally unusual transactions over and above the normal deposits and withdrawals. In addition to that, the government says that it is open in relation to any evidence of breaches of the Trade Practices Act or of improper pricing or of lack of competition or of collusion between the banks being examined in its entirety. I may also point out to the House that the government's invitation to the Reserve Bank of Australia to look at credit card interchange fees is, I believe, yielding some substantial results. That has not yet run its full course, and obviously there is a great deal of resistance. Additionally in relation to that, the opening up of that sector to new competitive forces has the potential to bring benefits for consumers.419514:44:004195Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the recent visit by the Secretary-General of the Association of South East Asian Nations—ASEAN—including discussions with him about regional security and the broader issue of people smuggling. Is the minister aware of alternative approaches?4195Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the member for Maranoa for his question. I know how well he represents the people of that electorate in this place, on issues including that of engagement with Asia. The Secretary-General of ASEAN, Rodolfo Severino, visited Australia last week, and we had excellent discussions with him. He also met with the Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade, me and others. In our discussions we focused particularly on the issues of key importance to Australia and ASEAN: cooperation between a number of ASEAN countries and Australia on the issue of countering terrorism; a range of transnational issues, and obviously, in particular, people-smuggling. We had extensive discussions on trade between Australia and ASEAN and, in particular, on the emerging closer economic partnership between ASEAN and Australia.I was impressed and pleased to see that Mr Severino in an interview a day or so later in the Australian Financial Review said he could not see how any country could be closer to ASEAN than Australia is. The fact is that the cooperation between ASEAN and Australia has been excellent on a range of very difficult issues over recent times. I particularly refer to the issue of people-smuggling. I note that Mr Severino congratulated Australia as well as Indonesia for co-hosting the Bali people-smuggling conference which was held in February. I explained to Mr Severino that the two ad hoc expert groups established in Bali will play a critical role in strengthening regional measures to criminalise and combat people-smuggling. The fact is that the relationship on difficult regional issues, not least people-smuggling, is emerging as a very strong relationship between Australia and ASEAN.The member for Maranoa asked if there were any alternative approaches. There is, of course, the Labor Party's approach, in particular the Labor Party's approach to people-smuggling. I noticed back in February that the Leader of the Opposition said:No-one that I have heard has argued for the abolition of mandatory detention.That was in February. Since then, the New South Wales Labor Party has voted against mandatory detention, the Queensland Labor Party has voted against mandatory detention, and this weekend—when a few people stood up and gave the Leader of the Opposition a standing ovation and many others sat down—the Labor Party in Western Australia said that it would only support the current system of mandatory detention with an initial custodial appraisal followed by accommodation in community settings. Even the Western Australian division of the Labor Party is walking away from a policy which sometimes, but not always, is professed to be the policy of the parliamentary Labor Party.Anybody who watched the Leader of the Opposition on Sunrise yesterday—and I did squeeze in a glance at it before going off to play golf and doing something much more constructive than watching the Leader of the Opposition, although my score at golf was about as bad as his on television—would have seen the Leader of the Opposition once more make the point that Labor has started to make: that other countries in our region need to do more to address people-smuggling so that Australia can do less. That, ultimately, is the Labor Party's approach—or at least that of most people in the Labor Party. The member for Werriwa stood up in this House on Thursday, frankly in contradiction to the Labor Party's current position, and was out there arguing what a good thing mandatory detention was. He said:After all, it was a Labor government, the Keating government, that established mandatory detention in this country ... This was one of the proud achievements of the Keating administration ...This coming from a man who today said to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs: `Hand in your badge, Adolf.' In other words, he was accusing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs of being Hitler-like, when he himself professes to be a supporter of mandatory detention, and the Leader of the Opposition has no idea what his position is at all.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister! The minister will come back to the question.4G4Mr DOWNER—The simple fact is that Barry Jones was dead right: the Labor Party has lost its way, and I think further evidence of that was in the Canberra Times at the weekend. There was a very warm and heartfelt interview with the member for Brand. Buried in that story—and what a warm story it was!—the member for Brand said:“I have given myself 12 months to think it over. I do not reject the idea that I would contest—the seat of Brand—again.”He is giving it 12 months to think it over, to see how hopeless you are in the next 12 months.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—How long did you last, Alex?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition! I am on my feet. Do you want me to deal with you as the standing orders provide?Distinguished Visitors419614:50:004196SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—It seems an inappropriate note on which to remind members that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the former member for Cowper and former deputy speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Garry Nehl. On behalf of all members, I extend to Mr Nehl a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice4196419614:51:004196O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall advising bank customers to just shop around if they want to avoid high bank fees? Treasurer, which of the banks should people shop around to? To the NAB, which made a $2 billion profit last year? To the Commonwealth, which made a $2.4 billion profit? To Westpac and the ANZ, which both made $1.9 billion? Or to foreign banks with no branches in my regional communities? Treasurer, isn't your `shopping around' advice merely your excuse to do nothing?8H4Hawker, David, MPMr Hawker—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker, which is standing order 146: a question fully answered cannot be repeated.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I was more concerned about the way in which the question was asked than about whether or not it canvassed issues that had been fully dealt with by a previous question. I will allow the question to stand but I indicate to the member for Bass that it did contain more—argument was not the term I had in mind—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will deal very swiftly with those who want, in fact, to take over question time. The question contained more imputation than I thought was justified.4197Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I do not know that the Labor Party has a plan to regulate bank profits. If it does, I would be very happy to hear it. If you object to banks making profits perhaps you could tell us what your plan for regulating profit outcomes is. I am sure the people of Australia would be interested to know it. In 1949 the plan was to nationalise the banks.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—Chifley was right!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—He said Chifley was right!Opposition members—Chif was right!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Their frontbench just interjected, `Chif was right.' If it is the plan of the Labor Party to nationalise the banks—and I see the shadow Treasurer nodding—then we would be interested to know it.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Banks may have been taking his seat a little literally with his interjections.84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 145 and relevance. My question clearly asked for the Treasurer's decision—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Bass will resume her seat.CT4Mr COSTELLO—If the member wants to get up and read out the profits of the banks in her question, we are entitled to refer to it. It is absolutely relevant.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have deemed the question and answer in order.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Can I point out to her that some of the banks that she mentioned have a number of transactions per month for no fees. They may be appropriate for people. With some of the foreign banks that she mentioned you do not need branches; you can invest without fees. 83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—After five years under you fees have gone up by over a billion dollars!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Griffith!CT4Mr COSTELLO—In addition to that can I say that the member focuses only on banks. We have found on this side of the House that one of the good financial institutions is credit unions, actually, and I am sure there would be some credit unions in Launceston.84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—Launceston is presumably a town that you are interested in. One of the things we on this side of the House actually did in relation to credit unions was to give them access to cheque accounts and entry into the payment system, which was something that the Labor Party had not managed to get around to doing in its 13 years in government. Incidentally, there is another thing the Labor Party never did in 13 years of government: it never actually fixed bank fees, surprisingly enough.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Not in year one, two, three, four or right up to year 13.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—When did they become a real problem?CT4Mr COSTELLO—It wasn't a problem under the Labor Party! No, the Labor Party did not have to fix them because it was not a problem under the Labor Party!YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Under you they became an issue.CT4Mr COSTELLO—By definition, if Labor is in power, nothing is a problem, according to the member for Melbourne. It is like the PBS—that was not a problem when Labor was in power, either.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP9V5Pyne, Chris, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned! So is the member for Sturt.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer continues to shout and scream—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will resume his seat.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—Will you pull him into line?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lowe is warned!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Can I reaffirm that in the 13 years of Labor government there was no price setting in relation to fees. Labor's interest is either newfound or they concur with the member for Melbourne that there was no problem under Labor, by definition, because Labor was in government. But I recommend that credit unions and other financial institutions, which under our reforms are now regulated on a national basis with prudential regulation, do actually give much better services than banks. I know one of the things that the member might look at that I have found very successful in my electorate is the Bendigo Bank community bank. If you can get together a group of business people who are prepared to give their custom to the Bendigo Bank, the Bendigo Bank will move in and offer that service to a particular community with the prudential regulation that it engages in. I know on this side of the House that members have found that to be a very practical outcome, and we recommend that to the Labor Party. Sometimes members can be pretty useful in helping the community get together and get better banking services.419814:58:004198Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—My question is addressed to the highly respected Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister inform the House of further important developments in the government's review of higher education? Is the minister aware of other comments or policies in this area?4198Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thank the member for Ryan for his question. I was thinking only on Friday, when he was speaking to me about the University of Queensland, that the only more vigorous and constructive advocate for the University of Queensland than its Vice-Chancellor, Professor John Hay, is of course the member for Ryan. When Sir Winston Churchill went to address Harvard University in September 1943 he said, in a rather prescient address, that the empires of the future would be `empires of the mind'. As a nation we have crossed a threshold from the 20th to the 21st century, and this government is thinking in particular of not only how we add value to traditional commodities with ideas and education but also how we support emerging new industries. That is why reform of Australian universities is so important. Reform to or fixing and changing Australian higher education is not so much about universities for the remainder of this year or indeed next year; it is about how they will be serving the people of Ryan, the people of the regions of this country and indeed the entire nation 10 or 20 years from now.On Friday night I had the privilege of releasing the second in a series of discussion papers—to inform what I hope will emerge as a mature and well informed debate about our choices in higher education—at the conference organised for vice-chancellors in the Blue Mountains, which was also attended by the member for Macquarie. That paper, which is entitled `Striving for quality: learning, teaching and scholarship', seeks to challenge Australians, especially those in universities, to think about the emphasis we place on teaching and also research and scholarship: what is the relationship between research and teaching in a university and what do students, their families and, in particular, employers want of those who graduate from Australian universities? Amongst the many emails and faxes I received on Friday was one from an academic in one particular university who said:Dear Dr Nelson, I have just picked up today's Australian, and this is another good call. There is little recognition by universities of the value of teaching. It is well nigh impossible to get promotion on the basis of teaching. The current situation provides an active incentive for staff to put students as the third priority behind research and administration when judging how to apportion their time.He also said:Research has been the critical factor in the assessment of candidates for promotion in this institution. I am unaware of any case in this university where teaching performance has outweighed research in the assessment of candidates for promotion.So when we are thinking about reform of Australian higher education, it is not just about funding: it is about the quality of teaching and scholarship in institutions; how they are governed and administered; how we commercialise research and ideas; how we put a sound funding platform under our regional universities; and, importantly, how we ensure growing access for students from low income families. We have 94,000 students from the lowest socioeconomic status suburbs in universities at the moment and 123,000 students from rural and regional Australia, and we want to increase the numbers.I am asked about other comments or policies. There has been a lot of consultation. I have consulted with universities, with my colleagues, of course, and also with vice-chancellors and academics. The National Tertiary Education Union put an excellent suggestion to me when I met with them recently; we are now doing a monograph on Indigenous participation in higher education. But the one organisation that has yet to make a constructive contribution is the Australian Labor Party. The only thing that we have had from the Labor Party which remotely resembles anything constructive is from the member for Jagajaga. In a media release on Friday 21 June, she said the opposition agrees that there `needs to be a greater emphasis on the quality of teaching and learning in universities'. Also the AustralianFinancialReview today reports:The federal opposition has moved closer to accepting university specialisation as a part of the government's tertiary education reforms. Altering the one-size-fits-all funding model was worth considering, said Labor's education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin.The problem the Labor Party has got is that it has one solution to all problems, and that solution is to put more public money into the problem, no matter what the nature of the problem. So, in concluding, I think there are a couple of things that need to be said. The first concerns a very important observation made by Father Malloy, who is the President of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana in the United States. Coming to Australia in the midst of this debate, he said:There are so many different demands on the resources available to the government it takes leaders with a big vision and a recognition that the world is changing to do something.That, of course, is something that the opposition—and the Leader of the Opposition as he is online to the ACTU to get his instructions for the next answer—need to consider. I think one of the most responsible remarks made by a university vice-chancellor was that of Professor Kerry Cox, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ballarat. He said:If I white-ant everything, the capacity of Australia as a whole would be jeopardised.What he is referring to are policy termites that white-ant anything constructive and, of course, that was probably the inspiration for the term `Creanite' in Mr Keating's biography. So this is about our future. It should rise above the day-to-day partisanship which characterises the Labor Party's approach to issues, and I invite the Australian Labor Party to make a submission on the future of the country and its economic and social development through universities.419915:05:004199Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, given your comments last week that in order to avoid bank fees customers should shop around, what will you say to the residents of Barcaldine during your forthcoming visit as they only have one in-store Westpac outlet? Treasurer, where do you shop around when there is only one shop in town?2V5Swan, Wayne, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Manager of Opposition Business! The Treasurer has the call.5I4McMullan, Bob, MP4200Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thought the shadow Treasurer might be asking a question, Mr Speaker, but I will just wait.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Just wait!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I have been waiting. Can I say in relation to the banking question—and I think this is the third question that has been asked—that our judgment was that when the Labor Party deregulated the financial system in 1983 it was the right thing to do, and we supported it. We supported the Labor Party in 1983 when it deregulated the financial system; we have never proposed to reregulate it. But if that bipartisan position has been broken and the Labor Party now wants to reregulate the financial system, we would be very happy to hear it. But I think you ought to put that up front; you ought to make that clear.In relation to the alternatives to banks, as I have said, there are fee-free bank accounts for low transactions offered by nearly all of the major banks, there are some foreign banks which give unlimited transactions for no fees at all, and there is the alternative of credit unions, which we have now brought up to full competition against the banking system, with access to the payment system and cheques. I mentioned the opportunity for communities to bring in the Bendigo Bank. I am told by the member for Blair that he has found the Heritage Building Society in Queensland, which offers a community banking model similar to the Bendigo Bank and has opened up at Crows Nest and elsewhere in the electorate of Blair to be a very good alternative. He would recommend it to other electorates in the area. In addition to that, one of the things that the government has been doing, of course, is setting up its transaction centres. The Department of Transport and Regional Services has facilities in relation to that which I am sure are very available. In addition to that, the government has also enhanced banking opportunities through Australia Post, allowing people to do their banking through it. So there are alternatives in Australia Post, regional transaction centres, the Heritage Building Society and the Bendigo Bank model. Our view is that it is wrong to lead people to believe that the only people that offer financial services are banks. We are all about enhancing choice, enhancing competition and ensuring that people can get the best services. We find that pretty effective. But if the Labor Party wants to go down the path of reregulating the financial system, get your leader to say it, because we would be very happy to have a debate on the issue.420015:09:004200Tollner, David, MPMr TOLLNER00AN4SolomonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Can the minister inform the House of any recent reports that show current unfair dismissal laws are having a negative impact on small business, particularly the 7,600 small businesses in the Northern Territory? Minister, what are the impediments to changing the unfair dismissal laws, and how does the composition of the parliament reflect a broader understanding of the issues confronting small business?4200Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—I thank the member for Solomon for his question. I have seen a report in the Northern Territory News indicating that small business is confused about unfair dismissal laws. In fact, the report indicates that small businesses feel they will always lose unfair dismissal claims under current legislation and that the unfair dismissal laws are a reason for employing casuals over permanent staff.There are two members of this House that represent the interests of Northern Territorians. On the one hand you have the member for Solomon, who is a great advocate for small businesses in the Northern Territory. He has worked with small businesses and, in fact, in only his second week in parliament, he gave a speech supporting the abolition of unfair dismissal laws as they apply to small business. This is in stark contrast to the member for Lingiari. He has been in this place for 13 years and has only spoken twice in this House about unfair dismissal laws. On one of those occasions he was complaining about how he was the innocent victim of an unfair dismissal claim; on the other occasion he was complaining that the laws were not tough enough on small business. But, to be fair to the member for Lingiari, he is thinking about industrial relations. We all know he cares about industrial relations—for example, he has delivered two speeches in this place on industrial relations and on the importance of union picnic days to workers.I am asked about how the composition of the parliament may reflect a broader understanding of the issues affecting small business. When you look at the published resumes of members of parliament, the fog starts to clear, particularly in relation to the Labor Party. Over half of the coalition's members and senators have a small business background: they have either worked in small business or have been a part of small businesses. Over half of the people in the Liberal and National parties have experience in small business.2V5Swan, Wayne, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is warned!DK6Mr HOCKEY—Compare that to the Labor Party where, even on the most generous assessment, one in 10 members of the Labor Party have had some experience in small business. The Senate is not far from voting on the unfair dismissal laws. In the Senate there is only one Labor senator who has ever worked in small business, and that is Senator Barney Cooney, who is retiring in a week. The Labor Party, which is going to oppose the abolition of unfair dismissal laws as they apply to small business, is going to make a decision in the Senate when not one Labor senator has ever worked in a small business or worked with a small business. That is why the Labor Party is out of touch. It has 50-50 rules, it has 60-40 rules. There is a 90-10 rule and small business is the loser, according to the Labor Party.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Unlike you, Joe, who turned HIH into a small business!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa is warned!420115:13:004201McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, are you aware of an article by Terry McCrann in the Herald Sun relating a reader's experience of shopping around from one bank to another—in this instance, to take advantage of lower fees for cash advances on credit cards—only to discover, once he had transferred to the new bank, that it then moved to charge the same fee for the same transaction? Treasurer, isn't it the case that shopping around is no guarantee of escaping high bank fees? Treasurer, given the special significance of this issue to Australian families, why won't you give Allan Fels the special powers necessary for him to monitor bank fees?4201Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The ACCC will be given the same powers to monitor fees as it had under 13 years of Labor government.DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—Why not different ones, did you say?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Treasurer!CT4Mr COSTELLO—`Why not different ones?' he interjects, Mr Speaker.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—That is not what I said.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It will have the same powers that it had under 13 years of Labor Party government. Those powers include the ability to look at collusion, anticompetitive arrangements, misuse of market power or misleading or deceptive conduct. But what you did not have over the last 13 years were credit unions which could issue cheques and have access to the payment system. You did not have rural transaction centres. You did not have a Department of Transport and Regional Services that could assist in bringing community banks into regional areas. You did not have the opportunities of the Bendigo Bank or the Heritage Building Society.If you want to turn to credit cards, I earlier raised the one thing which the Labor Party never did during 13 years, something which is occurring at the moment, and that is looking at the interchange fees. Labor never did anything about interchange fees, which are the fees that banks charge each other in relation to credit cards. We have had a Reserve Bank inquiry, or really the Payments System Board inquiry, and it has made recommendations. Those recommendations are designed to break down those interchange fees. The implementation of those changes would be the biggest change in relation to credit card interchange fees that we have seen since we have had credit cards in Australia.VU5Griffin, Alan, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Bruce!CT4Mr COSTELLO—That is a matter which the Payments System Board is still bringing to an end in its negotiations. I think that is the way to do it. I think the way to get better banking services in Australia is by introducing new competitors, by keeping the pressure down on interest rates and by abolishing government taxes such as FID and bank account debits tax. Apart from abolishing taxes, that was the way the Labor Party saw it when it was in government. It never actually saw the prospect of abolishing taxes and never actually abolished them.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—That is not right.CT4Mr COSTELLO—No; that is right. The Labor Party never abolished a financial tax. When this government moved to abolish financial institutions duty and bank account debits tax, the Labor Party opposed it. This is the government which abolished taxes on financial institutions. But if the Labor Party wants to argue that the financial system should be reregulated, that the government should reregulate the financial system, we would be interested to hear its proposition. After all, its constitution still commits it to the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and if that actually extends to the financial system we would be very interested to hear it. We will debate that issue. We would be very keen to debate that issue: whether or not you still believe in your constitution—we would be very happy to debate that. That is a philosophic and a policy debate. We supported you when you turned away from nationalisation and deregulated the financial system. We were a responsible opposition. If you want to go back, we will oppose you, but we would actually like to know what the proposition is.420215:18:004202Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing. Could the minister inform the House on how the government is extending the availability of respite care to frail older Australians?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Before I recognise the minister, I would remind the members for Lyons, Brisbane, Lalor, Griffith, Lowe, Melbourne, Sturt, Lilley and Werriwa that if they wonder whether or not the Speaker is prepared to discharge the standing orders they might like to consult the member for Lingiari.4202Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I thank the member for Moore for his question. I had the pleasure of participating in a forum on ageing held in his electorate recently which he was an enthusiastic supporter of.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Did he put on a good red?HK5Mr ANDREWS—It was in the middle of the afternoon, Prime Minister. Carers provide an important social function for so many Australians and that is why I was able to announce on behalf of the government last week additional funding of some $8 million over two years for a carers respite package. This funding will be directed to the Commonwealth carer respite centres and also to expand respite services in the community. The federal government recognises and appreciates the significant contribution that carers make to the quality of life of frail older Australians and to the community as a whole. This package earmarks a million dollars in 2001-02 and $3 million in the financial year 2002-03 to expand respite services in the community, including in-home respite, day centre respite, host family and peer support respite, and a further $4 million has been allocated for Commonwealth respite centres across the country to enable them to directly reserve and to purchase residential respite places and short-term emergency respite places on behalf of carers. This is part of the government's commitment and ongoing response to an ageing population, a commitment which is also verified by an additional $80 million in the recent budget for carers.420315:21:004203Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Ageing. Has the minister seen reports that 17 of the 29 nursing homes which have been inspected in Victoria have failed to meet government standards? Is the minister aware that these breaches included disposable syringes reused for medical procedures, no fresh fruit available for residents for two years, a failure to call doctors for ill residents, and homes that stink of urine and bathrooms soiled with faeces? Minister, aren't you just following in the foul tradition of your predecessors Bishop, Moylan and Smith?3K6Cameron, Ross, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Parramatta. The member for Grayndler must be well aware that, certainly, parts of his question contained inferences and imputations that would put it out of order. If he cares to ask the latter part of the question without those inferences and imputations, I will allow it to stand.R36Mr ALBANESE—My question is directed to the—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler will ask the latter part of his question, without the imputation.R36Mr ALBANESE—I have asked, `Minister—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—If the member for Grayndler wants me to ask the question for him, I will do so.R36Mr ALBANESE—No, no; I am—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—But I want him to state his last sentence without the imputation he made to the minister.R36Mr ALBANESE—Minister, are you satisfied with the state of the aged care system in Victoria, which you are in charge of?4203Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I thank the member for Grayndler for his question. This government established the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency to regulate aged care homes. That is something which, in 13 years in government, the Labor Party failed absolutely to do. We have also put in place a series of sanctions if aged care providers do not meet standards. Those sanctions include a reduction in the accreditation period, an appointment of a nurse administrator and a ban on homes accepting new residents until standards are met. This sends a strong message to providers that the care of residents should be their No. 1 priority.The article which the member for Grayndler refers to shows that in fact the aged care agency is doing its job and that standards will be enforced. Since January 2001, the agency has made more than 3,800 visits to aged care homes—which has resulted in only two per cent of those homes having a changed accreditation period. It is indicative that the agency is acting as a responsible regulator and that standards overall are improving. The government will and does continue to expect the agency to do its job, and the care of all residents remains the No. 1 priority.420315:26:004203Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Can the minister inform the House of any new initiatives in employment services, and are there any alternatives for improving services to job seekers?4203Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. He has always been a very strong advocate for the unemployed in his electorate. I have actually visited his electorate and met some of the Job Network members, and I know the high regard in which he is held.Everyone in the House is aware that one of the great successes of the Howard government is the Job Network and the direct and personalised services that this government has directed to those people who unfortunately do not have employment. Nearly one million people have gained employment since this government came to power. But I am pleased to inform the House that from 1 July this year there will be further enhancements to more individualised, directed services through the Australians Working Together initiatives delivered by this government.There will be 30,000 extra Job Search training places at a cost of $19 million, and 16,500 extra Work for the Dole places at a cost of $43 million, building better communities and better individuals. There will be 35,000 job seekers with community placement commitments to be made; and 60,000 job seekers in their last week of Work for the Dole will be able to have access to a passport to employment—direct assistance to make the leap from unemployment into paid employment. There will also be training credits and training accounts, at a cost of over $100 million. They are all new, important initiatives to help the unemployed. This government does not rest when it comes to helping the unemployed. We are not satisfied with 6.3 per cent; we will continue to work to drive that number down.The member for Dunkley rightly asked whether there are any alternatives. Of course, opposition should be about alternatives. Unfortunately, in this area—the area of employment and the aspirations of Australians—there is none. There is not one word being uttered either by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Jagajaga, in her portfolio responsibility for employment, or by the shadow minister for employment services, the member for Kingston. Not a word! It leads one to ask what could be taking up the time of the opposition so much that they do not have time to be developing policies in the areas of employment and helping those that are disadvantaged in society? You do not have to go far: it is like watching a Punch and Judy show over there. You have puppets with their heads up above the screen, presenting something to the public, but we all know where the action is. The action is below the stage, but the hand is up the shirt of Simon here, the puppet, and that is the action by the—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will address members by their appropriate titles.2K6Mr BROUGH—The Punch and Judy show of the opposition is all fake. You see all of the anger and the indignation in this chamber, but there is not one bit of substance coming from anywhere. When the policeman Barry Jones appears on the scene and tells you that you are a rabble, all we cop is more indignation. There is no time for the opposition to spend any time on developing real policy alternatives. It is the unions that are the puppet-masters, with their hand up the shirt of the Leader of the Opposition, directing all of his deliberations.420415:29:004204Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Does the minister recall telling the parliament that funding under the Export Market Development Grants Scheme will be increased for the next four years to provide export assistance to small and medium sized enterprises to enhance Australia's exports and employment opportunities, particularly in regional Australia? Minister, can you confirm that Austrade will be writing to EMDG recipients this week, advising them that they will receive only 75 per cent of the second tranche payments that they are entitled to under your government's legislation? How will cutting funds under this grants scheme enhance Australia's export effort and provide jobs in regional Australia?4204Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for his question and for giving me the opportunity to talk about the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. It is extremely popular. We are focusing our efforts in supporting Australia's exporters on those new entrants and smaller businesses. Of course, everybody that applies under the Export Market Development Grants Scheme under a certain level will get their entitlement paid in full but, as a result of the expansion in the number of exporters involved in developing our export effort in Australia, those above a critical threshold will be restricted to the amount that is being paid so that everybody gets support, rather than chopping it off at a certain level. The overwhelming majority of applicants under the EMDG Scheme will get their full claim paid, but some who are over a particular threshold will get a percentage of their full claim paid. That is a result of the large number of claims that have come in. The government has maintained its commitment to this scheme being funded at $150 million this year.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is warned!SU5Mr VAILE—In this financial year we have committed to this and they will be paid. All applicants will be provided with support from this scheme. I say again that the overwhelming majority of the number of applicants to this scheme will be paid their entitlement in full.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations420515:32:004205Mr CREAN,MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?DT4Mr CREAN,MPMr CREAN—I do—on three occasions.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.DT4Mr CREAN,MPMr CREAN—In Saturday's Weekend Australian,journalist Kate Legge states that:... ALP officials had to bus in workers from surrounding areas to man the polling booths in Crean's Victorian electorate of Hotham because they could not muster enough volunteers from the local membership.This was a claim repeated by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will address his remarks through the chair.DT4Mr CREAN,MPMr CREAN—Mr Speaker, this is untrue. Kate Legge was told by my staff that it was untrue well before Saturday. In fact, there were so many volunteers for booths in my electorate that my campaign committee was able to direct them elsewhere.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has indicated where he has been misrepresented. The Leader of the Opposition has further points of order he wishes to raise. He will not breach the standing orders.15:33:004205Mr CREAN,MPMr CREANDT4HothamALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?DT4Mr CREAN,MPMr CREAN—I do—this time by the Treasurer.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.DT4Mr CREAN,MPMr CREAN—The Treasurer said, in answer to a question today, that I supported increases in copayment only when in government and that I am only voting against them whilst the coalition is in office. When I supported an increase in the copayment it always had compensation in full for pensioners. Their scheme has no compensation. It is unfair.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and come to any other misrepresentation he has.15:33:004205Mr 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.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.DT4Mr CREAN,MPMr CREAN—The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations claimed that I `support the right of unions to demand money from strangers'. I do no such thing. What I support is the need to get behind the umpire's decision. He also claimed, in the same question, that I had a pecuniary interest in the issue. That is not correct. The only interest I have is in rejecting the industrial relations warfare—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has indicated where he has been misrepresented and will resume his seat.15:34:004205Ms 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—by the Treasurer in question time.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.PG6Ms MACKLIN,MPMs MACKLIN—As we would expect from the Treasurer, he only partly quotes from the comments that I made this morning. I made it very plain that, when we increased the copayments on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in the past, we always made sure that pensioners were fully compensated.15:35:004206Mr SNOWDON,MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?IJ4Mr SNOWDON,MPMr SNOWDON—Yes, by the Minister for Workplace—what are you these days?—Small Business and Tourism.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari is aware of the forms of the House. He claims to have been misrepresented by a particular minister. In this case, I believe it was the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. The member for Lingiari, having made that claim, may proceed.IJ4Mr SNOWDON,MPMr SNOWDON—During question time, in response to a question from Gomer—I am sorry, the member for Solomon—the minister said that I had only given a small number of speeches in relation to unfair dismissals, workplace relations and small business. For the minister's edification, I have given 31 speeches referring to small business and nine on workplace relations. Like a lot of people on this side of the House, I am a former owner of a small business.15:36:004206Mr MOSSFIELD, AM, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.8I4Martin, Stephen, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham does not customarily prevent the member for Greenway from getting the call. The member for Greenway has the call.MK6Mr MOSSFIELD, AM, MPMr MOSSFIELD—During the debate last week on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Secret Ballots for Protected Action) Bill 2002—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am not denying the member the call, but he is an occupier of the chair and he understands the courtesies and exercises them better than most. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?MK6Mr MOSSFIELD, AM, MPMr MOSSFIELD—Yes.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.MK6Mr MOSSFIELD, AM, MPMr MOSSFIELD—During that debate last week, the member for Curtin implied that as a trade union official I was a thug and that violence and intimidation were at the very core of my essence and work as a union official. I utterly reject this claim. The member for Curtin followed me in the debate. As an active trade union official for over 20 years, I took her remarks personally. I quote her remarks—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Greenway has indicated that he has been misrepresented. That is what the facilities of the House allow him to do. If there is a further misrepresentation I will hear him, but he has indicated where he has been misrepresented.MK6Mr MOSSFIELD, AM, MPMr MOSSFIELD—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I quote the member for Curtin—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I do need an indication. The member for Greenway must understand that it would be entirely proper for me to sit him down unless he can indicate that he has been further misrepresented.MK6Mr MOSSFIELD, AM, MPMr MOSSFIELD—I have been, Mr Speaker. I quote the member for Curtin:Violence and intimidation and the standover as tactic lie at the heart of trade unionism itself. The threat of violence cannot be separated out from unionism: it is its very essence.Since the very beginning of industrial militancy, violence has powered unionism as ideology ...I believe the member for Curtin owes me an apology.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am having a great deal of difficulty seeing where the member for Greenway has been misrepresented.42061The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:42073583YMs HoareTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of citizens of Australia calls on the House to recognise1. that defence and war service are unique and due to the nature of this service that private insurance for defence personnel is often difficult to obtain2. that Government has an obligation to adequately support members of the Defence Forces who are injured or wounded in the course of duty3. that Government has an obligation to adequately support families of defence force personnel killed on duty4. that current Defence compensation is inadequate and fails to provide financial security and certainty to Defence personnel and their families in the event of injury or death5. that members of the Defence Forces are entitled to the certainty that they and their families will be adequately compensated in the event of injury or deathThis petition calls on the House to ensure that the proposed new Military Compensation Scheme rectifies the current inequities and anomalies which severely disadvantage members of the Australian Defence Forces and their families in real and financial terms.35Ms Hoare83YMs Hoare (from 35 citizens).4207183CMs Jann McFarlaneTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of citizens of Australia calls on the Parliament to recognise1. that defence and war service are unique and due to the nature of this service that private insurance for defence personnel is often difficult to obtain2. that Government has an obligation to adequately support members of the Defence Forces who are injured or wounded in the course of duty3. that Government has an obligation to adequately support families of defence force personnel killed on duty4. that current Defence compensation is inadequate and fails to provide financial security and certainty to Defence personnel and their families in the event of injury or death5. that members of the Defence Forces are entitled to the certainty that they and their families will be adequately compensated in the event of injury or deathand further calls on the Parliament to ensure that the proposed new Military Compensation Scheme rectifies the current inequities and anomalies which severely disadvantage members of the Australian Defence Forces and their families in real and financial terms.1Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 1 citizen).420768683KQK6Ms Roxon;Mr SercombeTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition draws the attention of the House to the hardships that will be suffered by the government's changes to the pharmaceutical benefits. These changes will have a severe impact on people already heavily disadvantaged.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House requests the Government not to implement the changes to the pharmaceutical benefits.461Ms Roxon83KMs Roxon (from 461 citizens) and225Mr SercombeQK6Mr Sercombe (from 225 citizens).42072387EZ5Mr AbbottTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia as signed hereunder draws to the attention of the House that the fiftieth anniversary or Golden Jubilee of the reign of Her Majesty the Queen will be celebrated in 2002.The Government of the United Kingdom will be minting a special Jubilee Medal but this medal will only be made available for presentation to citizens of the United Kingdom. It is understood that the UK Government expects Dominion Governments to mint their own medals if they wish.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House request the Parliament to mint an Australian Golden Jubilee Medal for presentation to Australian Defence personnel and other appropriate persons.2387Mr AbbottEZ5Mr Abbott (from 2,387 citizens).4207236EZ5Mr AbbottTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that we are concerned at the destruction of human embryos by scientists extracting embryonic stem cells and concerned at proposals by scientists to clone human embryos for the purpose of extracting embryonic stem cells.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will:1. Oppose the creation of embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells and any other scientific purpose (therapeutic cloning);2. Oppose the use of already existing embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells and any other scientific purpose;3. Support, encourage and fund scientific research using adult stem cells from all sources including umbilical cord blood.236Mr AbbottEZ5Mr Abbott (from 236 citizens).420813883UMr CoxTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain electors of the Division of Kingston, draws to the attention of the House, their concerns about the effect on pensioners of the proposed increase in the cost of prescriptions and the removal of vital medication from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, as these moves will add to the living costs of those least able to afford it.Your petitioners therefore request the House to give consideration to not imposing an increase in prescription charges on pensioners and to not removing medication currently available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.138Mr Cox83UMr Cox (from 138 citizens).4208200083XMr GibbonsTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the state draws to the attention of the House the removal in the May 2002 federal budget of the Enhanced Printing Industry Competitiveness Scheme (EPICS) and of the Printing Industry Competitiveness Scheme (PICS), despite previous commitments by the government regarding the term of the schemes.Your petitioners therefore request that the House reinstate the EPICS and PICS to assist the printing industry of Maryborough.2000Mr Gibbons83XMr Gibbons (from 2,000 citizens).42086883XMr GibbonsTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Attendees at the Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Bendigo 2002 petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.68Mr Gibbons83XMr Gibbons (from 68 citizens).42085268HX4Mr KatterTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of the citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:That the importation of bananas from the Philippines will mean certain closure of some or all banana farms and would lead to the loss of income of up to 9,500 Australian families.That while banana farmers are told that mechanisms are in place to screen out diseases and pests that would destroy the Australian Banana Industry, only last year was Black Sigatoka found to be present in certain areas of North Queensland, and only recently were four live Black Widow spiders found `piggy-backing' in boxes of fruit imported to New Zealand.That the current Australian wage level ensures a good standard of living for Australians and should not be threatened.That no level playing field exists in trade with countries such as the Philippines where workers are paid third world wages and Australian industry can therefore not compete without assistance from the government.The petitioners thereby request the House to:Immediately ban all imports of bananas from the Philippines and all proposals to do so in the future until such time as the Australian Government can guarantee:1. that under no circumstances will any disease or pest be allowed to cross our borders at all on the grounds of Trade as occurred with Black Sigatoka and with imported Californian table grapes in New Zealand recently;2. that the Australian standard of living won't be threatened by the introduction of third world rates of pay to Australian workers to allow Australian industry to compete on a level playing field;3. that Australian industry's labour costs will be subsidised to create level playing field conditions where Australian industry is forced to compete against countries with third world labour costs;4. that all necessary action has been taken to preserve the Australian banana industry and its 9,500 workers.Your petitioners therefore ask that the House consider these requests.5268Mr KatterHX4Mr Katter (from 5,268 citizens).42091060XS4Dr LawrenceTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the state of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House, the need to grant an MRI Medicare licence to Western Australia's Fremantle Hospital.An MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machine is an essential diagnostic tool for a range of medical conditions.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Commonwealth provide residents in the south-west metropolitan area of Western Australia with access to Medicare MRI scans at Fremantle Hospital, since there is no public MRI facility in the entire region.1060Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence (from 1,060 citizens).42094083CMs Jann McFarlaneTo the House of Representatives in the Australian Federal Parliament:To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled:We, the undersigned residents of Australia ask that the House of Representatives consider the health and welfare of the present and future residents of this country and the environmental impacts of possible negative impacts relating to the visits of nuclear powered and armed vessels into Australian ports.Nuclear navies are not welcome here whatever the colour of their flags.The recent spate of accidents involving nuclear-powered submarines should be enough to convince all governments that the risk to the environment of these floating Chernobyls is a risk we don't have to take.Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Parliament legislate to prevent all visits of nuclear armed/powered vessels to Australian ports and waters.And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray.40Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 40 citizens).420942200AMUMs PanopoulosTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the proposal by Odyssey House to establish a drug abuse rehabilitation centre in the small rural farming community of Molyullah, approximately 20 km from Benalla, North East Victoria.Resident of Molyullah and district are concerned about the proposed development due to:. Concerns over the personal safety of many local residents due to the often violent criminal histories of many of Odyssey House's patients and the unrestrained environment of the premises.. Existing water supply problems in the district and the lack of water for an institution such as Odyssey House, which will further compromise the water supply for local residents.. The distance of the community from police and ambulance services, which compounds the risks posed to both residents and patients.. The fact that the local volunteer bush fire brigade is in no way trained or equipped to deal with emergencies at institutional residential premises, which may put volunteer, resident and patient lives at risk.. Local residents suffering unhealthy stress and anxiety as a result of the proposal.. The premises being too close to other residences.. The property's location within approximately 25 metres of school bus stops.Your petitioners therefore request the House to use its position as a substantial contributor to the Odyssey House budget to pressure Odyssey House to withdraw its plans to establish a facility at Molyullah.422Ms Panopoulos00AMUMs Panopoulos (from 422 citizens).421066483KMs RoxonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of students at universities in Australia draws the attention of the House to growing financial pressures on many Australian university students. Your petitioners are concerned at the fact that the maximum rate of Youth Allowance is $150.85 per week for students without children. Your petitioners are concerned that the current rate of Youth Allowance forces students to embark on large amounts of part time work that may detract from their ability to study. Your petitioners call for Youth Allowance Payments, particularly age of independence from parents be reviewed.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House review the rate, conditions and eligibility of the Youth Allowance.664Ms Roxon83KMs Roxon (from 664 citizens).4210176J4Mr SciaccaTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain electors of the Division of Bowman draws to the attention of the House, that:Preliminary Budget estimates recently released by the Federal Treasurer indicate that the Federal Government intends to cut the funding it provides to the States/Territories for disability support under a third Commonwealth State Disability Agreement (to be signed in June 2002).The Commonwealth funding that has been cut from forward estimates is the additional $100 million for `unmet need' for disability support announced by the Honourable Larry Anthony MP, the then Minister for Community Services, on 25 July 2000. This additional funding was announced with an assurance: `Affirmation of the commitment of the Commonwealth, States and Territories to maintain the current base of funding for disability services under a third CSDA, including the significant increased Commonwealth/State/Territories contributions to address unmet need in the last two years of the current agreement.'This action will mean that over 1,000 Queenslanders with a disability and Queensland families living with a disability, including those living in this electorate will lose their support. This will be an unacceptable and potentially life-threatening turn of events.Your petitioners therefore request the House to ensure that the Federal Government honours the funding commitments its Minister for Community Services made in July 2000, that the additional $100 million provided by the Commonwealth to address `unmet need' is included in the 2002 Budget's Forward Estimates and in the `base funding' for a third Commonwealth State Disability Agreement.17Mr Sciacca6J4Mr Sciacca (from 17 citizens).Petitions received.Private Members' Business42104210Debate resumed.15:41:004210Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I am pleased that the member for Griffith has raised this issue, because it does need the attention of the House. He has raised a concern that has been expressed by people in the community who are worried about the prospect of upgrades to cochlear implants. There are two establishments within my electorate of Mitchell which care for people with impaired hearing. I wish to acknowledge the splendid work done by St Gabriel's School for Hearing Impaired Children and also the work that is done by the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children. Both of these organisations have a strong record of support and assistance to young people, to children in particular, with impaired hearing. This motion gives the House an opportunity to look at some of the wrong and perhaps mischievous comments made in the community about this issue, particularly in relation to upgrades of equipment—comments which are perpetrated to disturb parents and children.The cochlear implant was developed in Australia with great success and it has had a massive world wide impact. The government, in its policy on hearing impairment, developed a voucher system which commenced in 1997. This system improved the way in which people are entitled to receive benefits for hearing problems. There are 139 providers around Australia and, under the voucher system, 340,000 people receive benefit, assistance or support of one kind or another. Within the voucher system there is a community service obligation which applies specifically to young people under the age of 21. This program protects 35,000 children and it costs around $119.8 million per year. So this government gives significant support to hearing impairment services, particularly to young people under the age of 21. There is also a community service obligation which applies to a special needs group, which covers 11,000 special needs people. The community service obligation also requires the National Acoustic Laboratories to continue its brilliant worldwide research. Last year, the government spent a total of $156.54 million on hearing impairment services.The government's role in the measure under discussion today lies in two parts: firstly, the provision of cochlear services; and, secondly, the implementation of new equipment. The new equipment comes within the Australian Hearing Services Act, and that new equipment has to be assessed as part of an ongoing assessment of new prostheses. That review is expected to be concluded by the end of the year but, whether or not that review is concluded on time, young adults under the age of 21 and their parents should have no fears about the government's ongoing commitment to the provision of upgrade processes and the assessment of new equipment. I thank the member for Griffith for raising this issue. It has been a valuable issue for us to discuss. Schools such as St Gabriel's and the institute for those who have a hearing impairment and those who are blind have no need to be concerned, because the government has the situation covered. It will look after young people with a hearing impairment and it will continue to expand the hearing program, as it did last year, as part of a five-year program, when it introduced upgraded funding for the program.15:46:004211McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—In supporting the motion moved by my colleague the member for Griffith, I am pleased to speak about cochlear implants. It is an appropriate time to discuss this issue, as this week, which runs from 23 to 29 June, is Deaf-Blind Awareness Week. Members will be interested to know that Deaf-Blind Awareness Week is the lead-up to the sixth Australian National DeafBlind Conference, `Touching the World', which is to be held in Sydney from 12 to 15 July 2002. Conference details and information about issues of interest to that community can be found on their website: www.dbansw.org.au. This motion is an opportunity for us, in a bipartisan way, to focus on issues of interest and debate within the deaf community.We need to be mindful that it is estimated that one in 10 Australians—that is, approximately 200,000 people—have a hearing loss. In Western Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that in 1993 approximately 93,600 people had some degree of hearing loss. The bureau also points out that hearing loss is frequently under-reported. The issue of cochlear implants as a new technology developed in Australia is of great interest to the community of deaf people in Australia. The community supports cochlear implanting into late-deafened adults who research for themselves the advantages and disadvantages of implants. It is generally accepted that cochlear implants may improve the quality of life for late-deafened adults. Besides that, adults usually are empowered to make their own decisions according to their specific life circumstances.The deaf community have concerns about implanting deaf children according to decisions made by their parents. The main controversy is about implanting children who cannot decide for themselves. The community are also concerned that parents may put too much focus on the strategies supporting implants and insufficient focus on supporting strategies around children learning AUSLAN and other communication strategies. They are also concerned that funding and resources are being diverted away from services for deaf children and adults and into new and expensive technologies. I ask the government to listen to and work with the deaf community about these concerns.Cochlear implants and replacement parts are covered by the government via Australian Hearing Services for children up to the age of 21 years. I want to focus on the issues for adults who choose cochlear implants. Firstly, adults who do not have private health cover generally get their upgrades and replacement speech processors through hospital inpatient services. Secondly, adults who have private health cover are covered for upgrades and replacement speech processors by their private health fund. I note with alarm the recommendations of the Private Health Industry Medical Devices Expert Committee to remove speech processors from appendix A of schedule 5 of the National Health Act 1953. What would that mean? It would mean that private health insurance companies would no longer be required to reimburse recipients of cochlear implants for the cost of upgrading or replacing their speech processors, which are the machines that are worn externally by a person with a cochlear implant. These processors need to be upgraded for a variety of reasons. The most common reasons occur when the processors become technologically obsolete or when they are worn out through damage or wear and tear.Why did PHIMDEC recommend that the upgrades be removed? The argument is that upgrades and replacements be removed from schedule 5 on the basis that they occur in an outpatient setting rather than as part of an episode of hospital treatment. Medicare covers the original cochlear implant as it occurs as part of an episode of hospital treatment. However, under the new arrangements proposed by the minister, the upgrades may be covered by private health funds through their ancillary tables. That can put people out of pocket, as we all know that ancillary items, even with top cover, will not cover an $8,000 bill. Although PHIMDEC has recommended their delisting, the decision to move on that advice has been deferred. However, this has put the issue into limbo, and people who might be directly affected by the decision to remove the items from the schedule are extremely concerned.Some people in the deaf community are asking, `Are the government and the committee going to organise some community consultation, especially with the deaf community, about the implications of this decision to delist upgrades and replacement processors?' I ask the government to take this concern on board and to work with the deaf community for a mutually beneficial outcome. I ask also that the government provide a telephone typewriter for every parliamentarian's office to improve deaf people's access to their members of parliament and senators. It is very badly missed in our repertoire of equipment provided by the parliament and by the Department of Finance and Administration.15:51:004212Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—As chair of the health and ageing committee, I too am very happy to speak on this motion on cochlear implants in Deaf-Blind Awareness Week. The invention and development of cochlear implants, or bionic ears as they are sometimes called, has for many people been a modern miracle. A cochlear implant is an artificial hearing device designed to enable deaf people to hear by electrically stimulating nerves inside the inner ear.An essential component is the speech processor, which is worn on the body, often in the person's pocket. The function of the speech processor is to convert the electrical impulses from a microphone into a signal or set of signals which the implant converts into recognisable words or sounds. As with so many of the inventions and developments within the area of health, the monetary cost of cochlear implants and the associated speech processors is high. Private health insurance funds are required to fully fund cochlear implants and speech processors for privately insured patients. This is guaranteed by the fact that they are included in the Commonwealth prosthesis schedule under the National Health Act 1953.As the member for Griffith stated in his motion, the Private Health Industry Medical Devices Expert Committee has recommended that speech processors be removed from the schedule. The reason for this view is that speech processors are not provided as part of hospital treatment. Had the opposition supported the government's attempts to provide health insurance cover to outpatient services, this would not be an issue, but we all know that the opposition would rather engage in scare campaigns than improve health services to the Australian people.The member for Griffith would be aware that, despite the committee's recommendation, the government has not removed speech processors from the schedule. The member may also know that there is currently a review of the private health insurance regulation under way and that the government has stated that there will be no decision on the committee's recommendations until the finalisation of this review. Whatever the outcome of the review, Australian Hearing Services, under the department of health and family services, will continue to provide replacement cochlear speech processors to every Australian under the age of 21 who is in need of such devices. I am advised that there is currently no waiting list for this service. Families can rest assured that the Howard government is committed to ensuring the equitable provision of hearing services and devices to the hearing impaired.Government members are well aware of the importance of cochlear implants. On a previous occasion, the member for Mitchell spoke about the great work being undertaken by the St Gabriel's School for Hearing Impaired Children in his electorate and the importance of providing children with effective hearing devices as early as possible so that they gain maximum advantage. The members for Leichhardt and Longman have also spoken on this, and the government will continue to provide cochlear implants and speech processors to all Australian children who need them. This commitment is not dependent on any review or any decision of the committee. It is a non-negotiable commitment to Australian families.Many in this House would already know that the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman supports the continued full coverage of cochlear implants and speech processors, and that several funds have already stated their support for this. There is no need for this motion, other than to satisfy the opposition's need to scare people.15:55:004213Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I strongly support the motion moved by the member for Griffith, Mr Kevin Rudd. My electorate of Lowe is home to a significant number of disability services for the deaf and for people with other hearing disabilities. I am indebted for the advice given to me by one of my constituents, Mr Peter Kerley, of the Deafness Council of New South Wales Inc. The Deafness Council is an organisation that has led the way in advocating both technological and non-technocentric solutions for meeting the communications needs of people with a deafness disability. The Deafness Council advises me that there are about 2,000 Australian cochlear implantees, and there are 900 children who are eligible for cochlear implants. I am advised that a surgical cochlear implant costs approximately $40,000. This cost is covered almost entirely by Medicare and private insurance. The total cost is in the order of $18 million, with a cost recycling every eight to 10 years. The costs include the surgery, the speech processor upgrade and repeat surgery at approximately 15 years.That being said, a more typical profile of a cochlear based technocentric solution for hearing restoration may include up to six operations and up to 12 speech processor upgrades over the whole life of the person. I urge this House to reject the recommendations of the Private Health Industry Medical Devices Expert Committee to withdraw private health funding for upgrades and replacements for cochlear implants. If the government decides to accept the committee's recommendations, the government will be succumbing to the corporate world by acceding to the desire of the private health insurance lobby to socialise the losses and costs of these medical upgrades and replacement procedures.Children growing up with these implants require further surgery and replacements. The child turned adult will remain dependent on that cochlear technology. The child requires listening skills to obtain and retain employment and for the basic necessities of life. You cannot give the child a cochlear implant and then make it unaffordable by denying upgrades in later life. I ask the committee and this House: has the committee considered all of the consequences of transferring the burden of the cost of a speech processor onto the taxpayer, rather than through private health insurance, by simply calling it a prosthesis?Prospective consumers of further cochlear upgrades will have an overhead of approximately $3,500 per year per implanted person. If this expense is not compensated through private health insurance, most will find the technology unaffordable. The consequence of this will be that these people, for the most part, will be unemployed or unemployable with a concomitant increase in social security costs. Either way, the government, the taxpayer and—most importantly—the person with the deafness disability lose. It would appear that the government has created a smokescreen to hide the fact that it has capitulated to the private health insurance industry. I certainly hope not.Finally, I turn to the issue of solutions that will keep cochlear implantees within the insurance bounds of private health insurance policy. I recall a few years ago the Commonwealth government introducing a system to compensate health insurers who had insurance risk exposure from having too many elderly clients. So I ask, in anticipation of the costs and the numbers of existing and potential cochlear implants candidates being established, that a similar system of cost spreading among private health insurers for those using cochlear implants also be considered. I condemn the committee's recommendation and support Mr Rudd's very worthy motion.16:00:004214Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Cochlear implants consist of three linked components: a microphone, placed behind the ear; a speech processor, which can be worn on the belt and which converts sound to electrical signals; and a surgically implanted receptor, which stimulates neurons in the cochlea. This is an Australian innovation and it is a marvel. There are figures which now show that 80 per cent of deaf people can get improvement from a cochlear implant, and children who are born deaf may be able to hear because of this technology. Cochlear speech processors are included in the 8,900 items listed on the prostheses schedule under the National Health Act. The government requires private health funds to pay 100 per cent of the cost of these items. Some items on the prostheses schedule cost thousands of dollars—several items cost more than $15,000 and one item costs $40,000.What this motion is all about—and I believe this is an unnecessary motion—is the all too familiar scaremongering by members on the other side of the House. At present, private health insurance funds are required to pay for cochlear speech processors listed on the prostheses schedule. They will be required to pay for the cochlear speech processors for the foreseeable future. I find the motion by the member for Griffith puzzling. As technology has improved, some items that were an inpatient procedure are now an outpatient procedure. That is what we are actually debating today. What has happened is that procedures that were normally done in hospital, which were covered by private health insurance, are now done as outpatient procedures, which are not covered by private health insurance. Cochlear speech processors are one of these procedures. Private health insurance funds are only allowed to cover items which are provided in hospital. The reason the cochlear speech processors and other items have been listed for review is that the prostheses schedule is for items provided in hospital.If the opposition are suggesting that they would like to see private health funds cover outpatient procedures, I am sure the government would welcome that. In 1998, the government introduced legislation to allow health funds to cover outpatient procedures; the Labor Party voted against that legislation. Instead of just scaremongering, if the opposition are concerned about continued access to cochlear speech processors by private health insurance funds, then they will support the reintroduction of a bill to allow private health insurance to cover outpatient procedures.As previous speakers have said, at the moment there is a review into private health insurance regulation, which will include the topic of whether to fund these items. The Minister for Health and Ageing has said that no decision will be made, pending the outcome of this review. She has also said that children and young adults under 21 will automatically be covered by Australian Hearing Services. But more than that, the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman has stated that, as the funds have always provided for cochlear speech processors, they should continue to do so. The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman has committed to working with the funds to continue funding these procedures. The funds have also indicated that they are likely to keep them on. So, at the moment, this rests on the goodwill of the funds and also on the pressure coming from the government and the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman. But, if you want to stop this sort of situation in the future, you should support our legislation, which allows for private health insurance to be used to cover outpatient procedures, because, as technology changes and as practice changes, that is what is happening. If the member for Griffith is serious about wanting private health insurance funds to continue to provide benefits to cover cochlear speech processors, he will support the government in allowing funds to cover outpatient procedures—or is he just scaremongering?16:07:004215McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I am pleased to support the member for Griffith, and my other Labor colleagues, in speaking on this motion about cochlear implants. As someone who knows personally how disabling it is to suffer hearing problems, I have much sympathy for the deaf, and especially for young people who are deaf. As we have heard from others, the cochlear implant—or bionic ear, as it is popularly known—is an Australian invention. It is another example of Australian ingenuity which has the potential to assist thousands of people in the world. Unlike some other Australian inventions which have been ignored in this country, this invention was picked up and developed here—an Australian company dominates the market for its production. How ironic that we have an Australian invention, an Australian product and a market for the product but that we have a real problem in making the product affordable for those who want it.There are a number of players involved in this issue: the government; Australian Hearing Services, which is funded by the government; Cochlear Ltd, who are the manufacturers; the private health industry; the Private Health Industry Medical Devices Expert Committee, which was appointed by the previous minister for health to assist with determining items for listing on the schedule for private health benefit funding of prostheses; and—everyone seems to have forgotten—those who are profoundly deaf, who benefit from the fitting and maintenance of cochlear implants.It seems that there are real anomalies in the way that cochlear implants are treated by the various players. Australian Hearing Services provides them, but has limited funds provided by the government to do this and suggests people contact Cochlear Ltd or their private health fund. Cochlear Ltd advises people to lobby the government; private health funds also suggest lobbying the government. Meanwhile, the profoundly deaf are waiting for help, and you cannot blame them for thinking that they are being given the run-around. Imagine how distressing it is, especially for those who have young children, who cannot understand why they are unable to access the product that will make a difference to their lives.Gayle and Gary Wharton wrote to me about the circumstances of their son Matthew. They wrote:An apparent loophole in the current Schedule 5 legislation shouldn't be the reason why private health funds be allowed to reneg on their responsibilities.They continue:They—that is, the government and the funds—seem to be focusing on informing people that the upgrades/replacements will continue through Australian Hearing, but as you are no doubt aware, this ceases at the age of 21 and doesn't start again unless you are on an aged pension or a disability pension.They go on to say:I don't hear our Government making any mention of what happens to the cochlear implant recipients after the age of 21, or are they presuming that hearing impaired people won't be able to find a job and will go on a disability pension. Matthew, for one, can't wait to find a job and be independent. How independent can he hope to be, when on a 21 year old's wage, he'll have to be saving up for his next speech processor upgrade so he can hear better?I sympathise with them. To reiterate the situation, earlier this year it seemed that private health companies were no longer required to reimburse recipients of these implants for the cost of upgrading or replacing their speech processors which are worn externally. Recipients who were privately insured could claim the cost of a new processor but not the cost of upgrades or replacements. This is where a big problem arises. The processors need to be upgraded or replaced after a certain time. The initial processors do not last forever. To make it even more complicated, it would seem that the reason given for why the upgrades or replacements were not to be covered was that they did not fit the legislative definition of what should be supported. That is hardly surprising when you consider that the legislation predates the technology of cochlear implants. I am sure it was not the intention of the drafters of the original legislation that such devices would not be supported.Fortunately, this unsatisfactory situation has been recognised. I am pleased to note that the current minister for health has deferred reaching a decision on whether speech processors are to be removed from the list of items for which benefits are payable. I can only hope that this is a good sign but, after hearing what the previous government speaker said, I am not quite sure about that. I hope that the minister is listening to the needs of the cochlear implant community and that she will see that the replacement processors remain on the ancillary tables of the private health funds for the sake of the profoundly deaf, and especially children, who hope that they will be able to progress through life and work with the ability to hear. I hope that we have heard what those children have had to say today and that they will be able to get some relief soon. I commend the motion to the House.16:09:004216Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I would like to thank the honourable member for Griffith for raising an extremely important issue of the status of speech processors for cochlear implants and the possible delisting of processors from schedule 5. In April 2001 the Private Health Insurance Medical Devices Expert Committee, PHIMDEC, recommended the removal of replacement speech processors from schedule 5 of the National Health Act 1953. The removal of replacement speech processors from schedule 5 will allow private health insurance companies to cease reimbursement to the recipients of cochlear implants for the cost of upgrading or replacing their externally worn speech processors. It should be noted that Cochlear Ltd's new processor is not listed because it has not yet been assessed. The cost of these speech processors can be up to $8,000. Children under 21 years of age who are not privately insured can access the replacement speech processors through Australian Hearing Services, who provide replacement processors free of charge. Australian Hearing Services are funded for $1.4 million over four years to 2004-05. They have a large pool of funds up to $28 million that they can direct by internal decision making. The $1.4 million is allocated to fund upgrades and damaged or lost processors. Australian Hearing Services anticipate increased demand for their free service in the event of the removal of replacements from the schedule. PHIMDEC has based its possible withdrawal on targeting prosthetic items in the schedule that would not be implanted during an episode of hospital treatment. These speech processors are replaced in an outpatients setting, whereas the initial processor is provided as part of the surgical in-patient management and would normally be covered by state or private funds. As previous speakers have said, this discussion has been deferred pending further negotiations. No action will be undertaken until this review is completed, and certainly no change will occur before February 2003. The Ombudsman, as mentioned, vows to pursue the funds to keep processors on their list of prosthetic items. I am hoping that this and other pressures on the funds will assist them in seeing the wisdom of not deleting the processors from the list of approved prosthetic items. There are approximately 1,000 cochlear implant recipients under the age of 21 who would be covered regardless of what the funds decide.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for Moore will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 421716:12:004217Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—I move:That this House:(1) endorses actions taken by the Australian Government to improve the spread of share ownership in Australia and to make shares available to Australians who had not previously owned shares; and(2) deplores actions that have been taken which limit the spread of shares more generally to all Australians.This motion embraces two concepts: first, the motion endorses those actions taken by the government which increase share ownership, and it involves looking at the essential reforms which have been undertaken, the impact generally of those reforms and, specifically and importantly, the beneficiaries; second, the motion deplores the actions which have been taken to limit the spread of share ownership in Australia, particularly in relation to the sale of Telstra and, more generally, in relation to share ownership across the country. In looking at the actions that the government has taken, we must first look at the reforms. The Howard government has introduced substantial reforms designed to encourage more Australians to take up share ownership. There have been five principal actions taken to date: first, we have halved the rate of capital gains tax for individuals. Second, we have introduced rollover relief so that shares can be exchanged for shares without triggering a capital gains tax event, which is very important in the case of takeovers and for small businesses. Third—and this is an issue which came up in question time today—we have funded the abolition of stamp duties on listed shares and other quoted securities. Fourth—and this goes to the heart of the government's actions—the Howard-Costello government has offered public equity in 49.9 per cent of Telstra despite the opposition of the Labor Party. Fifth, we have encouraged employee share ownership by doubling the tax exemption discount on employee share arrangements which, in effect, encourages employees to take shares in those companies for which they work—this is participation at the heart of the economic entity for which individuals work.More significantly, though, the question is: what is the impact of these reforms on share ownership within Australia? It is a very interesting outcome. The reforms have seen the Australian rate of share ownership rise to the highest in the Western world. The Australian Stock Exchange assesses that the direct rate of share ownership in Australia has increased from 20.6 per cent of Australian adults in 1997 to approximately 41 per cent by 2000—a doubling in the rate of share ownership over three years. Similarly, the rate of the combined direct and indirect level of ownership of shares within the community has risen from 34 per cent in 1997 to over 52 per cent at present. When we compare that with overseas levels, we see there is direct share ownership in Australia of almost 41 per cent; the USA, 32 per cent; New Zealand, 31 per cent; Canada, 26 per cent; Germany, 13 per cent. This level of ownership equates to over 5.7 million Australians having a direct interest in shares and listed securities and over 7.4 million Australians having indirect share ownership.Of all of the initiatives, perhaps the most significant in encouraging first share owners was the sale of the first tranche of Telstra, which brought approximately 560,000 Australians into the share market for the first time. Similarly, the sale of the second tranche of Telstra introduced more than 300,000 first-time share owners into the practice and process of owning shares, with a direct hold over capital which is part of the stock market. In the years since 1997, over 2.9 million Australians have entered into the share market for the first time—the greatest rate of growth in share ownership in Australian history. In the six years since the government was elected it has had a profound effect on the level of share ownership.An important question is: who are the beneficiaries? Women, the poor, and rural communities have proportionately benefited more than any other group. The FinancialReview of 9 February 2000 confirmed that, after historically lagging in share ownership, share ownership by women is now growing at the same rate as that of the male community, although of course there is more which still needs to be done. Similarly, the level of direct share ownership among low-income households earning less than $30,000 has now reached over 22 per cent—lower than it should be but much higher than it was. Thirdly, with regard to rural communities, through the sale of Telstra there has been an equalisation of the share ownership ratios between city and country. That divide between city and country is breaking down. Now, almost 39 per cent of rural adults have direct ownership of shares, up from 28 per cent in 1999.What do we see in relation to the actions which have been taken to limit the spread of share ownership? The starting point is remembering that 860,00 first-time share owners have come into the market as a result of the sale of Telstra. I am happy to say that—as the register shows—I myself am one of those owners of shares in Telstra. In January 2001, the member for Werriwa produced a five-point plan for increasing share ownership, which by this year had become a 12-point plan. What do we see? We see that, of all the policies that the Labor Party held at the last election, the only policy which they said would be maintained, no matter what, is the decision to oppose the further public float of a telecommunications company. The government's position is very clear: if, and only if, there is improvement in the rural services to an acceptable level, then we will consider it. But the Labor Party have a five-point plan for Telstra. The first is that they opposed the sale which allowed 860,00 first-time share holders into the market. The second is that they now want to asset-strip Telstra. The member for Melbourne wants to strip the retail and growth services from the basic business, which, one, destroys revenue, two, destroys production and, three, leads to the third part of their plan, albeit inadvertently. As Telstra officials themselves have said, it would destroy shareholder value to the level of up to $1 per share if they were to hive off the network from the services into separate companies, as they have already discussed. The fourth point is that they want to muffle the critics. The Labor Party have accused John Stanhope from Telstra of deceiving the Senate. Fifth, we see in today's paper that they feign victimisation when their bullyboy tactics rebound on them. The member for Melbourne complains that `Telstra threatens to sue Tanner'—an article in today's Australian. It is very interesting, though: he has privilege in this place, and outside of this place there is a very clear defence against defamation; it is called truth—so he has nothing to worry about if he adheres to the laws of defamation.What are the opposition's share ownership policies? I am the first to appreciate new and valuable ideas, and I am certainly open to them. But, given their track record of opposing the single most significant spread of share ownership throughout Australia, the idea that they are now trumpeting spreading share ownership—despite opposing any further sale of Telstra or the expansion of the principal means of bringing shares to ordinary Australians—is a little like Henry VIII espousing family values after the fact; it sounds good but it is just not credible.We see from them that they have three key ideas. The first is to increase home ownership for low-income earners, yet we already have a first home owners scheme and we already have some of the lowest interest rates in the last 30 years. At the same time, they oppose the principal means of achieving those interest rates: debt retirement. They propose a nest egg account, yet they criticise the baby bonus. They propose a first share owners scheme, yet at the same time they oppose the principal means of delivering those shares. Very simply, I urge this House to deplore the 1940s-style policies that the state not the individual should own shares, and I urge the House to support policies which have doubled direct share ownership in Australia, added almost three million first-time share owners and benefited women, the poor, and rural communities. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?00AMXJohnson, Michael, MPMr Johnson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:22:004219Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Let me congratulate the member for Flinders on the impressive start that he has made to his parliamentary career. He is that a rarity on the government benches: a member who is actually interested in new ideas and a genuine public policy debate. He does not seem to have a fetish about trade unions or other community based organisations, so I welcome the arrival of the member for Flinders and the interest that he has taken in public policy issues. But in this case I cannot support his motion. It does, however, give me an opportunity to talk about Labor's approach to economic ownership and to contrast it with the government's limited public policy approach.It seems to me that the government has what might be depicted as a supply-side approach to ownership: that is, privatise government assets and make the shares available on the stock market. This does not mean that people necessarily have the resources or the capacity to buy the shares. Demand-side policies are also important—policies that help low- to middle-income Australians to access share equity assets and to do so in all companies, not just privatised ones. There are many companies in this nation and on our stock market that have never been privatised. Privatisation is not in the vanguard or the mainstream of economic ownership concerns. The most important thing to do is to have demand-side policies in place that help low- to middle-income Australians access the share market.That is the difference. The government, at the end of the day, favours a small ownership tent; an ownership tent that is restricted to those who currently own shares; an ownership tent that is restricted to those who currently have the resources to participate in these economic opportunities. In contrast, Labor support the big tent of economic ownership; ownership for all; asset accumulation for 100 per cent of Australians. The member for Flinders is patting himself on the back about 55 per cent of Australians owning shares. From the Labor Party perspective, that is inadequate. We want 100 per cent of Australians to enjoy the benefits of substantial asset accumulation and economic ownership. This represents the application of traditional Labor values to a new economic reality. Increasingly, people see themselves not just as workers but as owners. We want to extend that process so that all Australians, not a small tent but a big tent of Australians, can access the ownership revolution.Indeed, there has been a revolution, a revolution commenced by Labor governments in decades gone by. It was the education reforms of the Whitlam government in the 1970s that, for the first time, gave working families in this country access to human capital—access to higher education skills and qualifications. That was followed by the reforms of Paul Keating as Treasurer in the 1980s, reforms that opened up the Australian economy to capital accumulation and the start up of a mammoth number of small businesses. Keating deregulated the financial system so that working families who had accumulated skills and qualifications could use those skills to set up their own business and access the real economy—to access real and lasting economic ownership. It will be the role of the next Labor government to foster further mobility to ensure that working people continue to climb the ladder of economic ownership and opportunity. Our historic role in this parliament is to put more rungs on the ladder of opportunity and ownership. We did it in the seventies in education reform; we did it in the eighties with economic reform; we will do it under the next Labor government with these substantial economic ownership strategies.I would maintain that, at the end of the day, economic mobility equals social justice. Social justice is all about the control of assets: the control and ownership of financial capital, human capital, social capital. The historic mission of our side of politics is to make those benefits available to all. Ownership for all is a great summary of the historical Labor mission. It is an equalising force. In fact, it is the most equalising force in our society.Recently, NATSEM produced statistics about wealth inequality in Australia. This is a real bell ringer. NATSEM showed that if you take out the superannuation money— superannuation money put in by the last Labor government—then in fact wealth inequality in Australia had increased over the last 15 years. But if you put the super-annuation reforms back into the equat-ion, against all the international trends wealth inequality in Australia had not moved over the last 15 years. This is such a stunning conclusion. If you want a fairer society, if you want better access and inequality in this country, you need to give working people access to assets and ownership. `Ownership for all' is the headline direction for a fairer society.The member for Flinders was kind enough to mention my discussion paper on this subject, and indeed it does point to new ways of furthering Labor's historical goal. Many of the ideas in the discussion paper are new to Australian policy, that is true—especially matched savings accounts, nest egg accounts, lifelong learning accounts and new forms of community ownership. In large part, this explains the media's response to the discussion paper, a response which focused almost exclusively on the first share ownership scheme. Journalists are more comfortable with the things they already know about: in this case, comparing the idea of first share ownership to the first home owners schemes that have operated in Australia for many decades. While grateful for the coverage of this policy option, it must be said that this is not Labor's highest priority for extending access to share equity assets. As I explained at the time of the launch, our priorities are in this order: first, extending the success and adequacy of Australia's superannuation scheme; second, extending the reach and significance of employee share ownership plans; third, creating nest egg accounts so that all young Australians can start their adult lives with an endowment or nest egg of financial investments; and, finally, directing share ownership for those who have not been able to access the share market in the past.Our position is clear: Labor want to give all Australians access to the benefits of economic ownership. We believe in assets for all and that share equities are a crucial part of the ownership agenda. We have four options for share market access under consideration as part of Labor's policy review. I also note that the economic ownership discussion paper made no mention of direct share ownership as a solution to poverty—rather, emphasis is given to programs that assist poor people to save for home ownership and their children's education.In the United States, these programs are known as matched savings accounts, and they are having a lot of success in breaking the poverty cycle and lifting people out of welfare dependency. Matched savings accounts should be thought of as a system of parallel accounts. If a poor family uses the first account to save $300 per annum—just $6 per week—that amount will be matched by non-government organisations, financial institutions and government financial sources in a second account. In the United States, the average rate of matching is two for one. The $300 that is saved in the first account becomes $900, but the significance is that the second account can only be accessed if the medium-term savings target of the family is reached in the first account. In the United States, poor families are saving effectively for housing deposits and the education of their children. The American demonstration projects have a 67 per cent success rate at the American poverty line. That is well below Australian poverty calculations and measurements.How is the saving process facilitated in the United States among these poor families? That is achieved by a high level of rearrangement of the household budget. I like to think of these matched savings accounts as giving poor families an alternative to gambling. The matched savings accounts hold out a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but the family must dedicate itself to that purpose over a two-, three- or even four-year period, saving in the first account to get to a certain saving target to buy a home, to educate their children or to bring learning materials into the home, and then the matching in the second account comes into play. That is when they are able to access the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. This is a much superior process and more socially useful than the gambling alternative of trying to reach the pot of gold at the club on a poker machine or down at the track on a Saturday afternoon. I congratulate Foresters ANA for their preliminary matched savings account scheme that is operating in Brisbane. I look forward to the member for Ryan—a Brisbane member—talking about this successful scheme and I also congratulate the ANZ Bank on the interest it has shown in matched savings accounts.The other Labor initiative I would like to talk about is nest egg accounts. These aim to create a savings vehicle for low- to middle-income families so that they can more effectively provide for the future of their children. Governments supply account seed funding for newborn children plus incentives for families to contribute their own resources over time. Through the power of compound interest, the nest egg or endowment is available at the age of 18, giving young people a flying start to their adult lives, and they can invest this money in education, housing or small business start ups.Wealthy families, of course, have always provided an inheritance for their children. I would argue that, unless the welfare state replicates this process, it is not possible to break the intergenerational cycle of wealth inequality in Australia. In effect, nest egg accounts take Labor's successful superannuation principles and apply them to the other end of the cycle.How might such a scheme operate in Australia? This is, of course, subject to Labor policy research and part of our overall policy review process, but I expect that my friend and colleague the member for Gellibrand will provide some more detail about these nest egg accounts and, in particular, about the exciting way in which they provide young Australians with adult resources for the future, treating young people as they would treat themselves—as adults who want real resources and assets with which they can make their way in the adult world. It is a good initiative, and we will hear much more about this— (Time expired)16:33:004221Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—I am pleased to rise today to support the motion moved by my friend and colleague the member for Flinders. For the benefit of the House, I might take a moment to repeat the motion. It states:That this House:(1) endorses actions taken by the Australian Government to improve the spread of share ownership in Australia and to make shares available to Australians who had not previously owned shares; and(2) deplores actions that have been taken which limit the spread of shares more generally to all Australians.I compliment the member for Flinders for coming up with such an important motion. It is important that the government continues to improve the spread of share ownership in Australia. The opportunity to own shares is about giving people the opportunity to have a stake in their country's prosperity and institutions. It is important that we also encourage people to invest in our nation. By doing this, we can only enhance the stability and growth of important and significant Australian companies.The policy of increasing share ownership has never been taken seriously by the opposition, although I must acknowledge that there was some interest from the member for Werriwa. I take this opportunity to compliment the member for Werriwa for being a thinking member of the opposition frontbench. I even concede that also to the member for Gellibrand. Not too many members opposite are thinking members, but I acknowledge the members for Werriwa and Gellibrand as being two thinking members of the opposition frontbench. Whether the ideas have any resonance with the Australian people is another question, and we will soon find out about that.The Labor Party's policy initiative on this front is pretty limited. I might just take this opportunity to mention what the Australian Financial Review said about the ideas of the member for Werriwa. On the weekend of 8 to 9 June 2002, it stated:Mark Latham came up with a pretty whacky idea last month. He wants the Nanny State to help the poor buy $1,000 worth of shares.If the Financial Review thinks the idea is pretty wacky, I am sure many others will think that as well. Those on this side of the parliament think that the member for Werriwa has a lot of ideas and most of them are pretty wacky. If the Labor Party wanted to promote share ownership, it would support this government's position on the privatisation of Telstra. The selling of Telstra shares was the largest offering of shares to the Australian public and the largest opportunity people have had to take out share ownership. The Labor Party was opposed to that and it is still opposed to it. It is time it moved with the times, because the Australian people support it and Labor would do itself a great service if it supported it. The opposition does not have much credibility on this issue, because who sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas? The opposition is now against selling Telstra. The Australian people will remember that, and it is important to mention that.During the 1990s the proportion of Australians owning shares exploded from 20 per cent to as much as 43 per cent. This trend can be attributed to a number of things: the increase in retirement savings through compulsory superannuation, public floats that enticed first-time shareholders into the market and growth in the market. As my friend the member for Flinders said, Australia now ranks first among similar economies world wide in terms of the proportion of the population that owns shares. That growth has been under the Howard government not under the Australian Labor Party. It is important that the government continues to build on these great achievements and encourages increased share ownership.The current Minister for Education, Science and Training, the member for Bradfield, the Hon. Brendan Nelson, when he was chairman of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations made this very apt comment:Employee share plans can promote productivity, motivate employees, foster long-term prosperity and, in general, nurture a better working environment.This is what the Howard government is all about. It is about promoting prosperity in this country and giving opportunities to all Australians to improve themselves and their family's lot in life. This government is about improving the economic situation for the Australian people and ensuring that Australians who aspire to be better than they currently are can become so. It will only happen under this government. I think the Australian people will remember that very clearly. I am pleased to support this motion and I encourage those opposite to support it as well. (Time expired)16:38:004222Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I feel hesitant to rain on this parade of mutual admiration that seems to be going on across the chamber here, but it seems to me that the government and the speakers from the government side who have spoken on this have a very limited view of what might be the way that we could shape a better country for more Australians. If the result is to focus on the sale of Telstra and the great success story of that being that the member for Flinders is an owner of Telstra shares, then I am not sure that that is what we are all setting out to achieve. I know that he would also be the first to acknowledge that it is people like us in this chamber who have the resources to be able to participate in a whole lot of asset building activities, including the ownership of shares. Probably many in this chamber have had the benefit of some inheritance from their families, if not in terms of real assets then at least in terms of an understanding of how some of these systems work. I do not think that this is what the member for Flinders was seeking to make as his central point in this debate, but it seems to me that the government members have stuck very much to that line rather than looking at some of the more innovative approaches that we might be able to take in redistributing or at least spreading wealth more broadly across our country. I think that is why the member for Werriwa went through a number of the initiatives that have got great scope for us. I would hope that those members opposite who take an interest in the accumulation and redistribution and sharing of wealth and assets in this country might look closely at some of the proposals. In particular, as our shadow minister for children and youth, I want to speak briefly about the nest egg accounts, or child trust funds, that are being implemented in Britain. I think it is worth exploring how such a proposal might apply in Australia and how it is a way not only for us to support children and their families but also, as the member for Werriwa has said, for us to start treating young people like the young adults that they are and providing them with the capacity to make some decisions for their future, enabling them to invest and build wealth for their future, enabling them to sustain their future lives and giving them the opportunity to decide to have children in the future. It seems to me that those sorts of proposals are likely to have a much greater intergener-ational effect than decisions which assist in the rollover of shares from one investment to another, which are only really benefiting those that are already in the system and already have sufficient wealth to be able to do this. This is an opportunity for us to look in new ways at the way that we might support young people in this society and look at the fact that they will have to provide for themselves in the future. We know that the balance is changing in terms of the number of children and older people in our community and they need to be thinking about their futures even earlier on. I think this is one proposal that might lead us to do that. We have the benefit of being able to look at what is happening in Britain at the moment. They are trialling a system and introducing it, I believe, as we speak.00AMVHunt, Gregory, MPMr Hunt—It's called the baby bonus!83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON—No, it is not called a baby bonus. It is not called giving more money to those people who earn more money. It is actually called giving more money to those people who have less, so they can build their wealth for the future and their inheritance for their children in the future. In fact, it is the very opposite of the baby bonus. The member for Flinders would do well to take some of these ideas, which he can clearly see the benefit of, into his party room and argue why the baby bonus could be better spent on some of these sorts of options. I know that, for anyone with any intellect—as the member for Flinders certainly is—there is no rhyme or reason for introducing a system that favours the wealthy.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for private members' business has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for Gellibrand will have leave to continue speaking if and when the debate is resumed.Grievance Debate4223Question proposed:That grievances be noted.422316:42:004223Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The Minister for Employment Services answers all criticisms of the Job Network by saying it is a work in progress. It is not. It is an established government program that, after five years, is showing fatigue—and, I must say, a considerable amount of fatigue, with a lot of intensive assistance clients going through it for the second, third and fourth times without getting satisfactory outcomes. The reason they are not getting satisfactory outcomes is that the program has serious structural and policy defects. These defects were exposed in the draft report of the independent inquiry into the Job Network conducted by the Productivity Commission. The Job Network is a creation of the Howard government and, after five years, the government is accountable for these failings. As a result of the draft report of the Productivity Commission, the government has been forced to make some modifications to the Job Network for the next round of contracts. These were announced in the budget. As is typical of the Howard government's approach to policy development, these changes were announced in advance of the completion of the Productivity Commission's final report, which was handed to the government on 3 June. But three weeks later we are still waiting for its release. The main defects exposed by the Productivity Commission relate to the incentives structure provided by the government to Job Network providers in their contracts. The principal defect in those incentives structures under the current contract is the high outcome payments for intensive assistance.A Job Network provider receives a commencement fee of about $2,122 for each client referred to them. If they can place that job seeker in employment that lasts 13 weeks, the Job Network provider receives an interim outcome payment of $4,953. If the job lasts for 26 weeks, the Job Network provider receives a final outcome payment of $2,144. The government's theory was that Job Network providers would take financial risks to achieve outcome payments by spending significant amounts of money to make eligible job seekers job ready. With $9,219 per job seeker guaranteed or in prospect, superficially that might have seemed likely. But, not surprisingly, Job Network providers in a competitive environment focus on achieving as many of those $4,953 interim outcome payments as they can at the least cost. The consequence is what the Productivity Commission refers to as `parking'. As the commission said:There is evidence that a substantial proportion of job seekers are `parked'—that is, receive a minimal level of service. This is a problem, as active participation by the job seeker in job search or training appears to be positively correlated with service levels.Job Network providers quickly identify the job seekers who are most disadvantaged and give them the least service. This is the antithesis of what intensive assistance is supposed to do. Instead, the government's incentive structure encourages Job Network providers to focus upon what the Productivity Commission calls `creaming'—that is, they `only handle job seekers for whom a job can be found easily and cheaply'. The potential return on an intensive assistance client who is already job ready, as many are, is around $9,000. Job Network providers can achieve 77 per cent of that potential with the interim outcome for a 13-week placement. Hence, the rather commercial promotional schemes for employers such as Mission Employment's flat screen TVs, DVDs and golf clubs as rewards for keeping a job seeker in work up to the point of the interim outcome payment.On the other hand, the incentives for achieving secondary outcomes, such as placing a disadvantaged job seeker in training, are much smaller. The commencement fee of $2,122 is the same but both the interim and final outcome payments are each only $536. The total return for assisting a disadvantaged job seeker who is unlikely to find work is only $3,195. This is the mismatch between needs and price signals. The less assistance the job seeker needs, the higher the reward for the Job Network provider. The more disadvantaged the job seeker and the more they need, the lower the reward. Obviously, some Job Network providers provide disadvantaged job seekers with more than a minimal level of service, but there is no doubt that the incentive structure provided in Job Network contracts does not encourage this. The disadvantaged get parked; the job ready provide the cream.Publicly, the Minister for Employment Services prefers to ignore the Productivity Commission's findings. Instead he likes to make a financial comparison between the cost of the Job Network and the Working Nation program it replaced. According to the government's own submission to the independent review of Job Network, it is an explicit intention of government `to return labour market assistance expenditure to pre-Working Nation levels'. What does that mean? The government has certainly cut spending on labour market programs, averaging expenditure of $1.35 billion per year over its first four years compared to an average annual expenditure of $3.7 billion over the first two years of Working Nation. I do not think either the Howard government or the opposition should disagree on the fact that Labor gave a higher priority to active labour market programs.The comparisons the Minister for Employment Services likes to make are between the average cost per job seeker under the two sets of programs because they have declined under the Job Network. The minister's own departmental submission to the independent review of Job Network provides a useful comparison between intensive assistance and Working Nation. According to these figures, the average cost of getting a job seeker off benefits on Working Nation was $35,100 compared with $22,010 on intensive assistance. The average cost per employment outcome was $12,075 on Working Nation and $6,200 on intensive assistance. The average cost per participant on Working Nation was $3,320 and $2,260 on intensive assistance. But while intensive assistance is cheaper than the Working Nation program it replaced, this is a set of comparisons that requires qualification. In particular, unlike intensive assistance, Working Nation guaranteed every eligible job seeker a place in either a training program or a work placement with a wage subsidy. A large part of the cost differential between Working Nation and intensive assistance was that Working Nation gave every long-term unemployed person real assistance to get a job; there was no `parking'.The changes to the Job Network address the `parking' problem with the job seeker account. This is intended to create the impression that job seekers will be guaranteed a level of support. The problem is that the provider's job seeker account will only be credited with, firstly, $11 and then $953 to pay for assistance for each eligible job seeker. That is recognition that job seekers are not even getting a minimal level of assistance under the current contract. Nor is any job seeker guaranteed access to even that minimal level of assistance under the new arrangements. The provider can pool that money and spend more on one job seeker and none on another. So much for the proposed so-called service guarantee. The job seeker account simply contains some money the provider must spend on eligible types of assistance for some job seekers or return it to the government.The definition of eligible expenditure is broad— for example, Mission Employment's promotion giving golf clubs and television sets to employers to place a job ready applicant could be paid for out of a provider's job seeker account. At the same time, a disadvantaged job seeker needing some specific training to make them job ready might get no support through the job seeker account. Obviously, but in contradiction of current government policy, incentives to employers ought to be paid out of outcome fees and the use of job seeker account money for expensive gifts to employers ought to be prohibited.More generally, the incentive structure has not been changed sufficiently to guarantee disadvantaged job seekers the support they need. Under the new arrangements we will not see an end to the problems of `parking' and `creaming'. There needs to be a real rebalancing of the incentive structure in Job Network contracts. The level of risk for providers in spending on support for the most disadvantaged unemployed needs to be reduced so that they will be guaranteed the kind of help they need to make them job ready.Obviously, if the risk is reduced, the rewards—currently taken as profit from creaming—must also be reduced. At the moment, the taxpayers' employment services dollar is being used inefficiently. Large profits are taken by some providers for placing people who need little assistance. Those scarce dollars are not being spent on the disadvantaged—those whom the program is supposed to have been designed to help. The providers who are not making supernormal profits because they are providing an appropriate level of assistance to disadvantaged job seekers would not be adversely affected by such a rebalancing of risk and reward. (Time expired)422516:52:004225Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—I rise today on a matter of great importance to my home state of South Australia—the state of South Australian politics and those involved in it. As you would be aware, on previous occasions I have expressed my concerns to the House with regard to the conduct of the Speaker of the House of Assembly in South Australia. However, in the months that have ensued, I have become aware of some much more disturbing information, and I now feel that I can no longer sit quietly and allow this information to be hidden from the South Australian public—or the Australian public, for that matter.As this saga that is South Australian politics unfolds, the water just gets murkier and murkier. We have all heard about the dealings that Mr Lewis is said to have had with convicted armed robber Mr Terry Stephens, and we have all heard about the alleged shady business deals, but up until now I do not think that any of us have been aware of just how far these dealings may have gone. To make my concerns clear, I would like to provide the House with some details as background to this saga and as they have been provided to me.Late last year, Mr Terry Stephens—alleged business partner of Peter Lewis, Speaker of the South Australian House of Assembly—managed to purchase the Shenandoah mansion of disgraced former magistrate Mr Peter Liddy following his conviction on paedophilia charges. I say `managed' because how a convicted criminal can be allowed to purchase a mansion known to have guns as part of its contents is beyond me. Who authorised this sale? However, the fact remains that Mr Stephens purchased the mansion. I am also told and have received the paperwork that shows that Mr Stephens borrowed a sum of $200,000 from a lending company called Capital Access with an attached interest rate of 120 per cent per annum to assist with the purchase of the mansion—a loan which he then defaulted on without making the first payment. At this point the company Capital Access, instead of putting the property up for sale, as would usually happen, took the unusual step of taking control of the property and installing a person at that property involved with a well-known bikie gang, the Gypsy Jokers.On the surface of it, this appears to be strange. However, if we delve deeper, it is even stranger than first thought. After hearing this, I immediately began to wonder who Capital Access were and what their interest in the Liddy mansion, Terry Stephens and, ultimately, Peter Lewis, by association, may be. Apparently, it is common knowledge amongst the Adelaide legal and corrective fraternity that Capital Access is a company that, amongst other legitimate dealings, launders money for the Gypsy Jokers bikie gang and is well known for this. But what appears to be less known is that Capital Access is also a company that has allegedly lent Mr Peter Lewis, Speaker of the House of Assembly in South Australia, large amounts of money. As I have said previously, the more the story unfolds, the murkier the waters get and the harder it is to believe that we are indeed talking about South Australian politics and not a Mario Puzo Mafia novel.I am extremely bothered by the information that has come my way because all it does is pose more questions for which I do not have the answers and raises even more doubt as to the character of the person who is now the most powerful person in South Australian politics. What is the interest of the Gypsy Jokers in Peter Liddy and his assets? What is the interest of the Gypsy Jokers in Terry Stephens and Peter Lewis? Did Peter Lewis know about Terry Stephens's dealings with the Gypsy Jokers? What were Peter Lewis's own dealings with the Gypsy Jokers and the company Capital Access? What, if any, obligations does Mr Lewis have to this bikie gang or Capital Access, and how will this impact on his role as the most powerful man in South Australian state politics?It is scary stuff and something which should not be kept from the public any longer. Usually, on the face of it, when allegations arise, one can make a benefit-of-the-doubt decision based on the character of the person against whom the allegations are made. Once again, I wish that it were that simple in this case. What concerns me is yet more information that I discovered while trying to verify what I had been told which only serves to raise more questions to be answered. It appears that Mr Lewis is not quite of the character that we are used to having in a Speaker.The Advertiser, the local daily newspaper in South Australia, took great delight on many occasions to report some `interesting anecdotes' relating to Mr Lewis. For example, on 24 August 1996 the Advertiser ran a story on page 1 titled`Taxpayers foot bill for MP's honeymoon bus trip'. The story alleged that Peter Lewis took his wife of one day and their overseas wedding guests on a nine-day sightseeing tour to Sydney and claimed it as official travel, with the cost to taxpayers being more than $3,000. On 9 April 1997, they ran a story about Peter Lewis being ordered to repay over $3,000 in overseas phone calls and faxes made by him and his wife to South Korea for her to conduct business. The then Speaker of the House of Assembly placed an overseas bar on Mr Lewis's phone and ordered him to repay those costs. But it is then alleged that he began to use his phone/fax to make these calls, because there was not a bar on the phone/fax. This piece of information is of particular concern to me because, now that Mr Lewis is Speaker, who is going to police this sort of conduct and what is to stop it from happening again? Who is going to police the parliamentary policeman?On 11 April 1998, the Advertiser ran another story claiming that Mr Lewis did not tell the state government that his wife owned the property which was approved for lease as his electorate office. Apparently he said that he did not want Mr Ingerson—the minister then in charge of those things—to know that the government would be paying $15,000 a year in rent to his wife, Ms Kerry Davidson, who had registered the property in her Korean name. On 20 March 1998, the paper ran another story, on page 6, about Mr Lewis launching Supreme Court action against the Murraylands Regional Tourist Association because he was voted off the committee at a meeting he did not even attend.On the same day the paper reported that Mr Lewis was in a quarrel with the Department of Administrative Services because it denied him his own exclusive car and driver, despite the fact that he was not entitled to be issued with one. It is also alleged that he even tried to claim parliamentary privilege for his many speeding fines. That brings the whole parliament into disrepute—and add to that the allegations that Mr Lewis tried to import venison into South Korea without the proper permits and then kicked up a huge fuss because we would not help him to get this venison into South Korea illegally. The fact that Mr Lewis has just been given $21,000 of taxpayers' money by the Labor government in South Australia to fund his personal legal action against a former state governmenteven though the previous committee rejected the court action and even though Peter Lewis boasted that it was being funded by him alonegives us a slightly clearer insight into who Peter Lewis is and what he stands for.However, the question remains: how far will he go? On the face of this information one could form an opinion that Mr Lewis might have poor judgment when it comes to determining what he can claim under his parliamentary entitlement and what he cannot. But does this mean that he would knowingly get involved with such serious criminals as it has been alleged that he has? I honestly do not know. There are just too many unanswered questions here. Mr Lewis is unarguably the most powerful man in South Australian politicshe knows it; the Premier, Mike Rann, knows it; and we know it.I am extremely concerned about the amount of unanswered questions. I think that the only way we can resolve this issue once and for all is to demand a royal commission into the sale of the Liddy mansion to Terry Stephens; what involvement, if any, Peter Lewis and the Gypsy Jokers had; and what exactly happened with the sale as well as with the guns and other contents of the mansion. Thereby we can determine whether or not the most powerful man in state politics was involved. I do not think we can rest until South Australians know who is governing them. I certainly know that I will not. I grieve at the precedent that has been set by the Speaker of the House of Assembly in expunging his own comments from Hansard. I grieve that we now have a Speaker in South Australia who thinks he can take part in debate instead of appearing unbiased. Frankly, this Speaker in the South Australian parliament, Peter Lewis, is not only dangerous but also an embarrassment to everyone. (Time expired)422717:03:004227Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—It is nice to see you in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. I am very pleased that the Minister for Ageing is in the House because what I intend to grieve about today is a situation which causes a great deal of uncertainty and concern for residents in my electorate of Bowman—that is, the fact that there are not sufficient beds in my electorate to go around. It is a situation that is in urgent need of government attention.I say that I am pleased that the Minister for Ageing is in the House because he is a person for whom I have a great deal of personal respect. I know that he probably does as much as he can do with the funds that he has got available. But I want to appeal to him—luckily, he is in the House—to perhaps come along to my electorate one day in the not too distant future and have a look for himself as to why there is such an acute shortage of beds—nursing home high-care beds—in my electorate. It is mainly because it is an area that a lot of people like to retire to. It is close to the water, it has beautiful breezes and it is a retirement area that is much sought after.The Treasurer's Intergenerational Report confirmed what most Australians are already painfully aware of, which is that we live in an ageing community. That trend is not going to be reversed quickly given current migration levels and fertility rates. The government, of course, was swift to propose cost-cutting measures to address this position by way of the pharmaceutical benefits changes that I was pleased to see defeated in the Senate last week. However, very important questions about how we ensure that the senior members of our community are able to access the accommodation and the care they require as their needs change still remain unanswered.In recognition that the challenges associated with an ageing community are particularly acute in Queensland, the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, last week announced the creation of a Ministry for the Ageing. This is an important initiative for which he ought to be congratulated. I call upon the federal government to likewise acknowledge that the ageing question is of heightened importance, particularly in my home state of Queensland. I am fortunate to live in and represent one of the most beautiful parts of our country: the bayside area of Brisbane—which includes Wynnum, Manly, Lota and those areas—and the Redland shire, which is on the outskirts of Brisbane. In Bowman not only do we have the advantage of a short 40-minute trip by car to the CBD; we also enjoy the many lifestyle benefits that living on Moreton Bay has to offer. As such, it is little wonder that our community is becoming increasingly sought after as a retirement destination.Bowman virtually takes in all of Moreton Bay—in fact, I will be going to Moreton Island at the end of this week to visit my constituents for the first time in many years. It is a beautiful area. As a result we have people coming from down south and from everywhere all over Australia to this particular pristine part of Australia and they want to retire there. The number of senior citizens that are coming there is extraordinary. There are retirement villages just down the road from my place—Wellington Manor, Cleveland Manor and others. They are just mushrooming up absolutely everywhere, and I can understand why. For instance, one of the villages in my electorate, Finlandia, is one which houses people of Finnish origin in the main, although it is open to general members of the public. It is the only place that brings in Finnish people from all over Australia. Effectively, my electorate of Bowman is becoming a retirement area for Finns from around Australia.The Labor Party introduced a formula which allocated a certain amount of beds per district, and this government has continued with it. It might now be time to look at that formula—look at the areas where retired people are living—and perhaps give some consideration to those areas that attract so many retired people. The difficulties my constituents are currently experiencing in finding appropriate care for their loved ones whose age prevents them from living independently, and the concerns felt by local aged care operators who find themselves unable to provide ongoing care to residents as their needs change, are only going to get worse unless the government acts now to address the aged care bed shortage in my area. Applications for the 2002 aged care approvals round will be called for next month. This will see a flurry of activity from aged care providers in my local area. Groups like Lake Sherrin Homes at Thornlands and Finlandia Village at Cleveland know that a lot rests on their success as they compete for a share of the 130 high and low care beds that will be allocated to Brisbane south—an area that stretches along the Brisbane River from Wacol in the west, through Parkinson and down to Redland Bay. This area, according to the recently released census figures, has more than 93,000 residents aged 65 and over. Listening to those figures, it does not take a mathematician to work out not only that competition is stiff but also that there are members of our community—seniors who have worked hard to build a strong Australia—who are not receiving the care that they require and deserve.Securing additional beds is a pressing issue for many providers in my electorate of Bowman. However, I take this opportunity to highlight the difficulties faced by a group struggling to cater for older members of our community with particular needs. The Prins Willem Alexander Village located at Birkdale in my electorate, not far from where I live, was established in the 1980s to provide hostel accommodation and low care beds for the local community, with a particular focus on servicing the needs of the Dutch community of greater Brisbane. There is a substantial community of Dutch expatriates in Queensland and it is estimated that nearly 25 per cent of its members are aged 65 years and over. Prins Willem is highly regarded as a provider of quality services within an environment which is sensitive to the cultural and social needs of the Dutch community. In particular, residents of the village appreciate the provision of culturally sensitive care services and contact with care workers in their native tongue. However, the village's management, residents and supporters are increasingly concerned by their inability over the last six or seven years to secure additional high care beds to enable them to cater to the changing needs of ageing residents and to have more places available as members of the community reach a stage of their lives when nursing care becomes a reality.As the member for the area, I have for many years actively supported their attempts to secure additional beds through the normal channels of the aged care approval round applications, but the village has had little success. Mounting concern among residents and the general community about the situation of Prins Willem is evidenced by the hundreds of letters that I, and I think the minister and many other members throughout Australia as well, have received. These letters, which I know have been received by many people, ask the following questions: what are we to do with our deteriorating residents? Where are we supposed to send them? How can they be expected to make new friends when they are plucked out of an environment they know, understand and appreciate?In his response to my representation about this important issue, the Minister for Ageing correctly asserts that Prins Willem Alexander Village has 38 Ageing in Place beds, allowing beds to be used to admit patients who require either high or low care or to upgrade a low care place should the care needs of a patient change. While the aims of the Ageing in Place policy are to be supported, to be effective the allocation of Ageing in Place beds must be fortified by other assistance. Prins Willem may have 38 Ageing in Place beds, but the village has only 42 beds in total. To convert any number of their places to high care without any additional allocation would be a logistical nightmare, as the village would struggle to cover the costs associated with additional staff needed to provide high care residents with round-the-clock care. For this option to be viable, the village requires additional beds to allow care to current residents to continue while freeing up resources to introduce the infrastructure and staff required to administer high care beds.While, according to the minister, it is not possible to transfer beds into regions that are already oversupplied, management at Prins Willem are understandably perturbed that they, together with other established service providers in the area, are unable to secure bed allocations, while new nursing facilities are able to be established with beds allocated to the provider based on operations in a different demographic area. Should this practice be allowed to continue, it would cause great upheaval and distress for residents in established local homes, such as Prins Willem Alexander Village, who could be forced to relocate to obtain appropriate levels of care. Relocating is a bleak prospect that confronts many seniors in my electorate, including the many veterans who reside in Redlands and the Bayside, as they get to a stage where they require assistance to get through the minutiae of the everyday. A very good friend of mine, Mr Bill O'Connor, together with a number of other people within the RSL community in Redlands, has set up a committee—it has been going for a couple of years—to try to establish a specific veterans' home in the Redlands area. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott— being, like me, a former minister for veterans' affairs—these veterans like to stay in the one place. They like to keep their friends. They like to be able to move from low care to high care. We are trying to establish an RSL war veterans home down there. Of course the problem we have is the same problem a lot of other areas are facing: there are not sufficient beds. Whilst people are prepared to put forward the money for an RSL war veterans home, there are just no beds. In conclusion, I ask the minister to come and have a look at it, see what the problem is and see whether there is some way that he can assist.423017:13:004230Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I rise in this grievance debate tonight to speak about immigration. Much has been said recently about the need to improve facilities within immigration reception and processing centres to ensure that the government's policy of humane detention is adhered to. This is a very important issue, and the subject of some ill-informed, though perhaps well-meaning, criticism, over the past few months and weeks. No-one is suggesting that this is not a very difficult and, indeed, very complex issue. Simplistic responses as espoused by some commentators have been tried in the past and have simply failed. When such comments are reported in the Australian and international media, they are immediately seized upon by people smugglers. Illegal immigrants' expectations are unnecessarily raised that when they arrive in Australia they will immediately be released into the community or will be in detention for very short periods, regardless of whether they have any genuine claims to remain. When refugees are advised that they have no right to remain in Australia, their unmet expectations give rise to a culture of protest and in some cases, as we have seen, to unlawful riotous activity. All people commenting publicly on these matters in Australia should at least inform themselves of the global nature of the issue, the complexities, the involvement of criminal gangs, and the sheer determination of many people to live in Australia.Under the refugee convention we are required to admit people who arrive in our territory in an unauthorised fashion where there is a question about their needing protection. Australia does this. We are not, however, required to permit full access to the Australian community until we are satisfied who they are and until they have undertaken health, character and security checking. Immigration detention in Australia is consistent with the UNHCR's detention guidelines. It is designed to ensure that applicants are available while their claims are assessed, to facilitate identification, health, character and security assessments and to ensure that they remain available for removal from Australia should they prove not to be eligible for the grant of a visa. That is why we have the policy of mandatory detention.Despite the ALP apparently ditching its bipartisan support, those people are in Australia unlawfully, and we have not previously had the opportunity to check their identity and assess their claims. Australia's mandatory detention policy is not punitive, nor is it implemented as a deterrent or disciplinary measure. Mandatory detention is the result of being in Australia unlawfully, not the seeking of asylum. Detention of unauthorised arrivals is clearly prescribed in legislation and is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Some members of parliament and well-meaning advocacy groups from time to time have felt it necessary to air to the media a range of unsubstantiated and untested allegations about conditions in the centres and the behaviour of detention staff. Let me now refer to comments by Senator McKiernan, an ALP senator, in the Senate adjournment debate on 21 June 2001. I have enormous respect for that senator, and he had this to say about a detainee seeking refugee status:Recently there was a demonstration around Australian capital cities where banners were flown that said, `Free the refugees'. I agree with that; I support that. I do not believe any refugee should be detained in this country. But just as I do not believe a refugee should be detained, I do not believe that anybody who arrives unlawfully on our shores and who claims refugee status is automatically a refugee. Many of them are refused, and I think that something like 1,000 people have had their claims for protection refused and are now awaiting removal from Australia.In my capacity as Chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, I have had many opportunities to look at individual cases through the course of our inquiries. I want to draw reference to one particular applicant for refugee status who was the focus of an inquiry, among other things, of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee and whose case was featured in a report of committee called A sanctuary under review: an examination of Australia's refugee and humanitarian determination processes, which was tabled at about this time last year. There is a full chapter, chapter 7, that deals with Mr SE's case, and there is a chronology of events dealing with Mr SE at appendix 6. We called him Mr SE because he was an applicant for protection and we were respecting his privacy.He is not an applicant any longer, but it is interesting to read how Mr SE took in the Australian community, and not only the Australian community but the Australian judiciary—advocates on behalf of the individual—by lying through his teeth throughout the process as to who he was. We can talk about that because the Legal and Constitutional References Committee actually went into the detention centre, talked to the person in question, took evidence from him and accepted the lies we were told, with his advocate present. Mr Sadiq Elmi arrived in this country in 1997 and made an application for protection that was refused. His appeal to the RRT was refused. I think he made about five or six requests to the minister to exercise his discretion, which were all refused. He was about to be removed from Australia when he convinced the pilot of the aircraft taking him out of Melbourne that he should not be removed. He then made application to the High Court of Australia. His advocates went off to the United Nations. The United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights requested non-removal from Australia and the person was taken off an aircraft out of Perth. The minister allowed Mr Sadiq Elmi to make a second application for refugee status. When, under the natural justice provisions of application for protection in Australia, Mr Sadiq Elmi was shown that the department knew he was not who he said he was and that, therefore, he was not entitled to refugee status, he withdrew his application and made arrangements to go somewhere else.I make this point to the committee: they have heard evidence from many detainees, and not everything they were told during the course of their visits to the detention centres was in fact true. If they want to know what truth is, perhaps they should look at the case of Mr Sadiq Elmi and see how individuals like that will seek to twist and take advantage of Australia's humanitarian program.Australia has a proud history of humanitarian aid and resettlement, every year welcoming thousands of refugees under the second most generous per capita refugee and humanitarian resettlement program in the world, behind Canada. Over the last 20 years Australia's refugee program has been relatively stable, at around 12,000 per annum. The size and composition of Australia's refugee and humanitarian program are influenced by a number of factors. I will not go into too much detail about those factors but will mention two: an estimate of the number of people likely to be found in need of protection in Australia in accordance with international obligations under the UN refugee convention; and Australia's capacity to assist given budgetary implications in which it is estimated that over four years it costs as much as $30 million for every 1,000 refugees seeking refugee and humanitarian entrance. Australia has an excellent record in contributing to the alleviation of refugee and humanitarian problems around the world, including its humanitarian program and domestic processes for onshore asylum seekers. Australia is taking a consistent position which provides protection for those in genuine need and ensures that all claims for protection are properly considered yet makes it clear that illegal immigration will not be tolerated. Let me read from a UNHCR web site article about Kenya. It states:A food crisis is looming at Kakuma refugee camp [northwestern Kenya] which hosts 68,000 people.Reports said the camp, which hosts 68,000 people, had food to sustain the refugees for only two months. This has forced the World Food Programme to reduce its rations.The looming crisis became evident on Sunday [9 June] when 2,000 refugees, whose names were not on the food rations register, fought. Eight people were arrested and taken to Kakuma police station but they were later released afterwards.An official of the World Food Programme said the agency had reduced its food rations from 2,166 kilo calories to 1,997 kilo calories a day for each refugee.She said the supplies would be reduced further next month unless donors intervened.The point that I am making there is that there are genuine refugees who are in need and who are being kept out by illegal immigrants. If our ability to seek out and resettle people is reduced by people smugglers bringing people to our shore, people like those in the Kakuma camp will miss out because they will never be able to hire a smuggler. Many will continue to face starvation because resources in Australia and in other countries will be diverted to deal with those who have the money and the opportunity to engage a people smuggler, whether or not they are refugees.In closing, I say this: the successful settlement of humanitarian entrants relies upon their acceptance by the broader community. In this regard, volunteers play a valuable role in making new entrants feel welcome and helping them to establish contact with their neighbours, places of worship and sporting organisations, and linking them with the relevant ethnic associations. I say to those people who are speaking out publicly today: stick to your sporting expertise and let the issue of illegal immigrants be undertaken through the parliament by the government of the day and in the interests of Australia's security. (Time expired)423217:23:004232Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I cannot allow the comments of the member for Hume to go unchallenged. If he is asking for people not to comment on Australia's refugee and humanitarian programs, that is shocking. The Australian public have just as much right to an opinion as the member for Hume does, and I would say that a lot of the Australian public are better informed than he is about this issue. He is talking about a group of genuine refugees being displaced by illegal people coming here. He misses the fact that, under international law, people have a right to seek asylum in countries. He also misses the fact that the number of genuine refugees accepted by this government is quite small in comparison with the number of refugees going to countries in Europe, North America, Canada and so on. What he failed to point out when he talked about the genuine refugees being displaced was the number of people who have been accepted under the refugee category. The nominal number is 12,000 a year. In 2000-01 we were 1,600 short on that target. We have been short for several years on reaching that target; we are not even filling the 12,000 quota.On top of that, perhaps the member for Hume would like to ask himself how many of those people were Afghanis. At the time that we knew that Afghanistan was ruled by a government against which we were later prepared to go to war—to send Australian soldiers to fight and die in Afghanistan—how many Afghani refugees came through the official stream to Australia? The number was 81 in a year. Those thousands of people who are waiting in queues overseas that the member for Hume feels so sorry for will keep on waiting.83QSchultz, Alby, MPMr Schultz—Where were you before the 2001 election? Why didn't you make those comments then?83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK—I did, actually. The member for Hume asks why I did not make these comments at the time of the election. If he would like to have a look, he will notice that those comments have been made by me on the public record in this place many times as well as in my election material, in public and in my newsletters.83QSchultz, Alby, MP83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK—He displays his ignorance, and he is not even prepared to finish listening to my comments in response to him. What I did want to speak about tonight is something that concerns many Australians and has undermined public faith in democracy itself. I am referring to the case of Andrew Theophanous, a former member of this House, and his conviction on four of the six charges made against him. I do not want to go into the details of that case, because I believe there is a possibility of appeals before the court. Speaking in a very general sense, though, there were some very disturbing elements in the case. Perhaps the most disturbing for me were the reports that contain transcripts of conversations of Mr Theophanous discussing whether he might have a sexual relationship with a Chinese woman who was seeking help with her migration issue. I believe that this sort of case is akin to sexual assault. If someone is having sex that is obviously not consensual, the comparison has to be made with sexual assault. I am very seriously concerned about this particular aspect of the case but, as I said, I do not want to go into too many details of the case because I would not like to see any of my comments prejudice further proceedings.One of the aspects of the case which has provoked a lot of public concern—and I think quite rightly so—is that, should the charges and conviction be upheld, when Mr Theophanous leaves jail he will be entitled to a lifetime gold travel pass. It is an oversight on the part of the parliament that these travel passes are not treated in the same way as superannuation entitlements where criminal activity has been proven. I think the Australian public would expect that, if someone is guilty enough not to be entitled to receive their superannuation, they are certainly guilty enough not to be entitled to the accompanying benefits of a lifetime gold pass. Although Mr Theophanous's wife has said that they would not make use of the gold pass unless and until Mr Theophanous is cleared of the charges, I am not reassured by that. If such a case should ever arise again, the same issue will arise. I think the minister has already made some noises that the regulations might be changed such that people who lose their superannuation entitlement will also lose their gold travel pass. I think that is very important; in fact, it rather surprises me that the regulations regarding gold travel card entitlements seem to be largely at the discretion of the minister. This is certainly a matter for the whole parliament. It is very important that other parliamentarians show their support to the minister if indeed he is considering changing these provisions.I certainly do not think that we will find any objections amongst members of parliament who wish to be perceived by the public as upstanding and prepared to work hard and follow the rules. I think that in cases such as the one that I referred to earlier, there is a real issue with all parliamentarians being tarred with the same brush as the person who has been convicted of a particular outrage. I think it is very important, and it would be very good symbolism, for parliamentarians to say, `We accept that, if someone is convicted of serious charges such as this, they shouldn't receive any sorts of entitlements upon retirement or, in this case, upon leaving jail.'I understand why this oversight may have occurred. I think that it is very hard to make laws and regulations assuming that people will behave so badly. We do have to have a certain level of trust in one another or the notion of democracy falls down. We do not expect people to behave corruptly or to solicit bribes or to solicit sex. We cannot work under the assumption that parliamentarians regularly do this sort of thing, or our faith in democracy is destroyed. But now that we have had the issue drawn to our attention, I think it is important for the public's faith in democracy to take it up and to change the rules to make sure that this sort of anomaly will never exist again.I want to conclude by saying that, when parliamentarians have been accused and found guilty of travel rorts, I think that a very apt punishment for that sort of behaviour would be to withhold their eligibility to a gold pass, if in fact they are eligible for that on retirement. I am not being partisan at all. I am perfectly prepared to admit that Senator Mal Colston, who in May 1997 resigned as Deputy President and was later charged with 28 counts of misuse of travel entitlements, was once upon a time a Labor member, long before this misuse was discovered. He saw greener pastures and was attracted to them. The fact that that prosecution was dropped, in my view, is shameful. I think the last we heard from him was when he wrote to say that a meal allowance should be added to his travel pass entitlement. That is really not someone who should still be travelling on the taxpayers' purse. There are a number of other cases that I remember: Noel Crichton-Browne was fined $4,000 after admitting two charges of using entitlements to fund resort weekends with a female companion; Michael Cobb, in October '98, was convicted of six charges relating to travel expenses, fined $1,400 and given a two-year suspended sentence; Bob Woods was given an 18-month suspended sentence after pleading guilty to six charges relating to travel entitlements; the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government was found guilty because the DPP had advised police that there was, at that stage, insufficient evidence to establish the commission of a criminal offence; and I believe Winston Crane is still being investigated for a similar allegation. I think that where people have been convicted of a crime—(Time expired)10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I understand that the member for Parramatta will say that the member for Sydney was skating very closely to the sub judice law all the way through her speech, and at the end she infringed.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Sydney suggested that the Member for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government had been found guilty.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek—No, I didn't!3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—You could look at the Hansard. Perhaps you were not intending to say that but I think that is what the Hansard will show. Perhaps it would be helpful if you clarified directly.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: if I did, in fact, read the quote wrongly, what I wanted to say was that the DPP had advised the police not to proceed further because:... there is insufficient evidence to establish the commission of a criminal offence by any party.That is what I intended to say.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is clear. Thank you, Member for Sydney.423417:34:004234Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My grievance is on an issue which is of prime importance to my electorate. When people think of Australia's exports, they generally think about primary produce—in particular, coal, crude petroleum and iron ore. An industry that does not always come first to mind, but which increased its exports by an incredible 35 per cent last year, is passenger motor vehicle exports. Exports of passenger motor vehicles are now Australia's 10th-largest export, with a value of $3.1 billion. Australia's automotive exports last year totalled $4.9 billion. That is a long way from 1986, when our automotive exports totalled $463 million. Our major markets for motor vehicle exports are the Middle East, the United States, New Zealand and South-East Asia. In fact, in the last week, Holden has announced that it is expecting to export 18,000 rebadged Monaros to the United States. The value of that export is approximately $500 million.My electorate of Boothby contains many companies which are involved in the manufacture of passenger motor vehicles or components. Companies such as Mitsubishi, Monroe, Hendersons and Bridgestone are all important links in the automotive supply chain. The automotive industry nationwide employs almost 55,000 people, with 26,000 jobs directly employed in vehicle manufacturing. The industry has responded positively to tariff reductions from 50 per cent to the present level of 15 per cent. The value of production has grown to 17.4 billion, or over one per cent of Australia's GDP.Local car production is approximately 350,000 units per year, of which 110,000 were exported last year. There have also been significant improvements in the quality and cost of Australian motor vehicle manufactures. A reform which was opposed by Labor, but which was supported by the government and which benefited the motor vehicle industry, was tax reform and moving to the new tax system. In the lead-up to the new tax system on 1 July 2000, we constantly heard that there was a danger of a buyers strike. In fact, one of the reasons I supported the new tax system was because it reduced the heavy burden of taxation on the car industry, and the car industry recognises that today.In order to increase its competitiveness, the automotive industry adopted the `just-in-time' system to inventory management. The `just-in-time' inventory system enables motor vehicle manufacturers to hold small quantities of inventories, thereby boosting efficiencies. Unfortunately, it has made them vulnerable to supply shortages. An industrial dispute at a small component manufacturer will rapidly affect the whole industry. Motor vehicle production will be quickly affected and they and other component manufacturers will be brought to a halt. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union has used this system to shut down the industry. Since August 2001, there have been four separate industrial disputes that have either shut down the industry or threatened to shut it down. In fact, the AMWU's 2001 campaign was to target companies with a large or militant work force that had a strategic vulnerability in the supply chain. Put simply, the AMWU is engaged in industrial warfare. Unions such as the AMWU and the Metal Trades Federation of Australia need to understand that there is no place for class warfare; there is no place for adversarial industrial relations in the workplace. Employers and employees should work together for their mutual benefit. This needs to occur at a workplace level as all workplaces are different. Disputes at Tristar in August last year and Walker Australia in April this year have shut down the industry. The two disputes resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of lost production. At these disputes, the union and workers ignored decisions and orders of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the Federal Court by taking unprotected unlawful action. I believe that the only reason the component manufacturers did not sue the union and the organisers was that it was a condition of the agreement to go back to work. More recently, the BHP Billiton strike saw helicopters being used to transport steel over an illegal picket line. The encouraging thing about that dispute was that BHP won injunctions against the illegal picket line and won the right to sue individual unionists for damages. But these actions not only threaten exports and investment but also threaten workers' jobs. There is already talk of Holden and Ford looking overseas for components. What does the AMWU do in the face of its members losing their jobs? The secretary of the AMWU already boasts of more industrial disputes which will threaten even more jobs. Over the next 12 months, there are something like 500 EBAs to be renegotiated in the automotive industry. The AMWU has signalled that it will use these renegotiations to apply the same sort of industrial pressure it has applied on Tristar and Walker Australia. Geoff Polites from Holden has described the prospect of this as `absolutely frightening'. But when the AMWU are threatening the future of the successful motor vehicle industry, what do we hear from the Australian Labor Party? The Australian Labor Party are in a difficult position here because they are unable to defend the indefensible. They are unable to tell the union—as they are a significant donor to the ALP—to pull their head in. The ability of Australian manufacturers to attract investment from their parent companies is dependent on a number of factors, one of which is the industrial relations climate. The Vice President of the Ford Motor Co. has already labelled Australia `strike country'. Senior executives at GMH have never seen an industrial climate like this—and this was before the Tristar dispute in August last year. Once again, Australia's international reputation is becoming known for militant unions. I want to highlight something from Mitsubishi's submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry regarding these strikes. The submission stated:The industry cannot limp from one dispute to another without severely eroding confidence levels in domestic and, particularly, export customers and our shareholders, as we compete for limited available investment capital. The Tristar dispute occurred as the Prime Minister was in Japan to lobby on behalf of Australian workers at Mitsubishi. The Walker dispute occurred as the investment decision for the new Magna Verada was about to be made. The actions of the AMWU are just unreal; those people are not living in a real world. They are doing enormous damage to Australia's reputation as an efficient, reliable and innovative manufacturer. The actions of the ultramilitant union are putting at risk the jobs of the workers they purport to represent. It is not possible to continue to act as if the car industry is a sheltered workshop with no exports to deliver and no competition from imports. The automotive industry is highly competitive worldwide with significant overcapacity and much competition for foreign investment. It is critical that the car industry works towards a cooperative model of workplace relations which will be in the interests of both the workers and the enterprise. Today in question time we saw outrage at the linking of assistance to the industry with the workplace relations model that the Labor Party adopt. That is nothing more than a smokescreen. What it shows is that the Labor Party are unable to defend the actions of these unions, but they are unable to tell the union to pull their head in. The best they can hope for is that no-one will notice. Nothing can hide the damage that the AMWU is doing. Car makers and others who suffer lost production due to the downstream effect of illegal industrial action should use the full force of the law to recover their damages. This is an industry which is crying out for something akin to the NFF fighting fund. The industrial actions of Tristar, Walker Australia and BHP are more like the big confrontations which characterised our industrial relations climate in the 1970s. What we are seeing is an industry which is successful, a work force which has increased its productivity, which is threatened by a dinosaur-like union that is like a relic from an industrial museum, and an opposition which has three million reasons to say nothing.423617:43:004236O'Connor, Brendan, MPMr BRENDAN O'CONNOR00AN3BurkeALP00—While the member for Boothby should realise that the AMWU—I think he referred to them on 20 occasions—did not have the effect of precipitating the destruction of Ansett, nonetheless Ansett collapsed. On a number of occasions in this House I raised the plight of Ansett and made some remarks about my views on why this huge company—this iconic Australian aviation carrier—collapsed. To be quite honest, I would have looked to the failings of this government, although I concede the factors involved in this company's demise were complex. It would be wrong for me to conclude that the government alone caused the collapse, but I think it is fair to say that there needs to be a review of the open skies policy, given the absurd price war that went on leading up to the demise of Ansett and the restrictions upon other carriers purchasing shares in Ansett, which all seem somewhat stupid now.Whatever the reasons for the fall of Ansett, and with it the decline of companies dependent upon its survival, the real question is: what role can the government play in providing assistance in the light of its demise? What assistance can the government provide to the creditors and the former employees—and indeed some current employees, which I will refer to later? What help will the government provide to those regions that have thousands of unemployed flight attendants, customer service officers, engineers, caterers, pilots, cleaners, security staff, freight handling crew and others who have worked in the aviation industry? Spare a thought for the 700 Ansett employees who are awaiting their fate at a maintenance depot down in Tullamarine. They have been working minimally throughout this whole period; they have not received their entitlements, contrary to some news reports. Indeed, they are awaiting their fate. I have been informed by the local state member for Tullamarine, Ms Liz Beattie, and a number of employee representatives that, of the 700 employees, up to 400 may indeed be made redundant by the end of next month, but it could be that the whole of the 700 employees may lose their work. It is important to also note that, unfortunately, Qantas have not really provided to those Ansett employees any of the work that they have outsourced in recent months. Instead, they have chosen to have Air New Zealand and Singapore Airlines provide some of those functions. I think this will expedite the likely loss of employment for those 700 employees. So spare a thought for those employees.In March this year, a delegation from the region covering my electorate and the electorate of the member for Calwell met with officers of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and met directly with the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. We also discussed concerns about problems in the region as a result of the collapse of Ansett with the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for transport and regional services. This delegation represented the three municipalities of Macedon Ranges, Hume City Council and Melton City Council. There were also representatives of the employees affected and of those who were no longer employed, and the president of the Sunbury Village Traders Association was also in attendance.Our message was simple: we estimate that about 4,000 people within the region have suddenly found themselves jobless. Of course, this is worst of all for those 4,000 workers and their families as they are directly, immediately and comprehensively hit by this demise. I will just refer to a number of examples. Not far from where I live, and certainly in and around the area of Sunbury including Riddells Creek, Lancefield, Romsey and Gisborne, there have been many families who have lost up to four jobs in the one family—in other words, it is not a case where a family might have lost one job. In one case in Sunbury, both parents and two of their children lost work as a result of the collapse. So the collapse has been devastating for many of these families, and the delegation that came to Canberra wanted to make a point about that.But another telling point is that the fall of Ansett will continue to have a very broad adverse impact upon the region, economically and socially. Ansett in our region was akin to Ford in Geelong; the collapse of BHP in Newcastle is akin to the collapse of Ansett where I live and for those who I represent. Accordingly, in March this year, after the delegation visited Canberra, the member for Calwell and I wrote to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, requesting assistance for the region. Firstly, we requested the establishment of a subcommittee of three area consultative committees that would properly represent the area affected. Secondly, we sought support for Regional Assistance Program funding to support this subcommittee and provide the necessary work to establish specific proposals to create economic and employment opportunities in the region. Thirdly, we sought immediate recognition as a region in need of structural adjustment through the Sustainable Regions program.On behalf of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government responded by indicating that, although he shared our concerns, budgetary constraints would deny the possibility of securing resources through the Regional Assistance Program to fund our requested subcommittee. Further, the delegation's request for recognition as a sustainable region was also out of the question, although he shared our concerns. Although we have been advised to engage with the area consultative committees—which I am happy to do, as is the delegation—the delegation feels very angry and let down by the lack of support to date. In fact, there is a feeling of despair among those delegates that attended Canberra so optimistically in March.Accordingly, I asked the government to reconsider its position and provide some assistance to a region that has been hurt by this corporate disaster. The headlines in the newspapers may go away but the impact upon the electorates of Burke, Calwell, Maribyrnong and some others in Victoria—and no doubt in other electorates in other states—continue, as do the adverse consequential effects upon the local economies and the communities of the region. Those affected will not forget who was there to help and who was not there to help. I strongly hold the view that with such proper support, as a government should show, the region would respond favourably.In my electorate there is a great potential for employment growth in a number of industries, not least of which are tourism and hospitality. At only 45 minutes from the CBD of Melbourne, the towns of Sunbury and Macedon, and others I have mentioned, would provide great potential for economic growth and employment prospects. Amidst a growing wine industry and the unique and beautiful landmarks such as Hanging Rock and Mount Macedon, this region is full of potential. The dual benefits of appealing attractions and proximity to Melbourne provide the essential ingredients for growth in tourism and other associated industries. I do not believe that we have reached our full potential, but with some assistance from the federal and state governments we will indeed get there. Accordingly, I can assure the government that the delegation and the community it represents will not give up in pursuit of the region. We expect a government fully engaged with the electorate and willing to understand our plight and work with us to provide some relief.I should indicate furthermore, as an important aside, that there are indeed some Kendell employees awaiting some decisions to ensure that they receive redundancy. I ask the government to attend to this matter and indeed to those issues I have raised in order to ensure that the Ansett employees, their families and the community at large within the region are properly looked after.423817:53:004238Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—The state Labor government for Queensland has once again completely and totally ignored the Sunshine Coast with the 2002-03 state budget which was handed down recently. Vital funding has not been provided and it is quite understandable that the people of the Sunshine Coast feel they have been ignored and shunned by the state Labor government, despite the fact that at the last state election a number of state Labor Party members were elected in the area. There is no major funding for the upgrade of the Sunshine Motorway, for the Bruce Highway to Brisbane, for better access into Maroochydore or for Caloundra Road. On a number of counts, the state Labor government has simply failed to provide funding.Indeed, the decision by the state government to put the upgrade of Caloundra Road further down in its list of priorities is outrageous, particularly as this much needed road improvement will not happen because at the last state election the people of the City of Caloundra chose to return the state Liberal member Joan Sheldon to represent them at George Street. It is absolutely outrageous that the state Labor government is prepared to play petty politics to such an extent.But it does not stop at Caloundra. If you go to Buderim you will find that Buderim residents will have to wait longer for a police station because the state Labor member for Kawana, Mr Chris Cummins, has simply failed the people of the Kawana electorate—Buderim, in particular—in this particular respect. Perhaps well-known Sunshine Coast business consultant Ted Fitzgerald is correct in commenting that ongoing state Labor government resentment over the Sunshine Motorway tolls being lifted was being reflected in poor road funding.The member for Kawana, Chris Cummins, claimed as a personal win the $11 million contribution by the state government to continue the $17 million Kawana arterial linking the Nicklin Way and the Sunshine Motorway. In fact, Mr Cummins had the gall to go to the Sunshine Coast media and claim that he felt like the cat who had swallowed the canary. He should have been honest and said that the state government had merely put up the money that it was already contractually bound to provide to help fund the road, along with the developer, Lensworth.By comparison with the failure by the state Labor government to provide funding to the Sunshine Coast, it is interesting to note that the Gold Coast received some $120 million in road funding. The state government has also ignored the Sunshine Coast's proposed arts and convention centre and has instead given the Gold Coast a bucket $100 million for its convention and exhibition centre. You could understand that if the Sunshine Coast was a rust belt. Far from it. The Sunshine Coast has been growing at a rate of more than 15 per cent in the past five years, almost double the Queensland rate of growth. The Sunshine Coast is expected to overtake Wollongong as Australia's ninth largest city within three years, and analysts predict our population will grow at a rate of between 2.5 per cent and 3.2 per cent for the next 15 years, to see the Sunshine Coast population grow to approximately 380,000 people. With an average 134 new residents migrating to the Sunshine Coast each week, it is time the Labor state government gave the Sunshine Coast the infrastructure it deserves.Perhaps the Sunshine Coast is suffering due to the fact that we do not have one common municipal voice. We have the City of Caloundra, the Shire of Maroochy and the Shire of Noosa. The Gold Coast for many years have had the Gold Coast City Council and this has been able to give the Gold Coast a corporate identity. They are able to badge themselves as a region, whereas the Sunshine Coast does not have this particular advantage. I will be the first to admit that the Sunshine Coast councils are endeavouring to work together through an organisation called SunROC—the Sunshine Coast Regional Organisation of Councils—but perhaps it is time to question the effectiveness of this and whether this is the appropriate way to operate given the continual pain inflicted on our roads and general infrastructure systems and our inability as a community to receive appropriate recognition from the state Labor government.While the state Labor government obviously sees its political fortune in part tied to the Gold Coast seats it holds, is the fact that the state Labor government has so completely ignored the Sunshine Coast an indication that Premier Beattie has given up on the dud members we have on the Sunshine Coast—the state member for Kawana; the state member for Noosa, Cate Molloy; and the state member for Glasshouse, Carolyn Male? Perhaps he sees that they do not have any chance of holding their seats at the next election. Maybe they are going to be oncers. Maybe the Premier has seen through these ineffective members that the people of the Sunshine Coast are starting to regret that they ever returned to represent them in the state parliament in Brisbane.It does not stop there. The refusal by the Premier and the Queensland government to accept the gift of the HMAS Brisbane from the federal government to be sunk as a dive wreck off Kawana-Mooloolabah is a further indication that the state Labor members are either unable or unwilling to advocate strongly our community's needs. Maybe this is yet another indication that the Premier has given up on Chris Cummins. Maybe their research is showing that Chris Cummins is on a hiding to nothing at the next poll.Peter Beattie is not a fool. He does know, however, that Chris Cummins is an ineffectual local member and, given his lack of performance, his chances of holding that seat at the next election are clearly minimal. Maybe Premier Beattie is research driven. Maybe he is looking at Chris Cummins and the other state Labor members and saying, `Look, they can never hold those seats, so why waste money on their electorates?' It is all very well for Mr Beattie to play politics. It is all very well for him to make an assessment that the representatives of Labor at state level on the Sunshine Coast are duds, but it is not right that the people of the Sunshine Coast should be penalised. Cummins has had his chance to show that he is an effective local representative by supporting the project of sinking the HMAS Brisbane as a dive wreck, but he bowed to Beattie's pressure and he is in the process of depriving his constituents of a tourism and jobs goldmine.It is also worth mentioning today the way in which the state Labor government has treated the hardworking people of the state of Queensland. For the fifth consecutive year, the Beattie government, in time-honoured ALP tradition, has delivered a net deficit budget, and this year it will spend almost half a billion dollars it does not have. This will bring the total deficit of the Beattie government to $3.16 billion. It also seems that the Caloundra and Nambour general hospitals will be hard hit through the scalpel that Peter Beattie and his thoroughly incompetent Minister for Health, Wendy Edmond, have taken to the health budget. This year it will actually drop by $127 million. With more bad news, I wonder whether Wendy Edmond will continue to disappear. Will she be there to answer the questions? It simply seems that she has run away and that she is unable to confront not only the people of the Sunshine Coast, whose health needs have been ignored by the state Labor government, but also the people of Queensland more generally.The Beattie budget cut road spending by $12 million, and obviously the people of the Sunshine Coast share in this pain. Any sensible person would think that, in a rapidly growing economy such as Queensland's, the government would recognise the need to properly fund road construction and repairs. While Premiers Bracks and Carr are, to their credit, delivering reasonable unemployment rates, Queensland under Beattie retains its crown as the unemployment capital of Australia, with this Beattie budget predicting that Queensland's average unemployment rate will be 7.5 per cent—1.5 per cent higher than the projected national average of six per cent.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—They put a few Liberals on the scrap heap at the last election.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The member for Banks knows that Premier Beattie is a dud. I want to draw to the attention of the people of the Sunshine Coast and to the attention of honourable members the appalling job that the three state Labor members are doing on the Sunshine Coast. They have been unable, unwilling or unprepared to stand up on behalf of their constituents, with the result that, unlike the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast is being short-changed by way of government infrastructure and road funding. It just seems that, even though we have a number of state Labor members sitting in the parliament in George Street, they are simply unable to get across the message of the Sunshine Coast, with the result that the people of the Sunshine Coast must be greatly regretting the fact that they elected these state members to represent them in state parliament. These guys are duds. They should be thrown out.10000Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question agreed to.Bills4240R15044240Consideration resumed from 20 June.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 8) to page 2 (line 6), omit the clause, substitute:2 Commencement This Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.(2) Clause 4, page 2 (lines 13 to 16), omit subclause (1).(3) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 8), after item 45, insert:45A Section 141TRepeal the section.18:04:004240Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Family and Community Services10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.Question agreed to.Bills4240R14824240Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Mr Abbott:That this bill be now read a second time.18:04:004240McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—In rising to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002, I note that we will be moving a second reading amendment and also amendments in detail in the committee stage of the bill. In his second reading speech on presenting the bill, the minister acknowledged the significance of enterprise negotiation. That phenomenon has been vitally important—and, in fairness to the minister, I think he recognises that—in terms of Australia's current economic position. The evolution of enterprise negotiations arose firstly very much under the encouragement of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. As part of the accord process for trade unions to secure wage rises on behalf of their members, they had to convince the commission that they had provided enough productivity offsets by way of work practice changes, award restructuring or other productivity improvements during the various processes of the accord and national wage case decisions which reflected those outcomes.I can give first-hand account that on numerous occasions I appeared in those proceedings and the parties were literally sent away because the commission was not satisfied that the productivity offsets justified the wage increase. In other words, that process itself instilled in the parties the recognition that productivity improvements and the development of best practice production and management techniques were essential not only from the point of view of simply self-interest in obtaining higher wages but also from the point of view of developing Australian industry. Indeed, many trade unions and employers took work force representatives overseas with them to see what was happening in other countries and to show managers and work forces the grade they had to play in to compete in what was becoming, and what is certainly now very much here, a global marketplace.That period of time saw a significant education, if you like, of both Australian management and the Australian work force as to the standard and the pace of the game that we had to play, in terms of both quality and flexibility. By way of analogy, it is like watching a modern game of rugby league compared to a game 15 years ago. It is much faster, much more flexible and in many ways far more skilled. That is the level of the game. What is frequently overlooked by this government are those tremendous improvements in productivity techniques, flexibility and generally the development of best practice models which, if not implemented with the consent of the trade union movement, in many instances were implemented as a result of the initiatives of the trade union movement in going along to workplaces and saying, `In order to obtain these second-tier increases, we've got to improve productivity. This is what is being done in other enterprises. How about sitting down with our members to work through whether this is appropriate for your enterprise?'There is no doubt that that whole process, the evolution of that process, brought a great number of businesses from a system where they were producing for a domestic, fragmented market to a sophisticated model where they are producing for the rest of the world. We have heard today in debates, for instance, about the car industry. Fifteen years ago it was an industry under real stress, with tariff walls essential to protect us from going under in the face of international competition. We are now very much competing on that first-grade field, on the international field, and we are doing very well, if not winning. We are exporting about $7 billion a year in the automotive industry—the automotive industry being topical, of course, because of recent debates and the current industrial relations events occurring with so many enterprise agreements coming up for renewal on the one hand and, on the other hand, the Productivity Commission looking at the future assistance which the industry should receive, and I hope will receive, from the government.The Labor Party very much supported the development of enterprise negotiations. I think it is fair to say we were stewards of that change till we got to 1993, when the parties themselves were able to negotiate enterprise agreements without arbitrated outcomes through the commission. That was the final step in the equation. Quite frankly, I think it is unfair of this government not to acknowledge the tremendous contribution that Australian workers have made to the development of the productivity of this nation. When I say Australian workers, I mean Australian workers and their elected representatives. It is regrettable and offensive to see that the government are constantly playing the political card of bashing the trade unions. Why do they do it? Because historically and in actuality trade unions are affiliated with the Labor Party. So attacking the trade union movement generally is seen as attacking the Labor Party. We are big enough and tough enough to cop attacks on our own. The member for Banks beside me is well-equipped indeed to counterthrust against any attack on him, and I think the frontbench are also quite prepared to accept and return political attack, but what is inexcusable is the denigration—for the purpose of what is literally a propaganda campaign—of trade unions, which are of course made up of Australian workers and their elected representatives.Having said that, as I have said publicly on a number of occasions there is a small minority of trade unionists who I believe have not always acted in the interests of their members or in the national interest. But you do not approach your response to an industrial relations framework on the basis of the activities of a minuscule minority of people. That is my criticism of the government's approach. They are focusing on the activities of that minuscule minority for the purpose of blowing up disputation rather than developing systems that harness the tremendously constructive contribution that Australian workers, and Australian workers through their elected representatives, have made to this whole concept of enterprise negotiations. I give that introduction to put into context the position which the Australian Labor Party take in response to the bill, which is titled the `genuine bargaining' bill. The bill essentially recycles, if you like, two earlier proposals introduced in the House and the Senate in 1999 and 2000. It must be acknowledged that this bill is a more moderate version of those earlier proposals, but nonetheless we believe it is misguided and, on that basis, we will be opposing it. In particular, we think it is misguided because it focuses on blocking activity rather than facilitating genuine bargaining through empowering the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to make orders and give directions to parties to facilitate enterprise bargaining in good faith. As I say, we strongly support enterprise bargaining but we take a much broader approach rather than this one, which we believe is a ham-fisted response.In particular, there is a whole range of actions that are required before protected industrial action can occur. There have to be resolutions of the relevant officials of the union, appropriate notice provisions and attempts to negotiate. The trouble is that when the system breaks down—and sometimes it can, it must be conceded—those procedures are seen more as rituals rather than activities of substance. We want to empower the commission to enable them to direct parties to negotiate in good faith so that they insist on each of these being activities of substance and not simply as part of a ritual. We do not want negotiations getting to the stage of the laws of the jungle where both sides kick into each other—with the unions taking industrial action, on the one hand, or employers embarking on lockouts in other regrettable instances, on the other hand. We say that the role of the umpire is a fundamental role and one which we will continue to press for. Indeed, we believe that, when the expertise of the commission is used by giving it a role as a facilitator of good faith bargaining, you are more likely to get agreements more quickly and more far-reaching agreements. The government keep on saying they want to take third parties out of the enterprise relationship—taking third parties out of the relationship between employees and employers is their philosophy. To do so, however, they fail to appreciate the tremendously constructive role that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has played and can still continue to play even in these more flexible times of enterprise negotiations. There are two excellent recent examples. One involved BHP Western Port where there had been 23 days of stoppage before the commission became involved, and the matter was resolved within 24 hours of that occurring. The minister referred to the fact that common-law proceedings had been commenced. I think it is fair to say that the gateway, at least, for those common-law-proceedings was a good five days before that. That is not consistent with the actual events that occurred. Clearly, the commission played a very constructive role in the resolution of that dispute.Another example is the resolution—or, at least, a means to the resolution—of a potentially crippling dispute in the airline industry involving air traffic controllers. Again, the good offices of the commission were able to prevail upon the parties to agree to a timetable of negotiations and a method for resolving those by way of arbitration at the end of it if no outcome was achieved. Because of the absence of powers of the commission to direct parties to negotiate in good faith, they were only able to achieve that by prevailing upon the good faith of the parties. Again, that was after there had already been actual industrial disputation, which caused quite significant disruption, I recall, for one day about a month ago to the airline industry. So the opposition will be moving amendments in consideration in detail with a view to restoring the powers of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to direct parties to negotiate in good faith.But talking about the actual provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002, for instance, proposed section 170MW(2A), as the explanatory memorandum states, purports to provide `guidance' to the commission as to how they should approach enterprise negotiations when there is a commonality of claims across an industry. In fact, they refer to a significant decision of Justice Munro in the metals case of 2000. That case involved a situation where generally across the metal industry a number of enterprise agreements were terminating at the same time—a situation which we are now coming up to in 2002.But, if you read that decision, guidance is not what is needed. Justice Munro was clearly able to set out what he regarded as factors indicating whether a party was genuinely negotiating. As we keep repeating, what is needed is the empowerment of the commission to enable the commission to be a facilitator to direct parties to negotiate in good faith. In fact, in that metals case Justice Munro used current section 170MW(1) to terminate a bargaining period of 33 employees because he was not satisfied that they were actually bargaining in good faith in respect of that enterprise. It is worth referring to the key finding of Justice Munro where he said:Does it follow that, if in truth the respondent negotiator is trying to secure agreement with all, or an entire class of negotiating parties in an industry—all or none—the respondent negotiating party is not genuinely trying to reach agreement with any individual negotiating party in the industry or class? In my view, it does. But in a particular case, a finding to that effect is dependent upon matters of fact and degree.In other words, there is no black and white prescription, as this legislation is attempting to impose. In explaining what he meant by `fact and degree', he said:Such questions of fact and degree obviously need to be answered by reference to evidence and details of particular facts. The more the negotiation conduct can be categorised as evidencing a refusal to allow agreement other than on an all or none basis, the greater the likelihood that it should be found to fail the genuinely try to reach agreement with the other negotiator test. However, there are variations and permutation of demands, conduct, and character of negotiating parties that must be assessed.So he approached it in a pragmatic way, looking at what was actually occurring—not on the basis of any ideological assumptions but on the basis of a genuine balance. Indeed, the government itself has now withdrawn reference in the legislation to pattern bargaining, but it is still used in the debate. That is, again, a flawed assumption. There will be many industries where a degree of commonality is essential from the point of view of practicality for all involved. Good examples would be in the retail grocery industry, in the retail hardware industry and, indeed, in respect of nursing homes. A commonality of enterprise negotiations will be necessary and, if you take the nursing home industry, probably desirable so that the standard of care provided to senior citizens in nursing homes is not dependent upon nursing homes trying to undercut or achieve productivity outcomes by reducing the terms and conditions of their professional staff. The fact that there is a commonality of bargaining does not mean that there is an absence of bargaining in good faith. That is the flaw, we believe, of the government's legislation. Indeed, Justice Munro, in the case to which I have referred, commented on that. As he said:A common set of demands for conditions of employment, or for timing of negotiating rounds and outcomes is not sufficient in itself to establish that a negotiating party is not genuinely trying to reach agreement with the counterpart party. I do not use the expression pattern to describe such demands. The notion of pattern demands or pattern bargaining lacks precision. It also has a partisan pejorative content.So he was alive to this concept, this expression, used by the government in trying to condemn that process. He noted that the process of attempting to obtain commonality of outcomes was quite frequently used from the employer's perspective as much as from the trade union perspective and you could not adopt this blanket assumption that this legislation presumes. Indeed, if you look at how the federal government itself approaches negotiations you will see there is very much a pattern to what the government does in this regard. As the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee found in its October 2000 report:Rhetoric about the decentralised environment of the Workplace Relations Act in which agency heads have flexibility to negotiate terms and conditions to suit their workplace has been misleading. The reality is that, while agencies have greatly increased flexibility, the Government is the ultimate employer and has in place policy parameters and guidelines to protect its policy interests.So it is quite hypocritical of the government to condemn this concept of a commonality of processes in circumstances where it is still doing that. Indeed, by way of policy parameters and guidelines, which one would think are essential for the orderly administration of the Public Service, it is engaging in that very process. An example is an edict from the minister's department on 7 June 2002 which revised the government's policy in respect of retrospective increases in remuneration for public servants. The policy now dictates that, other than in exceptional circumstances, pay increases are to apply prospectively. That is an edict that applies to negotiations which will take place, but that is a commonality. We can understand why the government may well give that edict, but, again, you cannot say that because that edict has been given the government must necessarily be not bargaining in good faith. You need much more precision to look at the facts, as Justice Munro said in his decision. The fact that this government has taken such a ham-fisted approach, we believe, prevents that occurring.Another example is the way in which the government approaches negotiations for Australian workplace agreements within the department. The Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee recently revealed that when Senator Sherry asked the departmental representative, Dr Boxall:Has the department begun negotiations with individual employees or will it be commencing negotiations with individual employees about the terms of their AWA?Dr Boxall—We have already processed some AWAs. So that you have a complete picture, all the AWAs in the department, which were in place before I arrived, expire on 30 June so the department faces quite a large task, because not only do the certified agreements expire on 30 June, so do all the AWAs currently in place.Senator Sherry—It sounds like pattern bargaining to me. They all come out at the one time.Dr Boxall—It is a statement of fact.It is, quite clearly, a statement of fact that there will be a commonality of policies in place. There will be a commonality of expiration dates. That in itself does not mean there is an absence of good faith bargaining. You need to be much more precise in determining that. As I have indicated, Justice Munro gave guidance and indicated that the commission is quite capable of determining that. The commission needs the ability to direct parties to negotiate in good faith. In other words, it needs to be empowered.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—In the short time that I have left I should focus some little time on the opposition's counterproposal, if you like, to what the government is talking about. Before doing so I should note that one of the proposals of the government is to provide for cooling-off periods as set out in section 170MWB. Indeed, I note that the Australian Industry Group has recently called for cooling-off periods and for the commission, in imposing a cooling-off period, to have regard to how third parties would be affected by industrial action. We see the reasoning in trying to limit the damaging effects of industrial disputation. Indeed, to the point where we are concerned that those proposals presuppose the occurrence of industrial action, what we would like to see instituted is a system where the commission literally is empowered to get amongst the processes to prevent that industrial disputation arising in the first place.Our concern is also that simply directing a cooling-off period without any requirement being imposed on the parties during that cooling-off period as to how they should conduct themselves and, indeed, not act to the prejudice of either of the respective parties that are limited by that very order necessarily requires the commission to have a role in how those negotiations will take place. For that reason we are proposing, as an amendment to this bill, re-empowering the commission to direct parties to negotiate in good faith—to actually get into the picture before disputation occurs. Those factors from a number of jurisdictions that are commonly adopted are: a requirement that parties agree to meet face to face; that they attend meetings that have been organised; that they comply with negotiating procedures that have been agreed to; that, subject to confidentiality provisions, they disclose relevant information to allow the negotiations to be informed; that they state their position on various issues; that they explain their position on issues; that they consider and respond to proposals made by the other side; and, of course, that they adhere to commitments given to the other negotiating party as to how they would progress matters. They are all important issues.We also propose in our amendments that a requirement be included that the parties dedicate sufficient resources and personnel to ensure that genuine bargaining occurs. From the point of view of the employer, that is obvious. Indeed, from the point of view of an industry-wide approach, clearly just having a scattergun approach without the capacity for unions to even send officers to a particular enterprise would not be, in our view, genuine bargaining because of the inability to achieve an agreement with the resources that are applied. We also propose giving the commission powers to ensure that a negotiating party negotiates with another party and that they do so in good faith, and to make orders in respect of the efficient conduct of those negotiations.I will explain these amendments during the consideration in detail stage of the bill, but at this stage I wish to move a second reading amendment. I move:That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:`whilst not denying the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) unreasonably emasculating the powers of the AIRC to resolve industrial disputes in the interests of the parties;(2) interfering with the AIRC's discretion to deal with industrial disputes in the most appropriate way; and(3) failing to put forward constructive proposals to enable the Commission to direct parties to bargain in good faith'.The emphasis is against the blocking approach that this government is taking because of its ideological position. Instead, we propose an empowering approach where the commission is actually given powers to get amongst the procedures and to use its expertise to assist and facilitate the parties in reaching an agreement in respect of the particular enterprise concerned. Clearly, the commission has expertise, and it should be recognised as having a legitimate role, which this government is not doing. (Time expired)10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Is the motion seconded?83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs Livermore—I second the amendment.20:05:004245Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6CanningLP10—It is my pleasure this evening to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002. This bill sets out to address the threat to jobs in this country caused by pattern bargaining campaigns instituted generally by militant rogue unions. For this reason there need to be better guidelines and more direction placed in this legislation so that the sort of practice where workers are affected to the extent that they are through the campaigns of these unions today cannot continue.Every time I get on my feet in an industrial relations exercise, I must reiterate that the Labor Party does not stand for the workers; it stands for the elite and the vested interests of its party. It does not represent the workers of this country; it uses them as fodder for its own special interests. It is not interested in the general good of the workers in this country. If it were it would be making sure that, for the greater good of workers in this country, workers were paid more. In trying to take away enterprise bargaining from individual workers in the work force it is trying to take away just that—enterprise, where you can actually do better for yourself.Let us put this in context and make the linkages which must always be made in case people in the great wide expanses out there do not understand the connection. As we know, the unions have at least 60 per cent control over the preselections of the members of the Labor Party who are placed in this House. Yet, as reported in the Australian the other day, only something like 19 per cent of people in this country are members of a union. In 1986, 46 per cent of the work force belonged to a union. You have to ask yourself: why has this fallen so dramatically between 1986 and 2002? It is because they have done such a poor job of representing the workers. They have done such a poor job of representing the workers that the workers themselves have said, `We don't need this; we can do better on our own. The coalition government has given us some tools to get a better deal for ourselves, so this is what we intend to do.' So they seek enterprise bargaining in their individual workplace agreements. The Labor Party do not want this, and their union mates do not want this either. They tell Labor members, `We put you here, and you had better make sure we get our agenda up or else you won't stay—we will replace you with somebody more compliant.' I will not go much further into the backgrounds and work histories of members in this House, but we do know that the vast majority of them have worked in a union organisation. So at the end of the day, this is all about the unions saying to their people in this House, who they control, `You make sure this doesn't happen, because if it does we will lose control of the work force and we do not want that to happen.' In a recent Internet survey, out of the 19 per cent of people in the work force who are members of a union today, 51 per cent of the respondents said that they would not vote Labor in any case. Here we see a further delusion about the sort of representation these people are trying to bring to the House.I will now address some of the detail of this bill. Genuine bargaining to get a better deal really should happen in the work force, but it is not happening. This is because the union hierarchy in this country, with the support of the Labor Party, do not want people going off on little sorties of their own, because that would ultimately lead to the unions not being able to control the work force. During discussion of a previous bill here recently, the member for Brisbane interjected something like, `What are you talking about? You say only 19 per cent of the people in the work force are members of a union. How can that stop a country? How can that hold anyone up?' It can do so very easily, as we have seen just recently. If you stop the steel components going to a car yard, or stop the flight controllers at Sydney airport or other airports, you stop the whole industry. So let us not be fooled about what a small component of the work force can do to the whole work force. This is about levering upaction so that the Labor Party can get their own way on these bills.The main parts of this bill will force unions to try to reach genuine agreements with employers before they can strike—and particularly before they can start pattern bargainingexercises—and will help the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to order cooling-off periods where there is a protracted dispute. What is the matter with legislation that tries to get people to produce better outcomes—that tries to get people to genuinely reach agreement? The unions that oppose this bill forget that many people in the work force now are subcontractors employing one or two people or are self-employed. If these people go to a work site and negotiate a better deal because they are more productive and have the opportunity to work longer hours without all the conditions that go with that just to get the job done and make sure that at the end of the day they can move on to their next job or get a success fee for having finished earlier, what is the matter with that? They are getting a better deal.A militant union, the CFMEU, is out of control in the building industry in Perth. It is run by the great Kevin Reynolds,who said at the weekend that the member for Hotham was the worst opposition leader that he had seen. By the way—this is just an aside, but it should be widely known—Laurie Oakes on the morning show the other day said that this is the worst opposition he has seen in 40 years. What is the matter with trying to get a better deal for individuals in the work force? Strikes do cost jobs. The CFMEU—the rogue union in Perth—and Joe McDonald quite willingly say, `We are militant and we will take any measures we can to get our way.' The Cole royal commissionin Perth recently found some very bad workplaces in terms of intimidation, threats and lock-outs—`no ticket, no start'. These sorts of leverage arrangements used by unions to try to get their own way on work sites in the building industry are a disgrace. The opposition would say, `The Industrial Relations Commission can address all this.' But we have seen recently that they do not. The Industrial Relations Commission has put orders on companies—for example, in the recent strike by the car workers which included BHP moving steel from its yards—and the unions have ignored the commission. They have blatantly thumbed their noses at the Industrial Relations Commission and said, `We are not going to follow your directive. You can fine us if you like et cetera.' Basically they have given the middle-finger salute, which is just inappropriate in these circumstances. That is how weak and ineffectual the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has become. Even though it could take measures to enforce orders, it does not.We are saying that there need to be stronger legislation and stronger measures to ensure that the amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 go ahead. The bill will guide the IRC when it considers whether a party is genuinely trying to reach agreement with other negotiating parties, particularly in cases involving, as I have said, pattern bargaining. The bill will also add to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and empower the commission to make orders preventing the initiation of a new bargaining period or attaching conditions to any such bargaining period where a bargaining period has been withdrawn. In addition, the amendment will empower the commission to order cooling-off periods in respect of protected industrial action to facilitate resolution of issues in dispute. That is what the bill aims to achieve.The Australian Labor Party cannot deny that when they were last in government they limited the right to strike. Strikes were intended as a means of last resort to reinforce a genuine claim for wages and working conditions—one thing in government, another thing in opposition. I thought the flip-flop Mr Beazley had gone, but no, we are back; we are being opportunistic. As is described here on a daily basis, we have cheapjack opportunism just for the sake of opposing. We have seen that with a raft of bills, whether they relate to pharmaceutical benefits or disability services. The public are getting sick of it. Out in the electorate they say to me: `What are these people doing? They didn't win the last election. They don't want to see this country go forward, be more productive and work more efficiently. They're just going to oppose you at every step of the way. They really don't care about the consequences. In this case they really don't care about the workers, because if they did they would allow them to have individual workplace agreements whereby they can bargain for a better deal.'The unions of this country are hell-bent on extending the right to strike, and that is why the Australian Council of Trade Unions opposes this bill. I do not disagree with the right to strike in the right circumstances, but the right to strike in relation to a genuine bargaining exercise involves their putting on bogus strikes to win a political and philosophical argument under the guise of things like safety. How many times do you hear them argue a case and then, when they are not winning, suddenly say: `It's a safety issue now; everybody out the gate and off the site. We're not winning and we'll find some way of arguing a safety issue.' For example, recently in Perth, in my home state, it was very coincidental that three or four cranes on work sites in the CBD suddenly toppled over. The Australian Labor Party, through the unions, were saying: `Shock, horror! Look at all this! What's going on? These crane companies are a disgrace. There is a safety problem here. The crane drivers are a problem.' Guess what happened? When it was realised that a union front trained the crane drivers, they suddenly stopped. That was one of the bogus safety exercises that they went through to win a political point on the work site.The unions claim that the bill will deny workers the right to strike. It will not do so, but it will put a serious dent in the side of irresponsible campaigns like the AMWU's so-called Campaign 2000 and Campaign 2003. I heard the member for Barton say, `Look, this is terrible because this legislation really only aims at a very small percentage of ratbags in the industry.' The whole industry is basically a ratbag. It is very unproductive. We have seen investment and jobs associated with it dry up, and that is costing progress in that industry. The member for Barton says, `It is overkill because we are really hitting just a small percentage of people.' That is quite bizarre, because it is like saying, `We won't have any laws on the road now because we will only target those bad speeding drivers and the people who do not do the right thing on the road, so why not cancel most road rules because they apply only to the rotten few?' It just does not gel—it just does not have any resonance. The member for Barton is a good fellow and so on but we know that he is reluctantly in here endeavouring to hold up his end with this argument because he is one of the few opposition members who do not have a great union pedigree.Another aspect is that the unions, particularly the AMWU, advocate pattern bargaining because it gives them control over entire industries. They do not want to control the workers they have in an industry—that is, the small percentage of people who belong to a union; they want to create pattern bargaining to control a whole industry. We now need to address the bargaining fees that unions even want to charge non-union workers. It does not apply only to registered members of a union; they want to control everyone on the work site whether or not they are union members. It is control-freak stuff. We know that the AMWU's web site declares that it is pursuing an industry-wide agreement for all manufacturing workers, not just the ones who belong to that union. We know that the great old Australian-born Dougie Cameron and Craig Johnston of the AMWU have made it clear that it is their intent to use pattern bargaining to end enterprise bargaining within the manufacturing industry. They actually want to end it. They do not want it to go any further. They cannot have a dual system or a compliance system. They want to end it totally. In fact, Craig Johnston, the chief policy officer of the Labor Party and a member of the Victorian branch of the AMWU, cannot be trusted with the sort of power the unions are seeking with the blessing of the ALP.In the past year alone, members of this branch of the union have held out on paying a $20,000 contempt of court fine for holding illegal stop-work meetings. This fine was eventually paid by an anonymous businessman. That poor old businessman was probably blackmailed into paying it because he wanted his job finished. This branch of the union has been the subject of allegations over two run-throughs causing several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to two Melbourne businesses—in other words, standover tactics by these thugs.Craig Johnston was seen running through Parliament House in the 1996 riot. He has been publicly rebuked by the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, who realises that the AMWU are driving investment and jobs from his state. Last year, Premier Bracks wrote to Doug Cameron complaining of allegations of violence, property damage, physical assault and intimidation against employees, employers and even fellow union officials. We also have reports from employers that some AMWU officials do not comply with the industrial agreements and understandings once they have been entered into. Where is the genuine bargaining there? It is nonexistent. These provisions have to be brought in to give greater strength and direction to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.These thugs are writing the ALP policy. They are the ALP's think tank. What is the connection between Johnston and Darren Nelson, the Assistant Secretary to the AMWU in Victoria? Over the past six years, the AMWU has donated over $3 million to the Australian Labor Party. It's not bad, is it! I would not mind some of that for my election campaigns! The AMWU have made it clear what they expect in return. They do not give away money for nothing; they expect some sort of compliance in return.The Australian of 27 October last year reported that Mr Cameron would not rule out disaffiliation from Labor as a result of the review—again, a bit of leverage and blackmail if they did not get their own way. Five days after Doug Cameron's threats—after the Leader of the Opposition's closed-door confessional meeting with the ACTU—Cameron proudly declared, `I am more relaxed after a commitment that Labor will not go down the path of the Blair-ite third way agenda.' In other words, he got his deal. He threatened the Leader of the Opposition into it and eventually won the day. You pay the piper. That is what is happening in this case.This bill endeavours to address the trade union campaigns of industrial action where a union relies on the protected action provisions of the Workplace Relations Act in support of industry-wide pattern claims. This weakens the focus on enterprise bargaining and empowers unions to achieve common outcomes with regard to local productivity arrangements. Local productivity arrangements are good for everybody: they are good for this country, they are good for the national interest and they are good for individuals' wages. (Time expired)20:25:004249O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002 ought to be seen by the Australian electorate and by working people, whether or not they be unionists, for exactly what it is. This is the Howard government's latest attempt to drive the boot into Australian workers. I must reflect a little on the contribution of the member for Canning. He went through what he saw as a litany of grievances against the AMWU and other trade unions in this country. I encourage the honourable member to reflect on the contribution and the record of his own government.Let us pause for a minute and reflect on the Howard government's industrial relations record. The honourable member for Canning obviously does not see anything wrong with training mercenaries in a foreign country to come back to Australia to engage in thuggery on the Australian waterfront—PK6Randall, Don, MPMr Randall—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: the member for Corio is blatantly bringing the issue of mercenaries before this House, which has nothing to do with this bill. He draws a very long bow to try to extrapolate it. It is a stunt. He should address the detail of the bill, which is genuine bargaining.10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! I am sure the honourable member will come to the bill.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNOR—I have seen some precious little things in this parliament, but the member for Canning takes the cake. He has just spent about 10 minutes of his own speech time talking about violence in the trade union movement—he talked about thuggery and violence in the trade union movement—yet when I get up in this place to point out to the Australian people and to the member for Canning that his own government was involved in training mercenaries to break a strike against some of the workers—PK6Randall, Don, MPMr Randall—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNOR—Here he is: the precious little thing is on his feet again. Is he a sook or what!PK6Randall, Don, MPMr Randall—I find the language inappropriate. Besides that, he must not mislead the House by saying the government trained mercenaries. It is not true, and he knows it not to be true.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! There is no point of order.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNOR—If the honourable member is so precious about the Howard government's training of foreign mercenaries and the sooling of Dobermans on the wharves in Melbourne against members of the Maritime Union, I am quite happy to accommodate the tears that the honourable member for Canning is shedding on this occasion. But let it show on the Hansard record that the member got up here, drove the boot into the AMWU and talked about thuggery and violence yet the moment I got on my feet to point out the thuggery and violence associated with previous Howard government actions on the Australian waterfront the honourable member got a bit precious.But I am quite happy to move on to the contents of this bill. This Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002 is simply the latest instalment of the Howard government's attempt to get at the union movement in this country. Every worker in Australia, be they a union member or be they not, will see this for what it is: another attempt by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to engage through the legal process the pursuit of their agenda, which is simply to get at Australian workers.I take particular exception to the reference to the federal secretary of the AMWU by the honourable member for Canning, who has now left the House. You do not have to come into this House and talk in disparaging tones about one of your political opponents. Doug Cameron happens to be an elected official of one of the largest groupings of workers in this country, and I think he deserves a little more respect for the position that he holds than what the minions on the Howard backbench give him.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—What about the views of the frontbench?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNOR—The honourable minister who is interjecting talks about the views of the members of the frontbench. We know that, because it is enshrined in this legislation—this rather pernicious piece of legislation—designed to get at Australian workers yet again. Can I take you back to the Prime Minister, because we know that this particular legislation comes from the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister has three major elements of his own personal political agenda, which he has pursued since he came into the federal parliament. He is not the father of the House—I do believe that is now the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs—but of course the Prime Minister has been here for quite a long time. If you want a very simple explanation of the Prime Minister's political agenda, it falls into three categories: the first is the GST, which he wanted to introduce, and he has. He did that when the Democrats ratted on the commitment that they gave to the Australian people that they would not be a part of it, and the Prime Minister himself ratted on the `never, ever' promise that he made to the Australian people. So you could say that this particular introduction of the GST was a policy-child born in rather difficult circumstances.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of relevance. This is not a tax bill; this is an industrial relations bill. It is now patently obvious that the member for Corio has no opportunity to attack the provisions of the bill, so he now wants to give us a lecture on the GST. I ask that he be brought back to the detail of the bill.10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—I am sure that the member for Corio will come back to the bill.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNOR—Mr Deputy Speaker, I defer to your ruling on this matter. The minister at the dispatch box—the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government—is my opposite. He believes, of course, that there are more reds under the beds in 2002 than there were in the Menzies era. Be that as it may, let me put my comments about the Prime Minister's political agenda in context. I said that there were three major elements to the Prime Minister's political agenda, if you distil his views down through the years: the first element was that he wanted to introduce a GST; the second element was that he wanted to stab Medicare in the stomach—those are not my words; those are the Prime Minister's own words—and the third element of his personal political agenda was industrial relations, and that is the subject that we are debating here today. The latest instalment in the Prime Minister's personal political agenda is this smokescreen called the Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002. The Prime Minister has not been able to demolish Medicare and he has not been able to get his way in industrial relations. Of course, one out of three is not a very good political record. Be that as it may, we have to deal with the bill that is currently before the House.Can I say from the outset that the primary motivation for this particular bill is not industrial peace. This legislation is designed to once again nobble a significant section of the work force and prevent them from obtaining in the industrial marketplace, through the collective bargaining process, what they consider are just wages for the work they do. I really have to mention this, because we know how hard the former minister for industrial relations, Peter Reith—one of the sponsors of previous bills that have been brought into this parliament in various forms—worked for his money. The former minister, Peter Reith, got a big $45,000 discount on a penthouse at the Crown Casino. That was supposed to be—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPWU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNOR—The minister is really precious tonight. We are very sensitive tonight, aren't we?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of relevance again. Of course, I have had great training at question time in the last few days when the glass jaws of the Labor Party have been squealing about this. Let me say—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPSJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Sit down! I haven't finished. Go on! Until the other speaker is recalled, he will sit down.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNOR—The minister across the table should get on the list with the clerk and have a say. If you don't, sit down. Get on the speaking list—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Corio will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government on a point of order.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I just point out to you that this is a detailed amendment and it is reasonable in the circumstances—because the member for Corio has breached the rules by speaking outside the details—that you now ask him to deal only with the detail of the bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Corio will come back to the bill and its amendments.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNOR—I can understand the sensitivity of the minister, because he comes time and time again—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To use the words oft used at question time: this speaker is defying your ruling.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will listen to the member for Corio, but I believe he is coming back to the bill and its amendments.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNOR—Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I suggest to the minister: if you want to have your say on this, get on the speaking list like everybody else. Don't act like a chump in this House, getting up and moving spurious points of order to prevent a person from having their say.We have made the point in this debate that the government in this legislation is not really interested in getting solutions to industrial relations problems. We have seen an example of this in relation to the recent dispute in the Australian car industry. The minister for workplace relations went out of his way to inflame that particular dispute. And let me tell Minister Tuckey at the table that every time he enters the public arena with that attitude my vote goes up. I have something like 2,000 car workers in my electorate, their families and their extended families, who know exactly where this Liberal government is coming from on the industrial relations issue. Here we have a minister in the car industry dispute seeking to provoke it and seeking to extend it for his own political agenda, which is the same as the Prime Minister's. However, when the parties were brought together and they sat down, we quickly had a resolution of this particular dispute. Doesn't that tell you something about this piece of legislation and the government that is sponsoring it? Because here we have a divisive piece of legislation—one that is not designed to resolve industrial disputes in a timely and opportune manner for the benefit of the company, the workers, and the Australian economy. What we have here, yet again, is the workplace relations legislation that was sponsored by the former minister Peter Reith, broken down by the current minister into what he thinks are digestible pieces for the Australian electorate and to be rammed through this parliament again. We have made two points in this debate: one is that this legislation will not contribute to the resolution of industrial disputation in this country. To talk about genuine bargaining, this is simply an attempt to stop larger unions in larger industries from bargaining in a certain manner which the government finds particularly objectionable. We have put before the parliament and the Australian public on many occasions what we think are good principles that ought to be pursued by both parties, employers and employees, when there are industrial disputes. Let us face it, we are in a sensitive area of economic and human endeavour. There are always going to be disputes about the carve up of the economic pie. But what we want is a structure and a mechanism that is going to resolve those particular disputes in a timely—and dare I say—sensitive manner that gives some justice to the work force, honours the position of the companies and is in the interests of the Australian people. We have put that proposition forward to the Australian people and to this parliament in terms of encouraging the partners in the industrial relations process, the employers and the employees, to bargain in good faith. Bargaining in good faith ought to be enshrined in legislation. It simply means that the parties agree to meet face-to-face. They follow a set negotiating procedure. They are bound to disclose relevant information. They must respond in good faith to proposals that are put by the other side, and they are required to adhere to their commitments. I ask members opposite: why are you opposed to a concept of bargaining in good faith? When the partners in the industrial relations process sit down together and negotiate an issue of contention between them and thrash through the issues, and when they are compelled to do it by the independent umpire, we get a resolution. You do not get a resolution in the industrial relations arena by this sort of punitive legislation, designed to merely advantage one side of the industrial relations equation. You certainly do not get it by training mercenaries in foreign places, and you do not get it by bringing Dobermans onto Australian wharves. That is unAustralian, and this legislation is merely a reflection of an agenda that can only fail. Honourable members need to appreciate that fact—this can only fail.One of the problems we are now seeing, with state and territory Labor governments all over the country that are pursuing a rational industrial relations agenda, is that the Howard government finds itself isolated—as it has always been—on this particular issue. I can understand the frustration of the minister at the table, and the member for Canning, and the member who will follow me now on the government side, because at the end of day you just want to bully these things through. I am sorry, but you are not going to be able to do that. You are going to have to sit down and do what we tell you to do. We are going to tell you to negotiate. You do not bring in this sort of legislation in bits and pieces or we will knock it off. The Australian parliament will modify it in the interests of the community. You cannot have this legislation just because you want to run a divisive agenda in the Australian workplace. That is our message to you. You cannot be so thick-skinned and thick-skulled that you do not understand that. I cannot put it more plainly to you. The way to go with industrial relations is to compromise, to negotiate and to provide for an independent umpire who has the power to bring parties who seem to be in intractable positions to the negotiating table and to keep them there bargaining in good faith. That is the way that—in a collective bargaining and in an enterprise bargaining situation—we are going to get some sense into industrial relations in this country. The workers in Geelong in the car industry and the workers in the great industries of textiles, petroleum and aluminium production are a unionised work force. We want these conflicts taken out of the political arena, we want the umpire to be given some real power to bring parties together where there are disputes, and we want companies and the unions to negotiate in good faith. I hope the government accept the amendments that we have put forward, although I do not think they will. This legislation may have to go to another place and yet again you may have to be taught another lesson. But keep coming back, keep trying, keep running this divisive agenda. We are quite happy to accommodate you at the state level and at the federal level, if need be, because our motivating factor is the resolution of conflict; your motivating factor is the creation and manipulation of it. That is divisive, that is unAustralian and that is what this parliament must defeat. (Time expired)20:45:004253Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—The Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002 is the government's third attempt to address its concerns about threats caused to jobs by pattern bargaining campaigns. Firstly, I would like to give the House a brief overview of this particular issue. The reality is that, as the previous speaker alluded, workplace bargaining helps the economy because wages and conditions are determined by genuine workplace negotiations between employers and employees, with outcomes based on mutual interests and local circumstances. However, there is no doubt that elements within the union movement have attempted to orchestrate a return to industry level bargaining through the process known as pattern bargaining. This means that unions use pattern bargaining to conduct their negotiations across a range of employers or an industry and do not in fact genuinely negotiate at enterprise level. Pattern bargaining is the worst type of negotiation because it involves no negotiation and ignores the needs of employees and employers at the workplace level. This bill would not prevent unions from making the same claims over a number of employers, but it will reinforce the Industrial Relations Commission's ability to end protected strike action by suspending or terminating bargaining periods if unions are not in fact genuinely bargaining about their claims.I would like to speak very briefly about some of the politics associated with this particular issue. There is no doubt that the House would agree that strikes cost jobs. Industry-wide strikes cost a lot of jobs and hurt the community. In fact, the Labor Party cannot deny that when they were last in government they also sought to limit the right to strike; they were intended as a means of last resort. However, the unions are attempting to extend the right to strike. I notice that the previous speaker, the member for Corio, mentioned Mr Cameron. Doug Cameron and Craig Johnston of the AMWU have made it clear that their intent is to use pattern bargaining to end enterprise bargaining within the manufacturing industry. That was reported in the FinancialReview of 17 June 2000.So what else has been happening in the unfortunate attempts by the union movement to ignore real job creation? Craig Johnston is the chief policy adviser to the Labor Party in the Victorian branch of the AMWU. The SydneyMorningHerald on 23 June 2001 reported that in the past year members of this branch of the union have held out against paying a $20,000 contempt of court fine for holding illegal stop work meetings. The fine was eventually paid by—guess who?—an anonymous businessman. That union has been the subject of allegations over two run-throughs causing several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to two Melbourne businesses. This was reported in the Age on 16 June 2001. According to the Australian on 30 November 2001, this union was rebuked by the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, who last year wrote to Mr Cameron's followers to complain about:... allegations of violence, property damage, physical assault and intimidation against employers, employees and even fellow union officials. We also have reports from employers that some AMWU officials do not comply with industrial agreements and undertakings once entered into.There is a reason for all of this: in the last six years the AMWU has donated $3 million to the ALP. And their threats go further. The Australian of 22 November 2001 reported:Mr Cameron would not rule out disaffiliation from Labor as a result of the review.Five days later, after the Leader of the Opposition's closed-door confessional, Mr Cameron proudly declared, according to the Sydney Morning Herald of 28 November 2001:I am more relaxed after a commitment that Labor will not go down the path of a Blair-ite Third Way agenda.The reality is that this is very much opposed by the union movement—and for good reason. Let us have a look at some of the recent articles in major newspapers. I refer to an article by Robert Gottliebsen in the Australian of Tuesday 23 April this year. In it, he makes reference to how:The sweeping industrial reforms of the 1990s contributed to a fall in national union membership from about 40 per cent to 25 per cent. But in Western Australia the federal reforms contributed to an even greater fall, from 37 per cent to 19.5 per cent, and, if you exclude the public sector, it is down to 14 per cent union membership. Mr Gottliebsen does not believe that that contributed to the union movement developing skills to negotiate more flexible work practices; if anything, the union leaders were `harder and harder to deal with'. He now makes the observation, which we are all aware of:All states are controlled by ALP governments, and most are under pressure to make significant industrial relations concessions. But nowhere has the drive to turn the IR clock back been more vigorous than in WA ...He goes on to say:The WA Government plans a set of amazing industrial reforms that will take the state back to the 1960s and 70s.He gives some examples:... union officials will have unlimited right of entry at any time to a work-place site, including the ability to look at non-member records.All that's necessary is that a workplace has a member or a potential member.He also goes on to quote another example:Non-union collective agreements will be banned on workplaces under state jurisdiction. Smaller unincorporated businesses cannot go to the federal system, so they either have a union collective agreement or the award.His final words include this:In other words, the WA state agreements that gave so much productivity improvement have been made next to useless.He goes on to say that the WA legislation will make it easier for pattern bargaining, the very thing that this bill will try to address.I would now like to move on to another issue, which is the Federal Court's Electrolux ruling—last Friday's decision. I want to refer particularly to an article in the Australian on Monday, 24 June by Peter Hendy, who is the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Most of us would be familiar with the decision of the Federal Court, which is essentially to grant unions the right to demand non-union fees from those who are not in unions. In other words, somebody in a workplace who is not a member of the union can be asked to pay up to $500 as, frankly, a form of bribe. It certainly does not involve freedom of association or freedom of will. The Federal Court has in fact supported this, and Mr Hendy's comments are as follows:The court gave an unhealthy free kick to unions wanting compulsory union fees and greater rights to strike.He goes on to say:This effectively permits compulsory unionism by the back door and a huge extension of the right to strike in the workplace. This is also an expansion of union power and privilege—no doubt to allow people to do run-throughs like the one Mr Johnston did which caused several hundred thousand dollars worth of damage—beyond what democratically elected Labor and Coalition governments in 1993 and 1996 intended ...He makes this point, though, very interestingly in the article:After all, why should the employees who recently kept working at BHP Steel in the face of union pickets be punished by each having to pay a $500 bill to the picketing unions just because they chose to work and keep the car industry (and the jobs of thousands of other workers) going?A good point. Those who chose to keep jobs and opportunities open get to pay the fine to the union, which is exactly what it is about. He goes on in his article to say:The umpire that makes the rules about union power should be the parliament, not the courts.As we have seen from the member for Corio, they are simply going to knock it back, knock it back and knock it back. This is the third time this bill in one form or another has come before the House. It is fine to keep knocking it back because—can I say to the leaders of the opposition—the Australian people will keep knocking you back. It will be many years before you have any hope of getting on this side of the House.The reality is that the Australian people have seen through your false commitments about border protection now that you are so divided and are refusing to support `excisement' of areas of Australia from the Migration Act. They are going to see through this, too. While those in the opposition may imagine that they have had some sort of win and that they will prevent the government from having its way, the reality is that it is the Australian people who will have their way. They will not elect those on the opposition benches to government because they will not support union thuggery; they will not support the likes of Craig Johnston running through a business. It is a cute little phrase, isn't it, for somebody who is essentially just a vandal and who caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage? They will not support unions donating $3 million to the ALP to ride roughshod over small businesses and those who choose not to be in a union. I trust in time that there will be those in the Senate who will see the sense of what the government is proposing. For those in the opposition ranks, they will be consigned to opposition for a very long time.20:57:004255Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The previous speaker, the member for Dawson, let the cat out of the bag, and what a dirty, smelly animal it is. In speaking on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002, the member for Dawson could not resist the temptation to address the issue of excisions from the migration zone. She called it `excisement'; I think `excision' is probably the right word. In speaking on the question of excision, she has revealed what we all know, and that is that the purpose of this legislation, along with the legislation that was brought into this parliament with absolutely no policy purpose whatsoever, is to play politics with very important issues: to play politics with the entire question of Australia's immigration program, to bring into disrepute the immigration program and, in relation to this bill, to seek to portray Labor as being too close to the unions. It has absolutely nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics.This bill should be viewed not in isolation but as one of many industrial relations bills that have been brought into the House of Representatives. At a time when parliament for this particular sitting is winding up, the minister cannot resist the temptation to bring in more and more bills, because he is not actually interested in policy outcomes; he is not actually interested in the future of this country. He is interested in one thing only, and that is playing cheap politics in the parliament and in the broader community.The legislation seeks to prevent pattern bargaining. We would have been quite prepared to enter into discussions with the government on a way forward in relation to workplace relations and some of the objectives that the government say they have in respect of this legislation. As I say, I do not think that they have those objectives at all. They have only one objective and that is a very cheap political one. However, we have an alternative proposal, which is good faith bargaining. It was provided for in legislation introduced and passed in this parliament by Labor governments. In brief, good faith bargaining involves a range of procedural principles such as formulating and complying with a bargaining process, attending meetings at reasonable times and places, considering and responding to proposals made by the other party, and not capriciously adding items to or removing items from the agenda. As a demonstration of our bona fides, we have been interested in the concept of good faith bargaining and its reintroduction into workplace relations legislation in this country. Our shadow minister is a good man who is always looking for constructive solutions but time and time again his efforts in seeking to reach accommodations with the government fall on deaf ears because the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has only one agenda, and that is to play politics with issues that really ought to be above politics and in the national interest.I want to spend a little time on the car industry because there is absolutely no doubt that this legislation has been reintroduced now, and we are debating it for the third time, in the context of potential industrial disputation in the car industry which, certainly on our side of the parliament, we are very keen to avoid. Our leader has indicated to the Australian Industry Group that our proposal and approach is one of imposing a duty on all parties involved in industrial disputation to bargain for agreements in good faith. It is to ensure that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has effective powers to bring parties in dispute together and to give effective powers to the Industrial Relations Commission to facilitate bargaining in good faith and to make orders to ensure that both employers and unions do so. You would think that that was pretty reasonable, but to this point it has been rejected out of hand by the government.We also advocate the position that the Australian Industry Group, on behalf of car makers and component manufacturers, should convene a conference of union and employer representatives to address broader issues, including the reality that up to 500 individual enterprise bargains are up for renewal in the coming 12 months. You would think that if a government were operating in good faith it would believe that the convening of such a roundtable or conference involving employer representatives and unions would be a good idea because it might have a lot of value in heading off any prospective industrial disputation but, surprise, surprise, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is totally opposed to even holding a conference. He does not want to see that happen and we have to ask why. The answer is that a conference might actually chart a way forward for the automotive industry in this country and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations on all the evidence available to us does not want to see a way forward. He sees great political dividends in industrial disputation in the automotive industry in the coming 12 months and he seems hell-bent on achieving that.The BHP Western Port dispute which was concluded recently gives us a lot of encouragement in terms of its resolution as to a way forward. That dispute was crippling for the car industry. With its just-in-time inventory systems, we know that the car industry is quite vulnerable to industrial disputation. The BHP Western Port dispute dragged on for quite some considerable time. However, within 24 hours of the Industrial Relations Commission bringing the parties together, it was resolved to the satisfaction of the company and the unions. Is there not a lesson in that, that when parties do come together and talk to each other face to face, issues can be resolved? In this case it was an issue of job security because BHP had wanted to contract out its maintenance operations. When the parties got together, they sorted that out. Obviously accommodations were reached on both sides. This is exactly the process that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations opposes because he supports confrontation over cooperation.I do not support union militancy in the car industry or in any other industry. I believe that bargaining in good faith is the way of the future. I also believe that families whose livelihoods depend on their employment in the car industry have a right to a say in relation to job security and the protection of their entitlements. Therefore, they have a right to have some say in the 500 individual enterprise bargains that are coming up over the next 12 months.I have to say that zealotry on the part of the minister is spreading to the minister's department. This has taken some time but it is certainly well and truly in place now. In the department's submission to the Productivity Commission's review of the future assistance arrangements for the automotive industry, the department says:The workplace relations environment in the industry has been shaped in part by the willingness of employers to accede to union influence.Oh, dear; what a terrible thing that they might actually be getting on. It continues:While unions have a legitimate role in representing employees, some companies still equate talking to their employees with talking to unions.Surely companies are entitled to talk to unions, but apparently not so far as the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations is concerned. In what is basically a threat to the industry, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations goes on to state:Current levels of protection provide employers with a cushion in negotiating with employees that can lead to suboptimal outcomes in setting wages and conditions... In the absence of further reductions in protection, however, management and the work force are likely to continue rent seeking behaviour at the expense of international best practice.There is the zealotry of the department. We know, of course, where that spread from. It came from the minister himself. This is the same minister who told the H.R. Nicholls Society on 23 March this year:My hope is that chief executives will make [industrial relations] their principal interest rather than leaving it in the hands of so-called industrial specialists. I mean, it's great that we've got specialists, but War is too important to be left to the Colonels—the Generals need to be involved as well.There you have the minister declaring war. He was not only declaring war in the car industry but also declaring war in relation to the Melbourne Cricket Ground. He has been asked here in this parliament about the Scoresby Freeway. He wants to link any Commonwealth funding that he has any say over to employers declaring war on the relevant employees. Those are not my words but his words declaring `war' on the trade union movement and, through them, the workers of this country.I was encouraged by the response of the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group to these sorts of threats that have been made by the department and by the minister. In today's Australian Financial Review, under the heading `Car industry chiefs attack Government', it says:With tensions rising in the car industry, chief executive of the AI Group Bob Herbert yesterday declared he was `flabbergasted' by what appeared to be a move by the Government to politicise a Productivity Commission inquiry into industry assistance post-2005. I was flabbergasted too, because this is an industry that employs 57,000 workers and has done spectacularly well in shifting its orientation from a narrow domestic market to the global market, to the point where the automotive industry, both in finished cars and in components, is now generating $7 billion worth of exports for this country. The Minister for Workplace Relations and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources think that they can use the car industry as their own political plaything. The car industry is too important to be used as a political plaything. It has a great future. It has gone forward in leaps and bounds over the last 10 years. Why? Because the previous Labor government provided a good, predictable and very sensible policy framework within which the industry could shift its orientation away from that small, narrow domestic market to the global market. It has worked very well. I have visited all the plants that produce finished cars, along with a number of the car component manufacturers, and I am struck by the level of cooperation between employers and employees, and by the pride that employees have in the work that they do. They create special rooms where they get together to solve problems. They even come up with technological advances as a result of their experience on the assembly floor. They work hand in glove with management. It is a very encouraging industrial relations environment in which you are able to see that happening, to see the industry continuously innovating, to see the industry creating extra value, to see the industry creating world-class vehicles that are sold to the United States and to countries all around the world. I congratulate Holden on its sales of Monaro. Mitsubishi is now committed to a new model post 2005. Where will it sell a very large proportion of its new model? It will sell them into the United States market. We are selling high-quality Australian cars into the United States market and this government thinks it can make the car industry a political plaything to seek to gain some sort of advantage over the Labor Party. It should be more responsible. The car industry is too important for that to happen. I refer again to the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, who on AM this morning said:I am not sure what the motives of Tony Abbott have been—I think I am pretty sure—but the last thing we really want to do here is to link in the issue of industry policy and industrial relations policy. I think the important thing is to try and take the politics out of this.We could not agree more. I asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources in question time today whether he would withdraw his threat to link the outcome of the government's consideration of the Productivity Commission report into the future of assistance arrangements for the car industry with the industry's willingness to engage in industrial warfare. The minister said in response to me that he had never made any such link. So I sought and gained approval to table the minister's press release of 17 June—just a few days ago—where he said:There's a growing case to include a provision that will ensure minimal industrial disruption in the post-2005 arrangements for Australia's vehicle manufacturing industry. It appears the government will have to seriously consider linking future industry assistance to industrial relations reform ... ... ... ...All this uncertainty makes a government think twice about the logic of providing industry support beyond 2005 when tariffs fall and the $2 billion ACIS scheme comes to an end. Will we have to go so far as to tie future industry assistance to improved working conditions?The minister, here in parliament, denied ever making those threats. He made those threats just a few days ago, but I glean, from the denial, that he has in effect withdrawn those threats. It is important that he clarify that, but from his bumbling response to the question that I asked I was able to glean that he has withdrawn that outrageous threat from the industry. He now needs to talk to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and persuade him to withdraw his threat, because he has not. I noticed, as we were asking the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources these questions, that they got into a huddle with the Prime Minister. I can guess that what happened in that huddle was that the Prime Minister said, `Boys, we may have gone a little bit too far here, because the Australian Industry Group and the car makers aren't too happy about us trying to make a political plaything out of an industry that employs 57,000 people and generates $7 billion worth of exports.' I think, as a result of the Prime Minister realising that they had gone too far, the minister for industry decided that he had better take a step back. I welcome him taking that step back. I urge now that the minister for workplace relations do that and break any link between ongoing assistance for the car industry with its willingness to engage in—to use the words of the minister for workplace relations—industrial `war' with the workers and with the unions.I believe that the future of the car industry is in further investment in innovation so that the quality of cars and components continues to improve so that we can be a global competitor. We have already done spectacularly well in that industry and it has an enormous future. I therefore refer to the submission by Holden to the Productivity Commission, which has commented on the government's record in relation to an ongoing economic reform agenda and, most particularly, in respect of innovation. It says:Concerning the internal efficiency of the national economy, it is evident that Australia is reaping the benefits of a very substantial economic reform program in the latter part of the 1980s.It goes on to say:... significant recent beneficial changes are difficult to identify ... In total, the signs of some improvement in economic dynamism that have been seen in the 1990s, may have been mostly due to reforms adopted a decade earlier. If this is the case the outlook for the current decade must be viewed as disappointing.Here is Holden saying, `Look, there has been no economic reform agenda under this government. What is absolutely needed is a set of arrangements that encourage research and development and innovation in this industry.' That is the way forward, not cutting the wages and conditions of workers in that industry.When this minister was appointed he questioned the inclusion of the word `innovation' in my shadow ministerial portfolio title. Now we know why—because on 29 January this year he told the Financial Review that the government had got the balance on research and development pretty right. This is a balance that he says is right when business spending on research and development has fallen in each and every year of the Howard government—he says that that is pretty right. He then went on to freeze the R&D Start program. He cut departmental funding by 30 per cent. He cut staffing by 10 per cent.The future of the industry is not in cutting wages. It is not in industrial warfare. The industry does not want to take on the minister's agenda of industrial warfare. Let us all take a cold shower and work towards what is in the best interests of the car industry, and the workers who are employed in that industry, and abandon this government's ridiculous and outrageous linking of future assistance to the industry with its willingness, or otherwise, to engage in industrial war with its workers. (Time expired)21:18:004259Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, I am pleased to see that somebody such as yourself, who has such a long-standing record of standing up for decent trade unionism in this House and elsewhere, is in the chair tonight to be a part of this debate. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002 that the government is putting forward, which has yet another Orwellian name—a title that is a direct contradiction of what the legislation is actually about; namely, the `genuine bargaining' bill—is, in fact, designed to wipe out particular kinds of bargaining in industrial relations and to further restrict the opportunities that trade unions and their members have to bargain on equal terms with employers to achieve reasonable outcomes in terms of wages and conditions for workers in particular industries.What this legislation shows is, yet again, the Howard government's obsession—the obsession that is most prominent with the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—with ever-tighter constraints on the ability of workers to collectively bargain with their employers to achieve outcomes that are decent and reasonable, that give them the ability to have a decent standard of living and to share in the benefits of ever-increasing productivity. We have a new version of bargaining that is being put forward in this legislation. After six years of the Howard government, they are still in opposition mode. The minister is still making outrageous, sweeping accusations about the state of industrial relations in this country—about people being held to ransom and how the law is not working—when, in fact, they have been in charge for more than six years. So, if they have a problem, if industrial relations in Australia is not working, it is their system that is not working.At each stage in these processes when they hit what they perceive as some kind of problem—a dispute or a difficulty here or some problem over there—their response is to try to make the rules even more weighted and even more slanted against unions and against workers. They will pursue the interests of employers to the disadvantage of workers to the nth degree. They will just keep going to a final point when we have a situation in this country redolent of Britain in the early 19th century with the Combination Acts, where participating in trade unionism and collectively bargaining for wages and conditions as an employee is, to all intents, illegal. They are slowly whittling away the capacity of workers to stand up for themselves, to bargain on something even vaguely approaching equal terms with their employers.The Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002 does not encourage genuine bargaining. It tries to stop bargaining altogether. It is directed towards what is called pattern bargaining, where a union in a particular industry seeks to pursue a common outcome across a multiplicity of employers in that industry. This, of course, is a possible scenario that a more deregulated industrial relations system opens up—the possibility for a union to pursue a strategy that is designed to achieve broadly comparable outcomes for its members across a variety of employers within a single industry. That strikes me as being an objective which is not necessarily bad in itself; there is nothing particularly wrong with a trade union and its members pursuing that kind of objective.But that does not suit the government. Having put in place a given system, they now decide that they need to tinker yet again with the system to outlaw the kinds of bargaining that they do not like. So you get these euphemisms like `genuine bargaining'. Genuine bargaining actually means bargaining John Howard style, bargaining Tony Abbott style, which is the old cloth cap out, tug the forelock and say to the bosses, `Please, sir, can we have some more?' That is their version of bargaining and bit by bit they are seeking to entrench that in the industrial relations system in this country. If that requires provoking industrial confrontation, if that requires producing disputes that are inflamed, that take longer to resolve, that cause more economic damage, from the point of view of the minister for workplace relations, so much the better. That is what he loves. That is what he is on about.There was a universal laugh around the chamber this afternoon. Some of the giggles and guffaws from the government benches were barely disguised when the minister, hand on heart, stated that he is not interested in causing confrontation in industrial relations. That is all he is about. He is about pursuing his own political advantage by fostering dispute, confrontation and aggravation in industrial relations. His approach simply causes disputes to be more prolonged, more bitter, nastier and, ultimately, more damaging. The BHP Western Port dispute was a classic example of this. While Tony Abbott was out there trying to pick a fight, looking for somebody to pursue his agenda for him to inflame the situation, the Industrial Relations Commission had the parties sitting around a table talking through the issues. The umpire—the umpire that they have gradually whittled away—got the parties to an agreement in about 16 hours, yet the minister could not do it in three weeks. Why? Because he did not really want an agreement. He wanted to extract the maximum political advantage out of an inflamed industrial dispute that could allow him to further demonise and vilify not only trade unions and trade union officials but the workers who are members of unions who ultimately make the decisions about whether or not they take industrial action. That is the target. Those people are his target in his political strategy to win cheap applause from people in other areas.Labor believes very strongly in the role of an independent umpire in the industrial relations system. Historically, the Industrial Relations Commission and its predecessor, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, have played a key role in both preventing and minimising disputes and in ensuring that disputes end more quickly. That is because they have a capacity to play an independent broker role which pushes both parties towards some sort of outcome which ultimately is acceptable to both. Labor believes that the independent umpire should be given back its powers—powers that were taken away by the minister's predecessor, Mr Reith—to perform this role in order to require the parties to bargain in good faith. In our view, the term `genuine bargaining' means bargaining in good faith, being fair dinkum about the process, being prepared to meet face to face, being prepared to follow protocols about how negotiations might be conducted, disclosing relevant information, considering and responding to proposals—not necessarily accepting them but at least actually considering and responding to them—and adhering to commitments that are given. It is a bit of basic honesty and decency. What the minister is about is trying to eliminate those kinds of factors from our industrial relations system and to reduce the independent umpire to some sort of a spectator who sits there and takes notes while the parties ultimately wipe each other out.The car industry has been the focus of the most recent activity of the part of the minister. He has seen Peter Reith have his maritime dispute on the waterfront, and he is a bit jealous. So he is looking to provoke something that might be a vague reflection of that exciting period when all of the high-level people in various establishment clubs around the country got their rocks off about Peter Reith's rottweilers, batons and balaclavas and so forth. Now this minister, Peter Reith's successor, wants to try and create some sort of equivalent scenario. I have a bit of experience in the car industry as a union official—and you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, may have had some yourself; I am not sure. In the late eighties and early nineties I represented about 1,400 people in the car industry, and I had quite a bit to do with the various major car manufacturers in Victoria. I think it is worth saying that compared with then—or, more particularly, compared with what the industry was back in the seventies—the vehicle manufacturing industry in this country is an amazing success story. We now have a serious exporter, with enormous changes off the back of the Button plan in the mid-eighties. We have workers with better jobs, more responsibility, more skills, better pay and better conditions. We have unions that have been part of a major reform process and have contributed to that reform process.We only need to think back, for example, to the great and infamous Ford dispute in 1973, which consisted largely, but not entirely, of large numbers of workers doing serious damage to the Ford factory—throwing stones and tearing down fences—because of the enormous frustration that they felt with how they were being treated by their employer and the appalling industrial relations record of that company at that time. The industry, to its great credit, has come a long way since that time and we should, I think, take note of the fact that the overall level of disputation in the industry is, in fact, very small compared with what history has given us. If you look at what has happened in the vehicle industry over the past 15 to 20 years you will see a pattern of constructive, cooperative reform, where the unions and their members together with the major car companies and component manufacturers have achieved enormous progress. In the old days, just-in-time manufacturing would have been literally impossible because the level of disputation was such that there would have been more days of disruption to the end of the process than there would have been days of production because of the much higher level of industrial disputes and the much more diffuse nature of industrial disputation at the time.I would also like to comment on why it is important to have the Industrial Relations Commission playing a direct and prominent role in dealing with disputes. There is a fundamental nexus in our system between the degree of involvement of the Industrial Relations Commission and the length, bitterness and ugliness of industrial disputes. There is a great need for an independent circuit-breaker, for an umpire who can, in a sense, push both parties towards some kind of resolution and who can apply a bit of judicious pressure at appropriate times in appropriate circumstances to try and get a reasonable outcome that both parties can accept.I had relatively recent personal experience of the problems we now get as a result of the neutering of the industrial umpire by the Howard government. Several years ago there was a very bitter dispute in my electorate involving a company that I had had some previous dealings with in my capacity as the local member. The dispute ultimately went on for somewhere in the vicinity of six weeks. I ended up being involved in a capacity of simply facilitating the parties talking to each other in circumstances where it was practically impossible for either party, the employer or the union, to initiate such discussions because the two sides had taken an entrenched position and neither could make the first move. Neither side was in a position to actually propose discussions with the other because the mere fact of doing that would have been interpreted as a sign of weakness, of being under pressure and of willingness to make concessions. Because of the absence of a proactive role on the part of the Industrial Relations Commission in the dispute, the dispute was simply going on and on and getting nastier and nastier. The employer was losing more money, the workers were losing more money and their family circumstances were getting worse and worse.I do not claim any great credit for the role that I played. It was very minor and I do not say that anything flowed from it. Things could have evolved in exactly the same way had I not done that. But the thing that was starkly clear to me was that the absence of a proactive role on the part of the Industrial Relations Commission was a fundamental problem. In disputes of a similar nature that I have been involved in in the past as a union official, I would have had the Industrial Relations Commission breathing down both my neck and the employer's neck, pushing both sides to a resolution, convening discussions and trying to get both sides to come to meetings and negotiations, where they could do so with honour and without being seen to have made a concession in the form of actually inviting or suggesting negotiations. The absence of the umpire meant that that dispute was prolonged—it was more bitter and it was harder for the employer and the workers to pick up the pieces after that dispute.Ultimately there is a reason why the government want to get rid of the umpire. It is that they represent the people who benefit from the absence of an umpire. They ultimately represent the people who are better off, who have more economic power, who do not need to bargain collectively in our economy, who do not need to rely on trade unions, who do not need to rely on awards and who do not need the defence and protection of others to get a reasonable wage and a reasonable set of working conditions in their life. That is who the government represent. Therefore, they do not like the idea that there is an umpire, because the umpire occasionally might assist or rule in favour of those people in our society—workers—who do not have the bargaining power to deal on equal terms with major employers.Although it is true to say that there are some workers, some of them union members, who have quite a lot of bargaining power—in some cases, some may even argue, an excessive amount of bargaining power—those people will always be a minority, and generally a pretty small minority. We have had examples in the past with the pilots—a group of people with a considerable amount of industrial muscle who were experienced at using it and who got very good rewards for it. They ultimately came unstuck in 1989, but that does not really change the broader picture. The percentage of workers who are in that position—who have got the muscle and the clout to demand good returns and who do not really need an umpire, an award system or some kind of bargaining framework—is very, very small.Labor believe in genuine bargaining, in conciliation, in an independent umpire and in a system that minimises industrial disputes and makes sure that the length of duration of industrial disputes is kept to a minimum. We are proposing an alternative model to the government's provisions in this particular debate that is about good faith bargaining. It is about ensuring that in the enterprise bargaining process the parties are required to bargain with each other in good faith, to participate constructively in negotiations, to respond to proposals with a yes or a no or with alternatives, and to treat people with some sort of respect—not with contempt. What this government is ultimately fostering is industrial contempt. It is about fostering a climate where workers are kept under the heel by companies, where it pays for companies to mistreat their workers and where workers cannot get the dignity, the respect and the reasonable terms and conditions which trade unions are there to organise and negotiate for them. That is what this government is about. That is its agenda—to tilt the industrial relations playing field even more heavily in favour of employers.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Are you going to tell this to the brothers—the comrades?10000Mossfield, Frank (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order!YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—They did it very severely in 1996—DK6Hockey, Joe, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister will come to order.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—through the courtesy of Peter Reith, the then minister. Ever since then they have continued to tinker with the system to make it more and more biased toward employers and harder and harder for workers, through their unions, to achieve some kind of fairness and justice. That has been the whole approach that this government has taken. Tony Abbott, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, jealous of the hardline class warfare position adopted by his predecessor, Mr Reith, is now out to create mayhem—in this instance, in the vehicle industry, but he will find anything that he can locate to enable him to whip up any kind of industrial dispute in order to pursue his political objectives.DK6Hockey, Joe, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister will come to order.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—This legislation should be rejected by the House. All of the blustering by the buffoon at the table here, who has been interrupting everybody, should also be rejected by the House. We should endeavour to ensure that we have an industrial relations framework in this country which produces conciliation, negotiation and respect between the parties and decent outcomes so that workers get a share of the productivity benefits they contribute to and so that we have reasonable wages and conditions for Australian workers.21:36:004263McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Tonight we are debating the Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002. Here we go again, with another one of the government's attempts to have a go at the Australian worker.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—What's this—a retirement speech?4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—What a misnomer it has come up with this time to cover this bit of worker-bashing legislation—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—This is a retirement speech.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—Does the minister want to go back to the dining room, Mr Deputy Speaker, or is he going to sit here interjecting like a parrot all night?10000Mossfield, Frank (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—I call the minister to order, and I ask the member to make his address through the chair.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—This minister is an example of the approach that this government has to industrial relations. He wants to sit there going yappity yappity yap, but will he do anything about it? Not likely. He is one of the people who would like to think that this was about genuine bargaining. What a joke that is! We all know that this bill is just a bit of recycling. The government has recycled this proposal before. It was rejected by the Senate in the year 2000 and it is the government's third attempt to get this legislation through on this aspect of industrial relations.DK6Hockey, Joe, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister at the table will come to order.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—The government knows that this bill is not going to pass the Senate. It knows that the opposition is going to vote against it. It knows that the minor parties are going to vote against it. The only people who want to have this piece of legislation are the pugnacious Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and his sidekick here in the House tonight.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Sidekick!4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—Some would say he is a drop kick but I am willing to be generous to him. The government would like us to believe that this bill is a good thing. To use the government's preferred terms, it will:reinforce the principles of enterprise bargaining and ensure that access to protected action is limited to circumstances where there is genuine bargaining at the enterprise level.That sounds fine when it is put like that, but this bill is really about introducing obstacles to the bargaining process, not facilitating it. The title of the bill is misleading. It is another example of Minister Abbott's Orwellian newspeak—another thing he adopted from his former colleague Minister Reith. As other speakers here tonight have said, he wants to show that he is hairier-chested and more punch-drunk than Minister Reith.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—We know he's an ape.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—As the shadow minister at the table just said, we know exactly what he is. This bill is an example of the Orwellian newspeak that the government goes on with. It is definitely not about genuine bargaining; it is about the opposite to genuine bargaining. If the bill is passed in its current form, it will result in restrictions of bargaining between employers and employees. I would like to remind the House what the Australian industrial relations system used to be. We used to have a Conciliation and Arbitration Commission where the approach was to try to settle disputes before they escalated. Both parties were encouraged to resolve disputes. What do we have now? We have a government, exemplified by its choice of ministers, which has an ideological hatred of unions and the workers they represent. Conciliation as a concept has disappeared. This government likes to pick a fight. It likes to provoke, and it is certainly not in the game of genuine bargaining. Today in question time we saw proof of that once again. The minister's response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition confirmed that the government would rather see industrial relations played out through highly paid lawyers fighting in the common law courts over damages actions.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Who wrote this for you, Leo? Union hack theorists writing away in back offices?4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—I think he has been vaccinated with a gramophone needle tonight, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000Mossfield, Frank (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I ask both members to come to order.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—The minister at the table just cannot stop himself talking. If he wants to participate in the debate, he can get up and have a say. He can get on the speakers list. But I see that the only two people who are willing to stand up here tonight and defend the government on this are Mr Randall and Mr Barresi, who has been waiting his turn all night. The minister will not speak in this debate in the order he was supposed to; he wants to wait until the end so he can have the last nasty little shot at unions. The minister at the table, who is laughing his silly head off, is not even game to get into this debate.DK6Hockey, Joe, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The minister at the table will stop interjecting and the speaker will address his remarks through the chair.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—He just wants to sit there and interject from the sidelines. If he has something to say, he can get up and get into the debate. We would be interested to see where he stands on these things, but of course we will not, will we? We will not at all. But we know what his boss, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, thinks about these things. He is a very pugnacious minister. He likes a fight, and I have no doubt that this is one of the reasons he was given this portfolio by the Prime Minister. He wants conflict, he seeks it out and he seems to enjoy it. Each day at question time we get an example of this. It must be pretty obvious to everyone that his motives are dubious when people like the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, Bob Herbert, question his motives in seeking the sort of absolutely confrontationalist industrial relations framework that the minister is putting forward. We heard Mr Herbert on the ABC this morning. I think the ABC had asked the minister to come on, but he was ominously silent. He is just like the minister at the table here: happy to have a little bit of an interjection on the side but unwilling to get into the debate.Australians right across the board used to have respect for the conciliation and arbitration system. It had the trust of both sides and, by and large, it was seen as a fair system which worked with both sides to bring about a resolution of industrial relations issues. You cannot expect there to be much goodwill or trust these days, however. With the government continuing to pursue its war against the unions, it is inevitable that legislation such as this and the other bills that are in this package will widen the divide between employees and employers. Once again with this legislation, as with other workplace relations bills currently before the parliament, we have the same set of circumstances. There are no industrial relations circumstances to justify the bill. It is therefore unnecessary legislation. The bill, if passed in its current form, would have the effect of prohibiting common claims. Common claims, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, as you are aware, are a normal component of bargaining, and employers as well as unions engage in them. The bill would result in the limitation of the Industrial Relations Commission's discretion. We should be strengthening the role of the commission, not fettering it. There is no point in having a lame duck commission. Of course, that is where the government ultimately intends to go. The government really wants to write the commission out of Australian legislation.The commission has shown in the past that it can effectively deal with disputes and bring about a negotiated settlement. Why should we interfere with the role of the commission? The only reason for the government to want to alter the commission's current powers must be a cynical one. It wants to limit the commission's current uncircumscribed discretion and it wants to limit the ability of unions to represent their members. It is interesting to note that the prohibition on pattern bargaining has not been an issue internationally, simply because no other comparable country imposes the type of restrictions on industry-wide multi-employer bargaining and agreement making that apply in Australia. These restrictions have been the subject of ILO criticism of Australia on occasions. Nowhere else in the developed industrialised world are there restrictions on industry-wide agreement making as exist in Australia. That is not something to be proud of. The government appears to think that disadvantaging workers is a reasonable thing to do. We on this side do not agree. However, the government does not think that the same rules should apply to employers. The ACTU said in its submission to the recent Senate inquiry into the five workplace relations bills:The effect of prohibiting the pursuit of common claims, as provided for in the Bill would be to reduce enterprise bargaining to a series of completely isolated negotiations, where workers would be unable to use the collectively-gained knowledge and experience which comes from participation in their union. Employers would, of course, not be so inhibited, and would be free to pursue approaches in common with other employers in the industry.So much for the level playing field. The government wants to circumscribe the role of the umpire and put humps in the playing field. There is the difference: it is okay for employers but it is not okay for employees. The government is obsessed with unions and industrial action. There is no need for the legislation. Over recent years there has been a decline in working days lost due to industrial disputes. The commission already has power to suspend the bargaining period where a party has not tried or is not genuinely trying to reach an agreement. Why try to fix, in a shonky way, something that is not broken? That is the question the government has to answer. I will be interested to see whether any government members can tell us why we need to fix the system, because all those who are participating in it, including the employers, as we heard today, do not think that the system is broken. Again I quote the ACTU's submission to the Senate inquiry. It states:To the extent that there is an issue of protracted industrial disputes, it reflects the lack of power in the Commission to deal with the underlying causes. Restoration of the arbitral power of the Commission would provide a means of dealing with such disputes ...We saw that in a recent dispute which went on because the commission could not intervene. In the past, when the commission had power to intervene, many disputes were resolved before they got to the stage of creating economic havoc for employers and employees. The bill is bad legislation and it should be amended, and that is why I support the amendment moved by Mr McClelland, which:... condemns the Government for:(1) unreasonably emasculating the powers of the AIRC to resolve industrial disputes in the interests of the parties;(2) interfering with the AIRC's discretion to deal with industrial disputes in the most appropriate way; and(3) failing to put forward constructive proposals to enable the Commission to direct parties to bargain in good faith”.That brings me to the main point that I wish to make tonight: we need a system of conciliation and arbitration. We need an independent umpire. We need a stronger industrial commission, not a weaker one. This legislation will neither help to resolve disputes nor improve our industrial relations system. It will do more to increase the divisions between the powerful, in the form of employers, and the less powerful, in the form of workers. That, unfortunately, is what the government wants. The government wants to pit employers against employees. The minister wants to get himself a worse reputation than his predecessor had. The minister has absolutely no interest in fair bargaining, genuine bargaining or any sort of bargaining between employers and employees. His answer at question time today put that very squarely where he believes it is: we should have recourse to the courts and we should spend a lot of money on litigation. The system of conciliation and arbitration that we had, which was a world first, worked well for this country. That system is not broken. We should not pass the bill, because it will put Australia in a worse industrial position than we were in in the past. I commend to the House the opposition's amendment, and I hope that the Senate will not pass this legislation.21:49:004266Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I rise to speak in support of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002. I will direct my remarks to the bill. It seems that every member of the ALP who has spoken on the bill so far has spent their 20 minutes simply bagging the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I do not know what it is about the opposition; no matter who is the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations on this side, they seem to be fixated on trying to tear down the individual. Let us remember that the individuals who have occupied the position of Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in the last six years have given us the lowest number of industrial disputes, the highest income levels that many workers have seen and, of course, increased employment opportunities, with the growth in employment approaching one million. These are the individuals that members of the opposition wish to denigrate.Why do ALP members feel compelled to denigrate the individuals who have held that portfolio? The two motivations that I think are cutting through are: first, they realise that these messages are resonating among the Australian public and they are seeing the benefits paying off; the other motivation—we cannot escape it—must be due to their masters of the union movement. When one union is willing to put $3 million of their members' hard-earned money into ALP coffers, it is no wonder that opposition members feel that they have to stand up and defend their brothers in the union movement. Eight opposition members are listed to speak on the bill—that is a $375,000 contribution from every one of them. I will be looking at the Australian Electoral Commission's returns after the next election and seeing whether the election coffers of those members—for example, McClelland, Tanner, O'Connor, Emerson, Zahra and Hatton—have been boosted by $375,000. I say to the union movement: save your money, because that $375,000 was wasted. We saw not one utterance of sensibility in 20 minutes.The member for Rankin, the member for Melbourne and a few others have spoken about the plight of the automotive industry and how this government and this minister are attempting to destroy an $8 billion industry through industrial relations practices. Let us remember that the automotive industry has achieved significant reforms. These reforms have been, on the one hand, due to tariff reductions and the industry becoming competitive and, on the other, industrial relations reform.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—Good Labor policies!ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESI—Yes, they are two great policies. The only problem is that the opposition used only one weapon to try to reform the auto industry, and that was to reduce tariffs. Labor slowly reduced tariffs from 25 per cent over a period of time, hoping that the auto industry would reform, and some reform has taken place. They were too gutless—absolutely gutless—to respond to the union movement.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members of the opposition are willing to participate in debate, but we do take exception to that remark, because it does really apply to his own minister.10000Mossfield, Frank (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—There is no point of order.ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESI—Of course, I was referring to them as a collective. What I am saying is that the opposition did not have the courage or the internal fortitude that was required to stand up to the union movement and to reform the auto industry through industrial relations practices. Labor had only one strategy at the time, and that was to do it through tariffs. This government supports that, but industrial reform is also required. This is one of the reasons why we have come up with a series of legislation to assist organisations to reform.It is so easy for members on the other side to say, `We don't support union militancy.' The member for Rankin got up here and said, `We don't support union militancy; of course there should be genuine negotiations,' but we saw them lining up—each individual, one by one—during the maritime strike. They lined up to support their union officials. Did they support the employees who wanted to go back to work during those recent picket lines? Did they try to get the employees back to work and to rein in the union movement? No, they did not. They may talk about not supporting union militancy, but out there in the real world they will not be photographed saying to the union movement, `Get back to work. Get those guys into work.' They are truly, as a collective, too gutless to stand up to the union officials.Earlier, the member for Melbourne talked about genuine bargaining. He said that this bill, for some reason, is not about genuine bargaining but about a return to a cap-in-hand approach of kowtowing to an employer. This legislation is about genuine bargaining and empowering the work force. What it is not about is the ALP union collective financially kneecapping employers. If those opposite want to talk about capping, this is about kneecapping employers rather than providing them with the ability to stand up for the rights of the work force. If those on the other side want to be fair dinkum about support, they should also be fair dinkum about their approach to the militant unions and their acts of provocation out there in the work force. I certainly have not seen any of that. Talking about provocation, I have not seen any fair dinkumness about some of the union tactics that were used in my part of the world in Melbourne, when the unions busted down doors over in Box Hill and in Croydon. Where was the fair dinkumness then?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESI—Where was the fair dinkumness, Member for Corio, when those unions busted down those doors? Was that genuine bargaining that took place? It certainly was not.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—What about the use of dogs? What about training mercenaries? Do you know anything about that?ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESI—This bill is about returning to enterprise bargaining. The member for Corio is ranting over there. I am not sure what he is ranting about, but it is probably about the $375,000 for the speech he still has to give on behalf of his union mates.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has just said that the member for Corio, in effect, received a bribe for making his speech. That is disgraceful. It is the sort of slur that the opposition have come up against in this debate.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Well, move a substantive motion!4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Your trouble, Fatso, is you get it back to front! He is the one who is supposed to move the motion, not me. I think the member should be called upon to make his remarks a little more temperate than they are.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for Deakin made an inference that I received $75,000 from a union for my election campaign. That is not true, and I ask him to withdraw the inference that that was somehow a bribe during the election campaign.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—He said $375,000.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member has taken objection to the wording. Would the member for Deakin reconsider—ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESI—They were not the words that I said.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will listen carefully to the words of the member for Deakin and ask him to stick to the bill before the parliament.ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESI—I certainly would welcome the member for Corio reading the Hansard tomorrow to check the accuracy of the words that I used. As the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has said in the debate, in the past decade we have seen in excess of 41,000 collective agreements developed in the federal system. This alone is evidence that firms across all sectors of industry have embraced the concept of enterprise bargaining. When one examines the legislative framework of this bill and what is intended, we see that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission powers do dominate. The powers of the commission dominate because this bill is seeking to clarify an area of the Workplace Relations Act of 1996.Simply, it provides a mechanistic guide to the commission when it is deliberating over a case. It is an enhancement of the commission in these matters and augurs well for the plight of many workers. The bill allows the commission the power to determine whether a negotiation process is genuine or not genuine, and in doing so the commission will be required to examine whether the bargaining is enterprise bargaining or personal bargaining. In this bill, cooling-off periods are outlined to empower the commission to suspend certain bargaining periods for a period of time. It is also the intention of the bill to enable all parties to have a chance to consider the implications of a negotiation and to arrive at the best possible outcome.In the brief time I have available—I know that other members want to speak on this—if we look at my own state of Victoria, the threat of job losses is nowhere more acute than in that state. It is perhaps the state in the country that is more controlled by militant unions than any other. I am pleased to see that we have three other members of parliament from the state of Victoria here this evening. The Bracks government have pandered, and continue to pander—Mr Zahra interjecting—ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESI—It is a great government because it panders to the demands of the unions! Anyone who panders to demands is great! If you are a member of parliament, you are great because you respond to the unions! If you are a Labor government, you are great because you respond to union demands as well!The AMWU, for example, through its representatives Craig Johnston and Darren Nelson, have been using threats in the manufacturing industry. The threats come with the news that enterprise bargaining agreements in the car components manufacturing industry will expire next year. Next year—and this is not me saying this; it is Darren Nelson, the assistant secretary of the Victorian division of the AMWU, who has been quoted in the Australian—as many as 500 car component manufacturers could be paralysed. Member for Melbourne, is that fair dinkum? That certainly is not a fair dinkum approach to negotiations, when you have 500 car component manufacturers that could be paralysed next year. The use of these tactics as a cloud over the head of the Australian car manufacturing industry is a disgrace and not in the best interests of workers or the community at large; in fact, it is detrimental.My time has run out, unfortunately, and all I can say is that there is very little doubt in my mind that any measure taken to encourage and facilitate continued discussion between employees and employers away from union demands and union sentiment is a welcome one. This government is committed to the welfare of the Australian worker, securing Australian jobs and maintaining confidence in all industry sectors. It is for this reason that I support the bill and commend it to the House. I look forward to far more constructive contributions from the other side, rather than simply the denigrating of personalities who have occupied the positions of ministers for employment and workplace relations.22:03:004269Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—Industrial relations is important to the electorate of McMillan; it always has been. In particular, within my electorate, the Latrobe Valley is a place which has been associated with industrial relations for generations now. It is the place where I grew up; it is a place that our family has been away from for some time now. It has given me a good understanding of why industrial relations is important to working people. It is the type of understanding that you get when you grow up in a working class family; it is the type of understanding that you get when you grow up being the son of a building worker; and it is the sort of understanding that you get when you understand, first hand, why unions are important to working people. People on the other side of this place have no idea at all about unions. They just pathologically hate unions and they hate working people as well by extension. That is their starting point and that is their end point. They have no understanding at all of why unions ever came into being and they have no understanding today of why unions are important to working people.It is all well and good for people who have been to Brighton Grammar School, Melbourne Grammar, King's School in Sydney and all the other fancy schools, where their rich parents have sent them for $15,000 or $20,000 a year, or the sons and daughters of the bunyip aristocracy, who have been sent to flash schools in Melbourne and Sydney, to come here and lecture us about industrial relations, about what is important to people in trade unions and about what is important to people on low incomes, wages and salaries—people who are trying to do the best they can for their families—but it is not good enough for them to expect us to cop it sweet. We will not cop it, we will not put up with it and we will not sit here and not say anything about the type of privileged backgrounds that people on the other side have had. They come in here and lecture working people, trying to use this parliament as an instrument to put working class people down and trying to press working class people on low incomes who are in unions further into poverty and financial struggle. We will not sit here and say nothing about it. Things need to be said about the types of people in this government, and we in the Labor Party will make sure that the Australian people understand, and understand very clearly, what the government's legislation is all about—what they really want to do.As is the case in so many other instances with this government, they come in here with bits of legislation with all sorts of fancy names on it. This one is called the Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002. George Orwell would be proud of such a ridiculous title being given to a piece of legislation which has obviously got nothing to do with genuine bargaining. They have come in here with other bits of legislation. I am sure they have a big laugh about it over at the Melbourne Club and that at all the other bastions of the establishment they have a giggle with each other over a sherry or a glass of cognac; there is the usual carry-on and rah-rah associated with all the people over there who have had the privileged life that they have all enjoyed for so long. They would be laughing, saying `We introduced this bit of legislation and we called it the “genuine bargaining bill”, but, you know, it's really about making sure that people who are in workplaces aren't allowed to collectively organise their industrial relations circumstances, aren't allowed to bargain properly, and are really emasculated in the way that they are able to negotiate with their employer.' They would be having a great giggle, a great laugh, about that in their little clubs over there, in their fancy surrounds. They would be thinking it is a great hoot, at everyone else's expense. But they are not really fooling anyone; they are certainly not fooling me or other members of the Labor Party in this parliament. We think it is disgusting that they think it is funny; we think it is disgusting that they come in here, laugh about it, and try to make out that this bit of legislation is about something that it is not.We all know what it is about: it is about trying to grind working people down. It is about trying to get people who are already in disadvantaged circumstances and grinding them down further and making sure that they have as little power in the workplace as possible to no productive or efficient end. This legislation is not about creating jobs; it is about reducing wages. It is not about increasing opportunity, or developing a new export focus for the country, or securing new export markets, or trying to drive wages up through productivity increases; it is all about trying to drive wages down and trying to keep people on low incomes down so that they cannot get a break, so that they cannot negotiate fairly in the workplace, and so that they cannot secure a fair industrial outcome in their workplace.Other speakers today have talked about unions being just a tool of some people within the union movement within the context of the union movement's relationship with the ALP. Fundamentally, people opposite do not understand what unions are about. They do not understand the important role that unions play in communities like the Latrobe Valley, which I represent. They do not understand how important it is for people to belong to a union and the protection that being in a union provides to people in the workplace. We get giggling from some of the King's School heroes over there and some of the great champions who came out of Brighton Grammar School and all their other fancy schools. They come in here and carry on about how unions are no good because they are against the national interest and against workers' interests. That is what they do; they come in here and they say that. I do not really know how much experience people who sit on the other side who come from a privileged background have had with unions or workers or factories or any workplaces. I do not think they could know very much at all. They come in here and denigrate people in unions and things like union picnic days and activities which unions are involved in and some of the conditions which unions have negotiated over a great period of time. Those agreements and conditions that they are talking about were all negotiated by people—not by huge institutions which are not made up of anything but by people in employment who came together to try to secure a better and fairer deal for them, their work mates, their families and their communities.We have the spectacle of the gigglers on the other side coming in here talking about union picnic days. They do not really understand what that is about. They do not get that union picnic days were always important for working people—a great way to come together, a great way to show good faith with your employer, a great way to build good relations. As someone who grew up in the Latrobe Valley, like just about every other child who grew up in the Latrobe Valley, I attended a union picnic every year with my dad, my mum, my two sisters and several thousand other children from the Latrobe Valley. These union picnic days were a pretty good opportunity for us kids—we made good friends, good mates, and it was a great opportunity to be with our families. These negotiations which were entered into by the work force and employers were all about recognising the importance of the relationship between employer, employee and their families. That is why we had these days; it was a great opportunity to come together to celebrate what our parents had achieved in the course of a year. It was a great way to recognise the fact that we lived in, and were a part of, a community. It was also a great way to recognise that workers had families and that the people on the other side of the table in the negotiations—the managers—had families too. It was a great way of coming together. For a lot of people who did not have much money, those union picnic days were pretty important. Every year the kids received presents. Often those workers did not have a lot of money and buying a present for their kids was not that easy. Some people on the other side might not be able to relate to that or understand that. But let me tell you that that was real life for a lot of people in the Latrobe Valley and for working people in other industrial areas. Some of those people on the other side might denigrate that. They might think it is funny and laughable. They might seek to make that important relationship between workers, their families and unions seem unimportant, but they are really coming at it from the viewpoint of people who do not understand what that was all about and why that relationship was important. In the Latrobe Valley we worked very hard through the 1980s and in particular the 1990s, when we went through massive industrial change and the loss of a large number of jobs, to try to create an industrial relations climate which was conducive to investment, conducive to growth in jobs and conducive to having a cooperative relationship in the Latrobe Valley which would create and drive new business growth in our district. This came about through the Latrobe Valley development agreement, which was put together under the auspices of VECCI, the Australian Industry Group, the Gippsland Trades and Labour Council, several of our local councils, a number of other important employers in our district and a number of other important stakeholders within our region.This agreement was put together so that we would be able to present to new industries that were considering setting up in different parts of the country an image as a region which said: `We are interested in working together. We are interested in coming up with a good enterprise agreement. We are interested in negotiating with you as a partner. We are interested in coming up with a way of getting your business here and making it a success for you.' A lot of people in the Labor movement did a lot of hard things to get that agreement. A lot of people in the Labor movement worked very hard with their constituencies to get people to make that agreement, because we recognised that we had to make those changes. We had to recognise that change had taken place in our community. That meant we had to change as well in order to be relevant to the new requirements of business so that people in business would want to come to our region and know that we were going to be flexible people, able to sit down and work with them productively to come up with a sensible enterprise bargaining agreement to make sure that their business was a success and that people had jobs locally. That was done through the 1990s. Through all of the changes we went through in the Latrobe Valley and the loss of those thousands of jobs, hardly any industrial action was taken at all. That really is a tribute to the preparedness of people in unions and workers to not use their power to pursue anything that would not be in the state's interest or in the national interest. Really, those people really did a hard thing under a lot of pressure not to use their considerable industrial might to engage in action which perhaps would not have been good for the state or for the nation. We often hear the people on the other side of the House referring to the conduct of unions as being `the law of the jungle'. They say, `We've got unions during this and doing that.' It is a bit rich for them to come in here and carry on about how unions behave when it all takes place under their own legislation. This is now the sixth, nearly the seventh, year of the Howard government. They have been in charge of the legislation in our country for all of that time; any industrial dispute takes place within the parameters of their industrial relations legislation. If they want to change it and strengthen the Industrial Relations Commission, if they want a bigger role and more power for the Industrial Relations Commission to resolve disputes so we do not have prolonged disputes and situations where there is a national strike or a situation which threatens a certain industry, then I am sure that we would be prepared to sit down and work with them to try to come up with legislation which would support that. But they have never been interested in that.While the government are very quick to come in here, carry on and talk about how some union in one sector of the economy is doing this and how it is the `law of the jungle' and `Look out, the world is going to end,' they do not come in here and talk about the conduct of G&K O'Connor meatworks in Pakenham, which locked out 300 workers for nine months—the longest lockout in Australia's history since the Depression. It all took place under the federal government's legislation; it all took place under the watchful eye of Peter Reith, the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who had been given a briefing about it. There was no doubt at all that he was backing the conduct of those employers; he was backing the lockout of those 300 people for nine months.This dispute got no-one anywhere. It was a situation where G&K O'Connor meatworks decided that they were going to give up the agreement which they had and were going to push for a reduction in the pay and conditions of their work force by about 18 or 20 per cent, on average. They decided to do it unilaterally: `We're just doing it,' they said, `and you guys are gonna have to cop it.' So they locked their work force out.The tragedy in all of this is that a lot of money has been spent in the Federal Court and other industrial jurisdictions on lawyers and so on, and after nine months of the lockout and a series of legal battles—and God knows how much money has been spent on lawyers—we have ended up with a situation where a lot of those fellows who were locked out are now back at work over there at G&K O'Connor's, they are all still in the union and G&K O'Connor's have gone back to basically the same type of agreement that they had before. They had a lot of urgers, and Peter Reith, the then minister for workplace relations was one of them. I am saying that, when you are blinded by mad ideology, you will pursue a path like G&K O'Connor meatworks did, and you will end up losing a lot of money and you will not in any way be in a different situation in relation to your work force.If you treat your work force with contempt, if you treat them as if they were stupid, dull, dumb labour units that you can chop and change and move around, saying, `Who cares about them?'—if you think you can get away with it—you will be in the same position as G&K O'Connor meatworks, which have lost a lot of money and destroyed a whole lot of goodwill with their work force. They are in the situation where, whilst there were plenty of urgers around the place, there is no-one standing with them now; there is no-one saying, `Jeez, you did a great thing.' I do not think G&K O'Connor meatworks are going to be appearing in the BusinessReviewWeekly to talk about the success of their strategy, because it was not a success; it was a disaster. People in the industry know it and G&K O'Connor know it as well.People come in here as well and give examples of the conduct of unions in the power industry in my electorate and say, `Unions abuse their position and hold the state to ransom.' What absolute rubbish and lies! In our district, we have seen a lot of effort being made by people who are employees at the power stations and by the unions that represent those people to come up with enterprise bargaining agreements which are fair and reasonable, flexible and centred on productivity. We have seen successful enterprise bargaining agreements negotiated at Loy Yang, we have seen successful enterprise bargaining agreements negotiated at Hazelwood and we have seen successful enterprise bargaining agreements negotiated in all other parts of the industry—except for the Yallourn power station.The Yallourn power station set in place a strategy which was all about attacking its work force—it had in place a strategy to lock out its work force. In fact, it did lock out its work force in order to pursue an industrial strategy which was all about putting in place casualised working conditions for people and trying to break down a lot of the employment and job security that had been built up by those employees over many years.This is not the approach to industrial relations that we want to see in the Latrobe Valley. We do not want to see this type of aggression and antagonism; we do not want to see this confrontation. What we want to see is cooperation. We want to see people working together, we want to see a recognition of the rights of workers and we want to see a recognition of the important role that trade unions play in our community as well. I am proud to be from the Latrobe Valley, I am proud of the industrial tradition of our region and I am proud of the important role the trade unions have played in our history and the important role that trade unions have played in our region in advancing the cause of workers. (Time expired)22:24:004272O'Connor, Brendan, MPMr BRENDAN O'CONNOR00AN3BurkeALP00—I have to concur with the member for McMillan: the Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002 is no more than a rehash of proposals that were rejected by the parliament on two occasions two years ago. Despite the Chicken Little warnings by this government and its minister that the sky is falling or that the world will end, in fact Campaign 2000—which was the area that the minister most concentrated on in his attacks upon the union movement—has gone off with no concern at all. In fact, if one were to look at the actual facts in relation to the metals industry, one would see that the metals industry continues to have low levels of industrial disputation, notwithstanding the rantings and ravings of those on the other side, and continues to have sustainable wage outcomes.This bill is, as I say, no more than a rehash. Why is it a rehash? I suppose one of the reasons it is a rehash of past attempts is that there is no agenda by this government other than to continue to kick unions and, by extension, their members—the employees. There is no agenda, so we literally have this industrial GroundhogDay, except we do not wake up to a furry animal every day; we wake up to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, which I can tell you is not a pretty sight. I think the fact is that the real intention is to create as many impediments to protected industrial action as possible and to limit the scope of the unions to pursue industry or multi-employer agreements. Like many of the bills to do with industrial laws lately, its title, as the member for McMillan so aptly pointed out, is Orwellian by nature. Again, that is not a surprise. That is a consistent theme of many bills described by the government prior to the election and subsequent to it. Its objective, I would contend, seems to be more to stifle genuine bargaining than to facilitate it.Indeed, it reminds me of that description of the individual agreements that came into our system not long ago—the so-called Australian workplace agreements or AWAs. What always struck me about AWAs was that they were hardly Australian in nature, given the fact they were a new provision to more than 90 years of industrial relations law. They were in fact a new and alien provision of the industrial relations system. They were hardly a workplace agreement because in fact each employee, in theory at the very least, was expected to negotiate their outcomes one-on-one with their employer as if to suggest that there would be an equal playing field between the employer and each individual employee. It was hardly a workplace agreement. Most pointedly, they were rarely agreements. Australian workplace agreements were quite often those things that would be signed if you wanted to be employed. To gain jobs, you would be asked to sign them. Therefore, they were not agreements in many respects in the genuine sense, most being imposed upon employees: `Sign this or the job's not yours.' They were not Australian and not of the workplace and not often agreements. So it should not surprise me in the least that a bill entitled Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002 would not be about genuine bargaining but quite the contrary.We should not be surprised by this situation. We saw the government's attitude only last week when it seemed very disappointed that the industrial dispute at BHP was resolved by the parties. We have seen this government's inclination towards sponsoring very extreme methods—by hooded men on occasions—and indeed it has certainly been associated with the sight of attack dogs on the waterfront. We see this government's obsession when every frontbencher seems to froth at the mouth, mouthing anti-union mantra every question time whether the question is with respect to industrial relations or not. We see this government's and its ministers' contempt for consensus or roundtable resolutions. Instead, this minister wishes to encourage employers to involve themselves in greater conflict and aggression in the workplace.The government in fact rants and raves about militancy but indeed it exhibits manifestations of militancy itself. We see this government's hatred in its multimillion dollar witch-hunt, or so-called royal commission, into the building industry. Industrial disputation, as I said at the beginning of my address, is at an all-time low. But listening to the frontbenchers on the other side, you would not believe that is the case. The government would have you believe that the country was rife with industrial conflict. I think it is clear that the evidence shows that that is not the case. Indeed, I think it is outrageous for the government to continue to pretend otherwise.It is also important to note that it was Labor that introduced the capacity to negotiate at the enterprise level. The coalition or the Liberal Party were in control for much of the time from 1949 to 1983, but they made no attempt prior to 1983 to do anything about providing any forms of enterprise bargaining. The Labor Party introduced enterprise bargaining.Debate interrupted.Adjournment427410000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.427422:30:004274Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—I rise tonight to talk about the issue of the big end of town screwing the little end of town again. I raise a specific example which has affected a number of crash repairers in my electorate. This relates to the issue of large insurance companies failing to make payments to crash repairers who undertake work on cars within a reasonable period of time. In my electorate and in electorates around the country, crash repairers are undertaking crash repair work on cars but when they seek to get their money back from the insurance companies, they have to wait between 60 and 90 days to receive that payment. As a consequence of this lax practice by insurance companies, crash repairers around the country are going to the wall. As I understand it, 20 crash repairers have hit the fence as a consequence of this practice by insurance companies.I represent about 25 crash repairers in my electorate and there are about 50 in the cities of Casey and Greater Dandenong. This is a primary issue of concern to them. It affects their very survival. I would like to pay tribute to the VACC, which has been representing its members. It has been surveying its members now for two years. Its findings are very interesting. It has put a spotlight on the rather unsavoury practices of some of these large insurance companies. The survey results have identified that 50 per cent of large insurance companies are waiting 45 to 60 days before they pay crash repairers. What does that mean in terms of delayed payments? What does it mean to crash repairers? What is the problem with delayed payments? Let me quote from a survey by the VACC which was carried out in April 2002. With regard to delayed payments, the survey says that it is about:fairness and ethical business practices!the time that is wasted by repairers following up with insurers on the phone!repairers' obligation to pay their debtors on time!the uncertainty the delays cause in cash flow management!repairers obligation to pay taxes, such as the GST, on time in order to avoid fines!repairers obligation to pay wages and salaries to their staff!repairers getting fed up with insurers and repairers resorting to the use of factoring agents to get their payments ...direct and indirect costs these delays cause!In some instances, particularly in my electorate, crash repairers are waiting between 60 and 90 days to receive amounts of up to $70,000 or $80,000 back for the work that has been undertaken. A number of companies are having to resort to factoring agents. Because of these lax practices of insurance companies, these people are going to finance companies and saying, `We've got a problem because the major car insurers are not paying on time.' In a manner of speaking, they have to go to debt collecting agencies to get their money from major car insurers which have assets of close to a billion dollars or $500 million. If you are a small business in the Dandenong area you have to ring up a finance company and beg them to get the payment from the major insurer. That is an absolute disgrace. It is a situation that should not be allowed to continue.The survey I have referred to asked for reasons for delay in payments. It surveyed most of the crash repairers which are involved with the VACC. The major reason for the delays of between 60 and 90 days was that the files were not at hand. Some 60 per cent of respondents said the reason why it took between 60 and 90 days to get their money—the period of time which is basically throwing these crash repairers against the wall—was because they did not have the file. Other reasons included because the files were lost. You have $70,000 to $80,000 worth of bills and when the crash repairer rings up the major car insurer and says, `I want my payment. Where is it?' the answer is, `I'm sorry, I don't have the file at hand.' This is an absolutely ridiculous practice. There has to be some legislation which addresses this issue. There has to be a situation where crash repairers around this country do not have to go begging to finance companies to collect their debts.It is quite clear that 50 per cent of major car insurance companies in this country are just not going to be responsible so they have to be encouraged to be responsible through legislation. That means that we should legislate in some way, shape or form. We have the mechanisms in both the state and federal spheres to ensure that these companies meet their obligations and pay within 30 or 45 days. (Time expired)427522:35:004275King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—Last Sunday I had great pleasure in attending the rededication of a memorial in Rose Bay in my electorate dedicated to those who served on board HMAS Tingira. It was an important occasion for the local community, particularly for the members of the Rose Bay RSL and those veterans who have shown a determined interest to keep this memorial as a place of significance in Australian maritime history.The rededication of this memorial follows funding from both the federal government and Woollahra Council and I thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for responding in the way she has to my representations and those of the community. More importantly, the memorial rededication is an opportunity to thank the many people who have been involved in conserving this site and overseeing plans for its rejuvenation. I particularly wanted to thank my good friends Vince Marinato, who has done so much for this memorial, and the President of the Rose Bay RSL, Alex Bondar, and his members who have supported the project fully. I also commend warmly the Mayor of Woollahra, Councillor John Comino, and his fellow councillors who have been instrumental in the restoration of the memorial. Although Vince Marinato was unable to attend the rededication ceremony due to illness, when I spoke to him today in hospital he was in the best of spirits and fully briefed on the weekend's proceedings.One of the great features of this project has been the involvement of young people. Students at Rose Bay Public School, a fine place of education in our community, adopted the memorial and have been researching its history, meeting with veterans and learning of the contribution that those veterans have made to our nation. Their involvement in Sunday's rededication ceremony was a very special part of that occasion and I particularly acknowledge the school principal, Mrs Christine Dagworthy, for her personal interest in the project.Honourable members may not be aware of the crucial role that HMAS Tingira played in the formative years of the Royal Australian Navy. The Tingira began life as a passenger and cargo vessel and was purchased and commissioned by the Navy as a training ship in 1912, the year after the RAN began its life as a separate institution. Adopting the British model, our Navy established a training system for 14-year-olds to become seamen and, for the period 1912 to 1927, HMAS Tingira was the ship used for that training. It was moored permanently at Rose Bay, adjacent to what were then Navy playing fields, and it became known among local residents, because of its white hull, as `the White Lady of Rose Bay'. Within maritime circles it was dubbed `the cradle of the Navy'. More than 3,000 young trainee seamen passed through HMAS Tingira over its period as a training ship.It has hard to imagine the gruelling schedule that those 14-year-olds experienced—days filled with hard physical activities, seafaring training and general tuition, commencing at 5.30 a.m. and concluding at 9.30 each night. Many of those boys went on to become courageous seamen in the RAN, serving Australia so proudly. Despite those harsh conditions, those that served on the Tingira retained a strong bond to and affection for their experience, which I observed at the rededication. They came together in their own veterans association, and the memorial is their legacy and a way of honouring those that went on to serve in the RAN, never to return. I pay tribute to all that have been involved in the rededication of the memorial, which will now continue to play the role that it should in the life of our community.427622:38:004276Grierson, Sharon, MPMs GRIERSON00AMPNewcastleALP00—I rise tonight in this chamber to voice the concerns held by many of my constituents in the federal electorate of Newcastle with regard to the government's failure to adequately and rapidly respond to the liability insurance crisis. As in many communities across Australia, the people of Newcastle continue to stand by, watching and waiting, for the government to show leadership and restore confidence and some degree of affordability to this area that affects so many aspects of our daily lives.In Newcastle, we have been through the HIH crisis, which placed great strain on our local building industry. But although many would see this situation as one that has been resolved, there are still many constituents who have not had their claims adequately dealt with by the HIH Claims Support Scheme. In Newcastle, we have also seen many community events that we had long enjoyed and anticipated as part of our annual leisure activities cancelled. Street fairs, community charity events and volunteer based hobbies have begun to disappear from our rich community life, all because community organisations can no longer bear the prohibitive cost of obtaining public liability insurance.Amateur sporting bodies now pass on their increased premiums to the players, through increased registration fees. In my electorate, parents continually bemoan the cost now of registering their children for sports such as football, soccer, baseball, netball and hockey—health and community-promoting activities that we have all taken for granted. Of course, for some parents, the escalating costs mean they just cannot afford for their children to participate in weekend sporting life. With our many beautiful beaches and our coastal lifestyle, the Surf Life Saving movement in Newcastle is particularly popular. It has a strong tradition and a fine reputation for being well organised and managed. But after the recent Supreme Court decision in NSW, our Surf Life Saving movement knows that its traditional operation and practices may no longer be enough to protect it from costly litigation.Private schools in Newcastle offering the broad range of activities that parents expect, such as sports carnivals and excursions, now face double the cost for public liability insurance. In some cases, while the cost of insurance has doubled, the amount of cover has been dramatically reduced. In Newcastle, we have seen people's livelihoods affected. Our jockeys now face a fivefold increase in their insurance cover, but without that cover they cannot obtain their licence or even ride in training and track work, let alone competition. So they weigh up the costs against their income and, for many, it will mean that they can no longer participate in an industry they enjoy.A fortnight ago, women and families of Newcastle saw the local Family Planning Association clinic in Cooks Hill close its doors for a week when FPA Health in NSW was unable to secure professional indemnity insurance cover for its staff. Fortunately, the voice of a concerned and active community was heard by the insurance industry and this situation has been successfully resolved for another year at least. That brings me to the problem of professional medical indemnity insurance. The government has given insufficient comfort to our general practitioners and specialists that they will cover any gap that the UMP liquidator may not cover in claims already registered. There are many doctors facing uncertainty about the extent of their personal liability for existing claims before the courts and many more who hope that any as yet unregistered claims that may arise from past activities will indeed be covered. In Newcastle we face a significant shortage of GPs, and now that they have to cover a 40 per cent increase in their liability insurance cover, it is no wonder the numbers continue to decline.What has this government done about it? There are suggestions of a comprehensive package of measures that are needed. That has been canvassed by people in this House at other times and that is not the subject for my speech tonight. But I do want to discuss where some of the blame lies, and what should have been done. Perhaps the most significant factor for the Australian insurance industry was the collapse of our second-largest insurer, HIH. That collapse, more than anything else, put our industry in a perilous situation. As the royal commission hearings reveal, corporate mismanagement has been a major factor at play. In both HIH and UMP, corporate governance has been questioned, and the government should have done something about that a long time ago.This government had reports before its finance minister in 1997 suggesting ways to improve corporate governance in corporations in Australia, yet it did nothing. Now we fortunately have an inquiry into this same problem before the House, being conducted by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. It is hoped that that report will lead to some actions by the government addressing this problem. 427722:43:004277Dutton, Peter, MPMr DUTTON00AKIDicksonLP10—Mr Speaker, as you would be aware, the Queensland state Labor government handed down its budget last Tuesday, with a $486 million operating deficit. This is on the tail of last year's budget, which had an operating deficit of almost double that. The Beattie Labor government has yet again demonstrated its inability to effectively manage the economy in Queensland, that it is unfit for office, that its ministers are out of control, and that the continuing arrogant approach taken to the people of Queensland is becoming tiresome. But now, not only do the people of Queensland have a budget deficit and a poorly performing Premier and ministry, they also have an arrogant government unwilling to deal with the problems at hand. Community groups, businesses and doctors still do not have any certainty as to their future insurance costs. The reluctance, for whatever reason, of the state government to introduce proper and wide-ranging tort law reform in Queensland's parliament has hit the community of Dickson hard. The reforms that were introduced into the Queensland parliament last Tuesday evening will do little to stem the flow of large payouts being awarded for compensatory purposes. Nor will the reforms stop the many letters received in my electorate office from people who are concerned that their doctor is going to disappear or that their community group will not be able to afford its premium increases. The federal government and the Prime Minister have acted admirably, ensuring that doctors can at least have some peace of mind over the coming months. But, as always, it is up to this government to drag the state Labor governments kicking and screaming into line and to get them to come to the table for the good of their states.The Queensland state government has introduced the Personal Injuries Proceedings Bill designed to fix the problem of insurance payouts. But unfortunately—and it is no surprise—for the people, community groups, small businesses and medical practitioners of Dickson, the bill inadequately deals with the major issues, leaving much to be desired from the state government of Queensland. The reason that this so-called `crisis' was allowed to develop was that the state governments—all Labor governments—were unwilling to place some personal responsibility for their actions on the individuals of our communities.The insurance sector includes not only the medical practitioners but also community groups and small businesses. I am very proud of the hundreds of community groups that work hard and work well in the Dickson community. It is these groups that will suffer unless the state government has the courage to introduce laws which have a real impact on their future operations. Local tourism operators like Welcome Horseriding, who operate their small business in Dickson, need the state to act on this and act on it now. It is simply not good enough for thousands of small businesses and community groups around the country to have to worry about shutting up shop because they cannot feel safe undertaking their normal activities.As a federal government, we are proud of the timely way in which we reacted to provide security to the medical practitioners of Australia when it became apparent that UMP was in trouble. Now it is up to the states to fulfil their obligation and ensure that this problem is dealt with in a precise and effective manner, as it has been by the federal government. The New South Wales parliament, to their credit, have placed caps on payouts that can be awarded for non-economic loss. This at least allows the insurance providers to be able to operate in a framework that is clear and uncontestable.As I have previously mentioned though, as a nation we must begin to place some onus on individuals for their actions. The recent example of someone who is affected by both drug and alcohol consumption who then becomes severely injured through a beach related incident but is able to successfully litigate for a large sum of money demonstrates the extent to which this ideal of personal responsibility has fallen by the way. The New South Wales response, in the form of the Civil Liability Bill 2002, will include a clause that allows for drugs and alcohol to be taken into account in assessing negligence claims. That is something that should be embraced by all other states as it clearly applies some responsibility on a person for their own actions.Today I have written to many of the constituents of Dickson, in addition to the state members of parliament who are representatives within my seat of Dickson, and I have asked them to consider amendments to the Queensland legislation which clearly does not go far enough. The letter to the constituents assures them that the federal government has acted in a very responsible manner and for long-term certainty the state government must urgently consider amendments to that legislation. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Braddon tells me that on this day I should not only recognise the member for Cunningham as a friend and colleague but recognise that it is also a day of celebration for him.427822:49:004278Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Thank you, Mr Speaker, but do not tell the rest. Today's Illawarra Mercury contained a very interesting article, editorial and opinion piece under the broad heading `Minister for Illawarra needed'. Of course, reference here was being made to the New South Wales state government. The opinion piece written by Terry Wetherall, the President of the Illawarra Business Chamber, came on the heels of an article written by Greg Ellis, the business editor, and the editorial in the Illawarra Mercury itself.I found it interesting to read this, and I would ask the people who have proposed this whether they could suggest what the Illawarra has missed out on from the New South Wales Labor government, led by Bob Carr, that a specific minister for the Illawarra might have been able to achieve. VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—Steve Martin for President!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for Corangamite, I think a little more charity might be extended to the member for Cunningham on such a day.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—If you look at the hospitals in Wollongong and Shellharbour, the fact is that the New South Wales government, led by Bob Carr, has not only saved the hospitals that were closed under Liberal governments in Kiama but also saved a couple of others that had potentially been looked at for closure in the northern suburbs and are now being supplemented and improved. It is also a fact that Bob Carr himself is a visitor to the Illawarra on a very regular basis and champions the cause of the Illawarra, and many of his ministers are often seen in the district looking at issues and championing those within the cabinet. In fact, Bob Carr has thrown his considerable imprimatur behind the proposals at Brandon Park for the development of a high-tech park in consort with the University of Wollongong. He was recently in Wollongong again talking about a new power generation facility on the site of the former Tallawarra Power Station.Every minister in the Carr government has very much got the Illawarra in their mind. Why is that so? It is because of the dedicated group of individuals that represent the Illawarra at the present time. There are, in fact, two parliamentary secretaries, and I notice that the people who were making comment in this article were dismissive of the fact that we did have two parliamentary secretaries—one of whom, Colin Markham, is designated as the Parliamentary Secretary for the Illawarra. What seems to have escaped some of these people who have been a little critical was the fact that they claimed that Richard Face, John Della Bosca and Kim Yeadon had been specifically designated as ministers for the Hunter, Central Coast and Western Sydney. In fact, Richard Face is the Minister for Gaming and Racing and John Della Bosca is the Minister for Industrial Relations. The simple fact is that, yes, they do live in the Hunter and on the Central Coast and they take an active interest in their local areas and why shouldn't they? But you cannot tell me that Marianne Saliba, David Campbell, Matt Brown, Colin Markham and Ian McManus—and Wayne Smith, a little further south—do not take an interest in the issues of the Illawarra. I know they meet on a regular basis to discuss those sorts of issues and from time to time also meet with their federal colleagues.I found it a little astounding, therefore, to read in the article that the chamber of commerce's chief executive, Ken Sullivan—a gentleman who I used to work with many years ago in planning in New South Wales—is, apparently, bemoaning the fact that Illawarra was an afterthought when a recent budget breakfast, a planning New South Wales initiative, was attended by the New South Wales Treasurer, Michael Egan, at Shellharbour. He is complaining, if I read this story correctly, that Michael Egan, the Treasurer of New South Wales, turned up in Wollongong at a budget breakfast to talk about the budget that was being brought down by the New South Wales government, yet Illawarra somehow is being neglected by this government.The fact of the matter is that there is a champion for the Illawarra in each and every one of the local members. The fact is that there is a champion, importantly for the Illawarra, in the Premier himself. Do some of these colleagues from the chamber of commerce expect that every element and every part of New South Wales that is represented by a minister who happens to reside in that area suddenly becomes the `Minister for the Far North Coast' or the `Minister for Broken Hill' or something like that? The fact is that we do very well because of the Premier's interest, because of the outstanding work of the local members in that area, and I know that at the next election they will be returned overwhelmingly.427922:54:004279Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I bring before the chamber tonight a dilemma facing many thousands of Australian families. I quote from a letter that I received from Kevin, one of my constituents. He writes:I am writing a short note concerning my grievance with conflicting legislation in family law, which states that I do not have a legal duty to maintain my current spouse. However, she is also ineligible for any benefit from Centrelink, as they tell her I, who have no legal duty to maintain her, earn too much money.He asks the rhetorical question:Do you consider this situation perplexing? Further to this, I would ask how the Child Support Agency can access my gross income and then deduct this amount from my net income. The situation is that tax must be applied to this amount. Should it not mean that the assessment should in fact be based on my net income and not my gross income?I would now like to remind all parties concerned that all creditors to my previous marriage found me liable for all joint debts, which has caused my current insolvency. I have also considered the situation regarding portentive income assessment—a very nasty deterrent for anyone who wants to re-establish a lifestyle for both partners of a new relationship.In this, I mean why would anyone work up to 80 hours per week only to lose 32 per cent of their net income based on 32 per cent of the gross income. This is what I am doing at present, and I am forced to pay $345.51 per week, which I think is unfair. As for my ex-wife, she has already contacted the Child Support Agency stating that she believes this amount is excessive, but nothing else has been done about the situation.Kevin states, right from the heart, the difficulty of his circumstances. I think this reflects a situation that is perplexing, demanding and very difficult for many thousands of Australian men particularly and for many thousands of Australian families.428022:56:004280Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that kind gesture to the former member.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I think the member for Cunningham might prefer to be known as the `current member' rather than the `former member'.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Thank you for assisting me; I realise that has serious connotations. On Saturday, I had the privilege of attending the second day of the Regional Arts Council conference in Tasmania. One of the major issues that they raised at that conference, of course, was the question of public liability. It is very important that members in this House are frequently bringing forward issues of public liability. I must say, one of the issues we as a House have not canvassed—I am not sure of the caucus on the other side, but I have not heard many people raising this issue—is the reintroduction of the idea of a national compensation or insurance compensation scheme, something along the lines of that which New Zealand has and also that which was proposed in 1974-75 by the Whitlam government.Indeed, the representations I was getting were that it is a national problem. It is a serious national issue and should be dealt with nationally. I appreciate the constitutional complexities involved with it, but it does look like it is something that we, as a nation, need to tackle, rather than being open to the vagaries of the lottery of where the accident may have happened, in what type of organisation you might have been with or in, or the occasion that you are at. In terms of the injury that might have taken place or the compensation needed, it really is a lottery. It depends on what state you are in and, indeed, on what type of coverage they may or may not have. So it is the issue that they take very seriously.But what I really thought was interesting about that meeting is that their theme for the day was `ignite the spark'. I thought it was ironic because community arts people are the very people who are in ignition mode most of the time. I did point out to them how lucky I am as a representative, and I am sure others share this view, to be surrounded by magnificent artworks in Canberra as a whole, with the museum and the galleries, and to then come into this magnificent institution and be surrounded by artworks, have people kindly come in with carousels, pictures, folios and files of all the pieces of art we can choose for our offices, have those magnificent things in our offices—what a great privilege it is—and be able to walk the corridors and see these magnificent paintings, and, indeed, to be invited into your office, Mr Speaker, and see the wonderful artworks.But I do not remember anyone in this House in the four years I have had the privilege of being here ever asking a question about the arts. We talk about money all the time. As I mentioned to the group: `You have the arts, you produce it, you live it, you feel it, you have to do it because it is part of you, it is your vocation in life. We have got the money, but we do not seem to see each other or connect.' I thought that that was most unfortunate. I would love us to be able to talk about our community activities and, apart from limited liability, to talk about the tremendous work that community artists do and perform for us. It is the spirit of Australia, but it is not the spirit that we talk about. Indeed, it is spiritless here—except, of course, for your good presence, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:004280House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices4280The following notices were given:7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to facilitate compliance by Australia with obligations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and for related purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 and certain other Acts in consequence of the enactment of the International Criminal Court Act 2002, and for other purposes.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr Hawker to move:That this House:(1) notes with alarm the serious decline in the population of the Great Apes-gorillas, bonobos, orangutans and chimpanzees, which could lead to their extinction in the next 10 years;(2) recognises that habitat destruction due to illegal logging, mining and associated activities including poaching, are all contributing to this threat of extinction;(3) acknowledges that war, civil unrest and a breakdown in law and order also contribute to the problems in many of these habitat areas;(4) notes Australian Government participation, principally through zoos and also with the Humane Society International, in the conservation of the Great Apes;(5) notes the support of the UK Government for the Great Apes Survival Project, which is backed by the UN Environment Programme; and(6) calls on the Federal Government to increase its support for the efforts of the UN Environment Programme to help save the Great Apes.Answers to Questions in Writing4282The following answers to questions were circulated:4282(Question No. 105)1054282Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13/2/02:(1) Is the Australia Cycling National Strategy examining the (a) benchmarking of bicycle use, (b) benchmarking of accident exposure and (c) benchmarking of bicycling facilities in Australia using international standards; if not, why not.(2) Has the National Strategy met its December 2000 objective to include cycling expertise in peak transport, recreation and other appropriate bodies; if not, why not.(3) Has the National Strategy met its January 2001 objective to make education about cycling available for pre, primary and secondary school aged students, consistent with curriculum frameworks; if not, why not.(4) What work has been done to enable the National Strategy to meet its June 2001 objectives to (a) improve the services and products delivered by the bicycle industry through the development of partnerships; (b) develop a generic policy that can be adapted by all local governments which outlines their role in creating pro-bicycle cultures and physical environments; (c) ensure that appropriate new and renovated public and private developments include end-of-trip facilities for cyclists consistent with national standards; (d) increase multi-nodal trips involving bicycles and public transport; (e) develop and implement a national public communication strategy to improve the awareness of all road users and path users to better share our roads and paths; (f) ensure that safety initiatives such as safety audits and identification of blackspots include consideration of cycling; and (g) develop and implement behavioural programs/initiatives relating to all road users which improve cyclist safety in areas such as motor vehicle speeds and helmets.4282Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Responsibility for implementation of Australia Cycling, a National Strategy (the National Strategy) rests primarily with the State, Territory and Local Government authorities, which are best placed to determine local solutions and funding requirements. The Commonwealth provides the Secretariat to the Australian Bicycle Council (ABC), which is a body that was established to coordinate implementation of the National Strategy on behalf of all governments.The ABC commenced a study of cycling data and indicators in September 2001 under Strategy 5.2 of the National Strategy. The study seeks “to identify data requirements and report on comparable State and Territory data about cycling to provide a national perspective” and includes levels of bicycle usage and cyclist safety. Until this study is done, international benchmarking against international standards is not possible.(2) The National Strategy objective to include cycling expertise in peak transport, recreation and other bodies is an ongoing process. The Australian Bicycle Council has made substantial progress towards meeting this objective. (3) The National Strategy has succeeded in making available cycling education programs in most state and territories. However, the incorporation of education about cycling in school curriculums has not occurred in some jurisdictions such as Qld and SA because it is a matter of discretion for the school principals.(4) (a) The ABC membership includes representation from the bicycle industry wholesale and retail associations who provide ongoing engagement with the industry on developments and promotion of cycle products. The ABC also supports the Cycling Promotion Fund.(b) Work has been commenced under the National Strategy on a national data collection of all local government based actions associated with promoting and facilitating increased cycling activities. The ABC will use the information to evaluate the status of local government policy in relation to cycling issues, identify progress, and areas where further work is needed.(c) and (d) Significant progress has been made by state and territory governments to improve facilities for cyclists who use cycling for commuting to work and to increase multi-modal trips involving bicycles. Key examples include:· In Perth and Fremantle bicycle lockers have been installed at railway stations;· In Victoria there has been a review of the Principal Bicycle Network by VicRoads in partnership with Bicycle Victoria and local councils to ensure it remains an effective planning tool;· In Tasmania $500,000 funding has been earmarked for improved cycle facilities throughout the state;· In NSW a fully graded separated cycle way has been proposed along the Western Sydney Orbital road;· In SA a new round of State Government funding has allocated $2m towards bicycle projects; and· In the ACT the government has made a commitment to develop the Downer/Woden cycle link.(e) Work is being undertaken in separate jurisdictions to foster greater awareness of cyclists among all road users through various promotional programs and educational schemes. Key examples include:· In WA the Balanced Transport System has been developed, with one of its objectives being to advise retailers, schools and local councils of cycle friendly policies and strategies;· The ABC's active role in supporting the Bicycling Australia Show;· The establishment of the Bike Ed week and Cycle Instead campaigns in WA and Travel Smart Programme in SA; and· The Safe Walking and Pedalling Programme in QLD.(f) Improving safety for cyclists is a high priority under the National Strategy. A number of initiatives have been established to ensure that cycling safety issues are considered in the identification of black spots, including:· Commonwealth appointment of cyclist representatives to Black Spot community consultative panels in a number of states, and to Australian Transport Safety Bureau's National Road Safety Strategy Panel; and· The development of specific safety audits for cycling in QLD, TAS, NSW and the NT.(g) A number of jurisdictions are working to promote cycling awareness among motorists and other road users and improving safety on bicycle paths.Key examples include:· The establishment of Share the Road educational campaigns in QLD, NSW and the ACT.· The implementation of share path “behavioural signs” and guidelines for their use in Victoria.The Victorian Traffic Authority is also undertaking a trial of using coloured bicycle lanes to improve cyclist safety on major roads in Melbourne. Progress on the trial was reported at the last meeting of the Australian Bicycle Council on 15 March 2001.4283(Question No. 306)3064283Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 14 May 2002:(1) How many street posting boxes have been removed by Australia Post since 1 January 2000 from the postcode areas of (a) 3130, (b) 3131, (c) 3132, (d) 3133, (e) 3134, (f) 3058, (g) 3056, (h) 3055, (i) 3057, (j) 3060, (k) 3044, (l) 3039 and (m) 3046.(2) What plans does Australia Post have to remove street posting boxes in the postcode areas of (a) 3130, (b) 3131, (c) 3132, (d) 3133, (e) 3134, (f) 3058, (g) 3056, (h) 3055, (i) 3057, (j) 3060, (k) 3044, (l) 3039 and (m) 3046 in the next 12 months.4283McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer, based on advice received from Australia Post, to the honourable member's question:(1) Australia Post has not removed any street posting boxes from the 13 postcode areas listed since 1 January 2000.It has relocated, upgraded and installed new street posting boxes within some of the postcode areas listed since 1 January 2000. Details are as follows: (a) 3130 - 2 boxes relocated; (b) 3131 - 2 boxes relocated and 1 new box installed; (c) 3132 - no change; (d) 3133 - no change; (e) 3134 - no change; (f) 3058 - 4 boxes relocated, 3 boxes upgraded, 3 boxes refurbished and 1 new box installed; (g) 3056 - no change; (h) 3055 - no change; (i) 3057 - no change; (j) 3060 - 3 boxes relocated; (k) 3044 - no change; (l) - no change and (m) 3046 - no change. (2) Australia Post does not have any plans to remove street posting boxes from the 13 postcode areas listed in the next 12 months. 4284(Question No. 431)4314284Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne9V5SturtLP10 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 28 May 2002:(1) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the number of (a) T1 and (b) T2 Telstra shareholders in each federal electoral division. 4284McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for Science10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, based on advice from Telstra, has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No. Telstra has advised that the information relating to Telstra shareholders contained on the share registry that it is required to maintain under the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001, does not distinguish between shareholders that invested in T1 and T2. Telstra has also advised that the addresses of shareholders on its share register are not allocated according to federal electorates.Telstra has further advised that the release of information relating to its share register is only able to be undertaken in accordance with the Corporations Act.