2002-06-254012REPS428502002-06-25—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice4285428514:01:004285McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, I refer to your comment yesterday during question time:The last thing I would do is encourage confrontation.Minister, does this mean that you are sounding the retreat from your statement to the business executives of the H.R. Nicholls Society on 23 March this year, when you said:War is too important to be left to the Colonels—the Generals need to be involved as well.Minister, can you confirm that you are now a pacifist? Now that the minister for industry has backed down on his threat to tie car industry support to attacks on workers, will you also back down on that threat to the car industry?4285Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Where there is hatred, let me bring love. I love the policies of this government, which have created nearly one million new jobs since 1996.428514:03:004285Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Following President Bush's statement overnight on the Middle East, would the minister update the House on Australia's approach to the conflict there?4285Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. I know he and many of his constituents have a deep concern about the situation in the Middle East. The government welcomes the statement made by President Bush yesterday Washington time. President Bush is right in saying that the current situation offers no prospect for anyone. He is also right in calling for all those involved to fulfil their responsibilities. We have consistently supported the United States in its efforts to secure an end to the violence, to address the humanitarian and development needs of the Palestinian people and to advance the political process in the Middle East. It is vital, despite the horrific terrorism over the past weeks and months, that we hold to the vision affirmed by the United Nations Security Council of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognised borders. But an eventual peace depends on the efforts of the Palestinians and the Israelis. It has to be their peace; they have to own the peace process themselves.We concur with President Bush that the Palestinians must take strong action against terrorism, and bringing an end to the homicide bombings would do more than anything to transform the situation in the Middle East. A state will not be gained through acts of terror. As the security situation improves, Israel should be able to withdraw from Palestinian controlled territories. Settlement activity is unhelpful also to bringing peace. Israel's regional neighbours must bring pressure to bear to ensure an end to the appalling acts of murder that we have witnessed over recent times and accept, as the Saudi Arabians and some other Arab states have, that the vision affirmed by the United Nations Security Council is the final settlement that will take place in the Middle East. I made these points recently to the Iranian foreign minister, and I have spoken in similar terms to representatives of Israel's Arab neighbours. In conclusion, we welcome President Bush's statement, and we see it as an important contribution to taking the issue of peace in the Middle East forward.428514:06:004285Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I join with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in welcoming the statement by the US President today and hope it results satisfactorily in peace in that area. My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, yesterday the minister for industry backed down on his threat to tie car industry support to attacks on workers. Minister, when will you back away from your threat to do likewise?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to argument. The two questions being put to the minister are: when will X back down on his threat and when will you back down on your threat? I put it to you that that level of argument in questions is excessive. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—As I have frequently mentioned from the chair, it is not uncommon to have some argument in questions. The standing orders do not allow for argument but, consistent with my predecessors, if I were to rule out the level of argument included in the Leader of the Opposition's question, few questions over the last 20 years would have stood. I am happy to discuss it with the member for Parramatta, and I invite him to consult previous Hansards.4286Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The question that the Leader of the Opposition asked is all very well, but what about a response to Chris Schacht, who says:Changing 60:40 to 50:50 is an improvement but we've already got 50:50 in my home state of South Australia ...10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Leader of the House! Before I recognise the Manager of Opposition Business, I would invite the Leader of the House to link his remarks to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Plainly, the Leader of the Opposition has trouble transcending his past. Once a union leader, always a union leader. As Chris Schacht said:... we've already got 50:50 in my home state of South Australia, and the party there is dominated by two trade unions.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I have a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker, under standing order 145. There is nothing in what the minister has said so far that relates to the car industry—absolutely nothing!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister had been speaking for 40 seconds. I had asked him to come back to the question. It is always difficult to deem an answer no longer relevant to the question in that period of time. The minister will come back to the question.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order, Mr Speaker, is that what you asked the minister to do was to link his answer to the question, which he patently failed and refused to do.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Perth is well aware that I was listening to the minister. As I indicated, in 40 seconds it is not reasonable for me to—5V5Smith, Stephen, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Perth is currently running the risk of simply defying the chair. I am responding to his point of order. I am now calling the minister.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—This government fully supports the Australian motor industry, and I am delighted to see that under this government's policies motor industry exports have gone up from $2 billion a year to more than $5 billion a year. This is the kind of benefit that you get from the sorts of policies that this government has pursued. The motor industry is a vital industry for Australia's future. The motor industry is absolutely at the heart of the manufacturing sector in Australia. The best way to ensure that we have a viable motor industry and that we continue to have 50,000 jobs—and more!—in the motor industry is to ensure that the industry takes full advantage of the freedoms and flexibilities that this government has made available to it.428614:10:004286Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister inform the House about the sale of Sydney airport announced this morning? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies on this issue?4286Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his real interest in it, in particular in terms of finding the right balance between asset maximisation and looking after the very real interests of his and other constituents in Sydney in terms of amenity. I think we have found a good balance. I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that the government has sold Sydney airport to Southern Cross Airports for $5.588 billion. This is the largest government trade sale in Australia's history, and the largest trade sale of any airport in the world to date. It is a very good outcome for aviation and indeed for the taxpayer as well. Southern Cross has demonstrated a clear commitment to the ongoing development of the airport as a world-class facility. Its quality should have been recognised by and evident to all Australians at the time of the Olympics when, despite some dire predictions from some quarters, the airport actually functioned extraordinarily well and confirmed its standing as one of the world's great airports. It is very important indeed, though, to note—and I know that the honourable member who asked the question will want this noted—that the change in ownership will not mean changing the existing operating arrangements at the airport. The curfew from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. and the 80 aircraft movements per hour cap will remain in force. The noise sharing policy implemented through the long-term operating plan—or LTOP, as it is known—will also continue. Access for regional airlines—and this is very important too—will continue to be guaranteed by the slot management scheme introduced by this government. The ACCC will also continue to ensure that existing prices for regional carriers at Sydney airport are maintained and that prices for those airlines do not increase in excess of the consumer price index.The ownership provisions under the Airports Act ensure that the Sydney airport must remain majority Australian owned. Other restrictions in the act limit airline ownership of Sydney airport to five per cent, as well as placing cross-ownership restrictions on investors with a stake in Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth airports. Under the sale arrangements for Sydney airport, Southern Cross will have the first right of refusal to build and operate any second major airport within 100 kilometres of the Sydney CBD, if the federal government of the day were to decide that a second airport was needed. As is known and has been announced, we will review Sydney's airport needs in 2005, but I must say—and, indeed, the people involved in the bid have indicated they certainly share our views—a second airport is not now likely to be needed for a considerable time.The government will, as has been said, apply the proceeds of the sale to reducing the $96 billion in public sector debt that we inherited from the Labor Party. In net terms, the Commonwealth's debt will be cut by $4.2 billion, which means that public debt interest payments will fall by about $250 million a year. That is another $250 million a year that gives us flexibility. We do not have to charge the taxpayers of Australia as much. We have more flexibility when it comes to providing services and providing the desirable and good things that the Australian community looks to us to provide.The honourable member asked about alternative proposals. The opposition have announced that they would spend the proceeds of the sale on infrastructure, even though during the last campaign they told us, for example, that they would cancel important infrastructure programs like the black spots program. They said they would just scrap that. They have also said that they would use the same money to reduce the government debt that they ran up when they were last in government. As well as that, during the last campaign they said that they would use the money to bail out Ansett. They do not apparently see the airport as you and I might—as a major piece of infrastructure which should be used responsibly. They see it as something akin to Norman Lindsay's magic pudding. Honourable members might recall the scene where the pudding owners are walking down the road after revealing that with this magic pudding you can cut off as many slices as you like but there is always just enough of the cake remaining. Here is a quote from it:They were all singing away at the top of their pipe, as Bill called it, when round a bend in the road they came on two low-looking persons hiding behind a tree.Here are the two low-looking persons hiding behind a tree: the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Batman. They are the pudding thieves. They were going to slice the pudding up so many times that it was going to cover everything that the electorate could ever conceivably have thought they would ever want, but the cake was going to remain. Unfortunately, I have to tell the opposition that there is no magic pudding. There is just the choice to determine to run the place responsibly. If they are in any way serious about infrastructure development in Australia and driving our infrastructure dollars further, what they will do is get behind our plan for AusLink, which will ensure that we get better planning and better outcomes by driving our infrastructure dollars further. 428814:16:004288Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—After that disgraceful reply to that dorothy dixer—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lowe runs a risk. The member for Lowe will go straight to his question.83DMr MURPHY—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, do you recall the following promise by former minister John Sharp—EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—He's too loud!CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—He's too loud!4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—He's shouting!83DMr MURPHY—I hope you listen.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lowe is not only entitled to the call; he is entitled to be heard in silence. The member for Lowe will commence his question again.83DMr MURPHY—Does the minister recall the following promise by former minister John Sharp:We will not be putting on the market Sydney Mascot ... until such time as we fulfil our election commitment ... reiterated by the now Prime Minister ... that we will not do so until such time as we have been able to satisfactorily resolve Sydney's aircraft noise problems.Minister, does your sale of Sydney airport mean that you think you have solved Sydney's aircraft noise problems?4288Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for Lowe for his question. It is well known that we have a longstanding commitment to LTOP, the long-term operating plan, put in place by this government. It clearly is an arrangement which by any test of fairness whatsoever produces a much more reasonable outcome for the residents of Sydney. There can be no question of that. The long-term operating plan has clearly led to a much more equitable—83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—Rubbish!DK6Hockey, Joe, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister for Small Business and Tourism!4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker, I get the impression that there are some on this side who would like to hear the answer, and they are signalling that they are having a bit of difficulty at the moment. There is a much more equitable distribution of noise around Sydney now.83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—Rubbish! That's not true.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The chair has been exceedingly tolerant to the member for Lowe. I am aware of his particular concern on this issue, but I have also exercised tolerance beyond the standing orders. He will hear the minister in silence.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Three out of the four noise sharing targets are not only being met but being exceeded.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Except for the north.4K4Mr ANDERSON—In relation to the northern target of 17 per cent, we have achieved a very significant reduction, from 47 per cent of all aircraft movements when Labor was in power down to about 25 per cent today. That is in anybody's language a magnificent improvement. I simply pose the question: how many residents in Sydney would like to go back to the days of the ALP managing Sydney's noise loads? I conclude by saying this: the important point to note here is that the bidders, Southern Cross, have fully recognised and built their very attractive bid around the government's policy positions, which remain intact and in place, in terms of sharing the noise fairly and equitably in Sydney, in terms of maintaining the curfew—providing respite, in other words—and at the same time looking after the interests of regional New South Wales commuters.428814:21:004288Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6CanningLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House of the progress and benefits of the government's debt reduction program? How does the government treat the proceeds of asset sales, and are there any alternative approaches? 4289Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Canning for his question. As the Deputy Prime Minister has just announced, the government will receive in net proceeds from the sale of Sydney airport about $4.2 billion, after the retirement of the Airport Corporation debt. That will go to reducing the Labor Party debt—the $96 billion of Labor Party debt—which existed when this government came to office. After applying the proceeds, the coalition government will now have paid off, out of that $96 billion, $61 billion of Labor Party debt. That does not quite get us back to the situation that Australia was in before Labor ran up $80 billion worth of debt in its last five budgets, but it means we will have nearly got back to the situation that Australia was in before those last five wanton years of mismanagement under the Keating-Beazley-Crean governments.The Deputy Prime Minister has adverted to the fact that the Labor Party, back to its old tricks, has had the member for Batman already calling for some of this money to be spent on some of his pet projects, at the same time as he was calling for it to be used to reduce debt. Those of you who follow crikey.com as closely as I do will see that the member has been recycling a few things in his electorate recently including tips, in a leaflet mailed out to his electorate in Melbourne, on how to recycle Perth waste, with the phone number of the member for Swan on his leaflet. I recommend crikey.com. It includes very good reading about Delia Delegate this week and the internal machinations of the Victorian ALP. So we have the member for Batman, the recycling king—stop laughing, member for Swan—calling for some debt to be recycled and the money simultaneously to be spent.It is worth reminding the House that the government's debt repayment program is a new standard of economic management in this country. When the Labor Party engaged in privatisation, they treated the proceeds of an asset sale as recurrent revenue. Not only did they expend the total proceeds in the year of sale but at the end of it they went into financial markets and borrowed, in addition. In September 1993, for example, after selling a shareholding in the Commonwealth Bank, the Labor Party expended the whole proceeds—about $2 billion—and, after spending that, borrowed another $17 billion in Commonwealth debt. They expended the proceeds in the year of sale and ended up at the end of the year without the asset, with nothing to show for it and $17 billion worth of debt, in addition. It was the same in relation to CSL; it was the same in relation to Qantas; it was the same in relation to the Commonwealth Bank.What is the benefit that the shareholder is now getting from this government's debt reduction program? When our government came to office, we had to raise $8½ billion in taxes to pay Labor's interest bill. Because we have now retired nearly $61 billion worth of debt, our interest payments have fallen to $3.7 billion and we have an annual recurrent saving of $4.7 billion. That is $4.7 billion which we no longer have to spend on Labor debt and which can go to schools, hospitals, the environment, defence and all of the things which will build a better Australia. Retiring Labor's debt is getting rid of the mistakes of the past; spending on schools and hospitals is building the opportunities of the future. That is the difference between the coalition and Labor: one builds for the future; the other bequeaths to the future the mistakes and the legacy of a failed past.428914:26:004289Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, can you confirm that your most recent employee entitlements scheme is meant to process 80 per cent of claims within four months, yet you are currently processing just 54 per cent of the claims within that time frame? Can the minister also confirm that employees have missed out on nearly $10 million of their legally accrued entitlements due to the limitations of the government's scheme? How many workers and their families are doing it tough, waiting for you to pay them their entitlements?4290Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. His talent is wasted on the back bench. He should come back to where he belongs from which he was banished because he fell out with the warlords of the Australian Workers Union last year in Queensland. Honourable members interjecting—EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I was very kind to the member for Brisbane when he was the shadow minister.2V5Swan, Wayne, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business!2V5Swan, Wayne, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business deliberately defies the chair!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The AWU's patsy here on the front bench did his best to get rid of the member for Brisbane.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker: members should be referred to, under standing order 80, by their proper titles.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I was unaware of the minister having transgressed.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I regret the fact that sometimes our employee entitlements scheme cannot pay workers as quickly as we would like. Unfortunately, our scheme relies on the cooperation of accountants and administrators. We need accountants and administrators to tell us accurately what the entitlements of these workers are before we can pay them. Whatever limitations and drawbacks our scheme has, it is 100 per cent better than all previous schemes for the simple reason that there were no previous schemes. They had 13 years to do something about this and they must have been going to do it in the 14th or 15th year. We have sorted this issue out to the benefit of Australian workers.429014:28:004290Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister inform the House of the current status of reform of the nation's waterfront? Minister, would you quantify improvements made in Australia's operational capacity on the waterfront and how this compares with productivity rates in the past? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?4290Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—One of the good things about being able to come in here regularly and report on our performance on the waterfront is that it just consistently gets better. When Labor left office the average container movements of our five major ports were stuck on about 16.9 movements per hour. The Labor Party, at the behest of the trade union movement, were saying, `You could not possibly expect us to ever get better than about 17 movements per hour.' Now, for six quarters in a row, we have exceeded the target we set of 25 movements an hour. Indeed, the latest Waterline shows that in the last quarter, the March quarter of this year, national crane rate productivity over our five major ports was 26.6 containers an hour. That is 10 containers an hour ahead of the Labor Party's performance and well in front of what the Labor Party led us to believe, at the behest of the unions, could ever be achieved in this country.That is of course good news. With it comes a vastly improved reputation internationally. I can confirm that from talks I had recently with shippers in Europe in relation to our port performance. They now say, `The performance is terrific. We can go to Australia safely, knowing that we will get in and out in good time.' Indeed, Waterline reported that pilotage and towage services were available within an hour of a ship's arrival or departure 99.5 per cent of the time in the March quarter and that the berth availability was 96 per cent. In fact, of the 209 ships that called at Australian ports over the three months in that quarter, only 11 of them faced significant delays.Compare that with the bad old days of the waterfront in this country when Labor—the champions of the working classes as they call themselves—were in power. Do you remember `Wran's navy'? Do you remember when the ships were lined up for miles at sea, as far as the eye could see, because of industrial disputation on the waterfront? I do not know that we have always been seen as the wharfies' best friends and I am not certain that we have always been seen as greatly enamoured of the MUA either, but a very important point to make out of good industrial relations reform is this: one of the best aspects of this reform is that waterfront workers in Australia must now be enjoying a sense of what might be called great professional satisfaction. They must feel that it is really worth while having a good reputation here and internationally and they must feel that they are doing a professional job and being well rewarded for it. Two questions arise. The first is this: I wonder how many of those waterfront workers would want to go back to doing it the way they did it under Labor? The second is this: given the exploding freight task and the number of Australian jobs that depend on our export performance, how many people would care to stand up and say that it would be in Australia's national interest or in the interests of Australian jobs to go back to running the waterfront in the way that the labour movement did?429114:32:004291McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you recall the Prime Minister telling the House in June last year after Jodee Rich was paid a $7.5 million performance bonus for his management of a bankrupt company:... the Commonwealth intends to amend the law so that in future, where bonuses are paid in the circumstances where those bonuses were paid to the bosses of One.Tel, that money will be refundable and can be used to meet the lawful and legitimate entitlements of the workers and also the other creditors of the company.Treasurer, why is it that one year later we have yet to see any legislation from you to stop these corporate rorts? Why are you going soft on the wealthiest and most powerful Australians while your budget hits the most vulnerable? Treasurer, will you now guarantee to introduce this much delayed legislation before this session ends?4291Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Of course the rhetoric was false. This is a budget which will protect those who rely on Commonwealth services by putting them on a sustainable financial basis. We keep hearing from the Australian Labor Party, for example, in relation to copayments on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, how in fact they are in favour of them—they introduced them; they reserve the right to increase them. If they had an ounce of decency about them they would support the measures which will make them financially sustainable.This government has announced substantial strengthening in relation to the Corporations Law. In fact, in the most recent budget it announced increases in funding to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Those members of the House that follow these things carefully will see that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission have recently taken action against one of the people involved in FAI and HIH, with a very severe penalty imposed. I will not say any more about that because it is on appeal. I do not think it would be proper for me to say anything more. But I pay tribute to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for the way in which they have taken court proceedings. Without prejudicing in any way the ultimate outcome of those court proceedings, I pay credit to the way in which they took them—and they were brought very quickly. With additional funding, we believe that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission will be able to continue their important work.In relation to directors' bonuses, we announced that changes to the law would obviously be prospective from the time at which they come into effect, so those matters that have previously occurred would be governed by the law as it stood at the time and as it was enacted by the Labor Party. I do not think that even the Labor Party would say that we should have retrospectively amended Labor law in relation to those particular incidents. The most that we could do was announce that we would do it prospectively. We have engaged in extensive consultation, we have framed procedures, and we intend to continue with it. You named a particular company—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser named a particular company.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The new law will not apply to that company because it will be prospective, but the existing law, which gives the power to liquidate or reach back in relation to trading while insolvent or with an undue preference, will be available to the liquidator concerned. If those circumstances occur, the liquidator will be able to take proceedings. The enhancements of that, which have been discussed and flagged by this government, will be introduced by this government and they will be prospective. 429214:36:004292Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware of concerns regarding a recent Federal Court decision that allows unions to charge a $500 fee to non-union members? Minister, what effect will these compulsory fees have on the livelihood of Australian workers and their families?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order—standing order 146: the question is the same as the question that was asked yesterday and answered by the minister. It cannot be renewed, under the standing order, and should be ruled out of order.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I am conscious of standing order 146 and I acknowledge that a similar question was asked yesterday. I do not believe this question is the same. I thought its reference to its effect on Australian families was something that was not pursued yesterday. I will check the Hansard but the question stands.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, on the point of order, it is an important issue in the standing orders. Would you care to check the Hansard now?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—Chuck him out!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I need no assistance from the member for Maranoa. The question stands. I call the minister.4292Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for Herbert for his question. I can tell the House that this government entirely shares the member for Herbert's concern to protect the workers of Townsville from a $500-a-year union tax. Right around Australia, workers are now threatened with a form of industrial conscription by union leaders who have taken the view that, if we cannot persuade people to pay, we will make them pay. First out of the blocks is none other than Dean Mighell, the head of the Electrical Trades Union, the Victorian Trades Hall boss and the convenor of the Craig Johnson legal aid fund, who said this morning that every non-union worker at Qantas should be made to pay $500 a year in union taxes, even though the union's most recent service to Qantas was threatening to ground the airline when it was at its most vulnerable after September 11. What Dean Mighell and his colleagues want is to force workers to pay a $500-a-year tax to unions which have sought to destroy their jobs. The editorial in the Australian yesterday said about members opposite and their union cohorts:They've trawled out the line that it's un-Australian for non-unionists to take a “free ride”. That sounds like the blackmail being exposed by the royal commission into the building industry. Hey, maybe money pinched from the non-unionists could be used to pay affiliation fees to the Labor Party and get the union bosses a seat in the Senate so they can become factional warlords.The Electrical Trades Union has paid a half a million dollars to the Labor Party over the last six years. If that union can force 2,000 Qantas employees to pay these taxes, it could double its donation in a single hit. These compulsory union levies are looking increasingly like a giant extortion racket run by the industrial arm of the unions to benefit the political arm of the unions. They look like they are designed to pour rivers of gold into the coffers of the ALP in a way that would make the Centenary House scam look like petty cash.Members opposite who support these union fees want workers of Australia to pay a $500-a-year union tax, not for the country's benefit but for their own political benefit. Five hundred dollars would pay the average family's doctor's bills for a year, it would pay the average family's car insurance fees for a year and it would cover the average family's vegetable bills for a year. We had Sharan Burrow complaining not long ago that the average worker cannot afford to go out for a meal. Five hundred dollars would buy the average family a night out at Pizza Hut every three weeks for a year. When it comes to leaving money in the pockets of the average worker or channelling it into the union funds, members opposite choose the unions every time. A big question for members opposite is: whose side are they on? Are they on the side of the ordinary Australian worker, the decent Australian battler, or are they on the side of the union heavies? This government is going to give them a chance to demonstrate their true colours. This government is going to have the compulsory union fees bill debated and voted upon in the Senate this week. That will be a chance for members opposite to show where they stand. This government supports the workers of this country. Sadly, the once great Labor Party is now completely in the pocket of unrepresentative and often corrupt union officials.429314:42:004293Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, and it refers to his child-care funding bungle which is seeing more than $35 million being retrospectively recovered from child-care services across the country. Can the minister confirm that the interest alone on this money could have paid for after school hours child-care places for more than 4,300 children from low-income families for at least five hours a week? Minister, with school holidays having started in Queensland and soon to start elsewhere across the country, wouldn't this have helped the chronic shortage of places which is forcing working parents to leave primary school age children to look after themselves after school? Minister, when are you going to do something about this shortage?4293Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I thank the member for Gellibrand for her question, and I would encourage more questions. This is the second that we have had on child care. The member for Gellibrand has outlined some issues on which I am very happy to inform her and the Australian Labor Party.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPXJ6Mr ANTHONY—With regard to the child-care assistance recall that she is talking about—again, to inform the House—the child-care benefit came into being two years ago and there were previously two payment forms: child-care assistance and child-care rebate. After the introduction of the child-care benefit, we continued to pay services in advance to ensure that those services were viable. This is a normal advance and acquittal process.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon—It took two years to reconcile it.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—We did. She is saying `two years'. We have given them two years to repay this debt. We have been more than generous in giving assistance, particularly to community based care centres so that they can repay money which they are not entitled to. I have to say that the vast majority of child-care centres are very grateful that the coalition government introduced child-care benefit, because their services are viable, there are more children than ever before using Commonwealth funded child care and it is cheaper. There is a responsibility, on those services that you referred to, to repay money that they have owed the Commonwealth now for over two years.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—How many places are there?XJ6Mr ANTHONY—I notice the Leader of the Opposition jumps in about places. There are more places now in child care than there have ever been before—well over 710,000 places. Even in the area of outside school hours care, which you are showing some concern for—I welcome constructive comments from the opposition, because we get very few in the area of children or child care—under this government the number of places has gone up 221 per cent. There were 71,000 places in outside school hours care; there are now 221,000. It has gone up like a rocket, because this side of the House is all about providing fairness when it comes to families, giving them a choice between family and work. There are some issues that I would like you to help me with in outside school hours care. The first is that you can go and knock on the door of all your Labor state colleagues—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—You have your back to the Speaker. Address the Speaker! K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Look him in the eye!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister!XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know you have a keen interest in child care as well, because of the good policies of the government. I know you are dealing—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister! The minister will address his remarks through the chair.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—I know, Mr Speaker, you are dealing with a lot of kids on that side of the House. But as far as outside school hours care goes, I think there is an opportunity now for all the state Labor ministers to inform their constituency base about getting some regulation, which I think is very important within outside school hours care. We do have a situation where we can reallocate places that are surplus.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Address the Speaker!WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—Address the chair!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The minister has the call.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—I know the Speaker is listening to this question. There is an opportunity to reallocate places within outside school hours care. But the record that we have on child care is outstanding—absolutely outstanding—and we are proud of it.429414:47:004294May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the steps Australia is taking to protect its borders, including curtailing the problem of secondary movements of asylum seekers. Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?4294Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for McPherson for her question. I recognise the keen interest she has taken in strong borders for Australia. I know that reflects very much the views of the good people of McPherson, an electorate that we are all pretty familiar with. The honourable member would know that secondary movement is the onward movement of asylum seekers from the country of first asylum. This is increasingly an issue of very real concern to the international community. Not surprisingly, Australia is at the forefront of international efforts to address this issue, as a failure to address the question of secondary movements very substantially undermines the effectiveness of the international protection system.The Bali people-smuggling conference held at the end of February, which was cochaired by Indonesia and Australia, galvanised regional support to combat people-smuggling, including addressing the issue of secondary movements in a significant way. I note that New Zealand is now coordinating one of the two expert working groups established in Bali to explore how this specific problem can be addressed more effectively. I am pleased to note that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is now increasingly addressing the issue of secondary movements. I met last week with the regional director of the UNHCR. Secondary movement was one of the issues we discussed, and I congratulated him on the higher profile this issue is taking in UNHCR. I know the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs shares that view as well.All of this is an increasing acknowledgment that the issue of secondary movement must be addressed. The vast majority of unauthorised boat arrivals in Australia are not directly fleeing persecution. In most cases, they have bypassed the opportunity to seek protection in countries they transited on the way to Australia, or have not been prepared to await the outcome of regular migration processes. As we have so often said in this House, Australia must send an unambiguous message to people smugglers that they cannot subvert our laws and our borders. That is something that Australia can get right, and it does not have to rely on the action of others.The honourable member asked whether there were any alternative approaches, and of course there is the approach the Labor Party has been taking to this whole issue, which is increasingly becoming obscured by deep divisions within the party. I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to pedal in all directions to try to cover up the divisions that exist in the Labor Party, where there are stresses between the bourgeois left who grace the benches of federal parliament and the ordinary people— R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Like you.4G4Mr DOWNER—in the community who traditionally have voted Labor. I certainly do not vote Labor—you are right. But the parliamentary level of the Labor Party is becoming increasingly disconnected from the traditional voters of the Labor Party. After the election, which was seven months ago, the Labor Party said that it would produce a new policy on people-smuggling and border control. On 12 February the Leader of the Opposition said, `Let's get on with it,' enthusiastically advocating the new policy. The next day—having reflected for 24 hours—he said, `We need time.' And on 26 May—three or so months later—the Leader of the Opposition said, `Oh, well, we are taking submissions.' On 29 May he said, `We are having discussions and we'll be announcing our position at the appropriate time.' Then on 6 June he said there was a significant review which was `going to take place'. Submissions are already coming in for the Labor Party—submissions from the New South Wales Labor Party, submissions from the Queensland Labor Party and submission from the Western Australian Labor Party—and I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has had discussions with people like the member for Fremantle, the member for Denison and the member for Sydney.I notice with interest that today the member for Lowe put a question on notice to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs—a minister with a high profile today—calling for the replacement of mandatory detention for asylum seekers with community based alternatives. The fact is that the Labor Party is saying that it is strong on border protection, but it actually has only one policy, and that is for our regional neighbours to do more and for Australia to do nothing. The Labor Party is abrogating its responsibilities as a significant political party in this country. It is losing contact with the Australian people at the federal level, day in and day out. That is because on this issue the Labor Party is deeply and hopelessly divided.429514:53:004295Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and it follows his last answer. Minister, did Senator Ellison lobby the OECD to have Nauru taken off its list of money laundering countries? Can you confirm that the OECD still judges Nauru as a potential haven for terrorist funds? Can you guarantee that none of the $100 million given by the Howard government to Nauru is being diverted to prop up money laundering or terrorist operations? Minister, how does surrendering Australian territory and protecting terrorist financing structures secure Australia's borders?4295Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—All I can say is that a question like that is the question of a deeply desperate leader in a desperate situation who is losing support day by day within his own party, having first lost it from the community. Of course money paid by Australia to Nauru is not being used for terrorism. What an utterly absurd and outrageous proposition. That is what I mean by a desperate leader: a man who is so baked he would even make an allegation as obviously untrue as that. It must be one of the most absurd propositions I have ever heard in this parliament. Actually, the government is not paying $100 million to the government of Nauru. The Australian government has put in place support for the establishment of facilities in Nauru, and obviously there is a cost associated with that. We have made it clear on many occasions that we have to provide support for Nauru in order for Nauru to be able to buy fuel, to be able to have access to essential health services and education, and the total cost over two years—R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned!4G4Mr DOWNER—articulated very clearly in the memorandum of understanding that I signed with President Harris and also in the agreement signed by Peter Reith at the end of last year, is around $26 million. QI4Price, Roger, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Chifley. 4G4Mr DOWNER—To suggest that somehow these projects would be used to promote terrorism—QI4Price, Roger, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Chifley!4G4Mr DOWNER—is one of the most absurd propositions I think I have ever heard.QI4Price, Roger, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Chifley is so full of his importance on procedure he might care to acquaint himself with the standing orders and resist the temptation to interject.4G4Mr DOWNER—In relation to the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, I can confirm that it has maintained countermeasures against Nauru following the task force review of Nauru's anti-money laundering regime. Countermeasures have been maintained because Nauru has not fully addressed key outstanding concerns of members with respect to Nauru's anti money laundering laws. Australia has provided considerable assistance to Nauru to bring Nauru's anti money laundering measures up to standard, and we do remain committed to working with Nauru to help them address the outstanding issues. But there are certain measures that Nauru has to take on its own, such as dealing with problems raised by the offshore banking sector. The fact is, though, that Nauru is a small country of 10,000 people. The government there is doing its best to address this complex issue. Our government is certainly providing technical assistance to help Nauru address the issues and we hope that as time goes on it will be possible for Nauru to satisfy the Financial Action Task Force.429614:58:004296Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Can the minister advise the House of the response to the Howard government's mandatory renewable energy target? Can he also outline the benefits to our environment flowing from such policies? Is the minister aware of any alternatives?4296Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable member for Wannon for his question. Last Friday I visited the Codrington wind farm in his electorate, not far from Portland. This is a project that commenced a year ago, encouraged by the government's Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, and it now generates enough electricity for around 14,000 homes. It has great support from the local community, and it is also something of a tourist attraction. In terms of greenhouse benefits, the energy supplied by the Codrington wind farm is a saving of some 88,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year when compared with coal generation.This project is one of many investments which are now being encouraged by the fact that the government has established a mandatory renewable energy target. This target requires energy retailers and wholesale buyers to contribute an additional 9½ thousand gigawatt hours from renewable sources per year by 2010. In practical terms, that is enough electricity to power four million households; it is enough to power Sydney. Thanks to the Howard government's mandatory renewable energy target, there has been a great interest in a whole variety of projects to generate electricity from renewable sources. We have already accredited schemes to produce energy from the more widely known hydro, solar and wind sources. We have also accredited more novel renewable sources harnessing power from our waste, like landfill gas, sewage gas, black liquor and wood waste cofiring, and municipal solid waste. We are now getting proposals for even more innovative projects, such as projects involving biofuels and geothermal and tidal power.The proposals that are coming forward now are really exciting. They will have to prove up economically, of course, and not all of them will prove up economically. However, our renewable energy target is also providing spin-off benefits for many communities and industries now supplying those who are generating renewable energy. For example, the manufacture of wind turbines and turbine tower manufacturing are going to provide new economic activity and new jobs in many communities around Australia, particularly in the member for Wannon's electorate. The benefits to our environment are going to come from reduced greenhouse gases, and these developments are taking place alongside new technologies to make our coal and fossil fuels cleaner for the international market. I am asked whether I am aware of any alternative policies. In relation to other renewable energy policies, the only renewable energy within the Labor Party that I am aware of is the resurgent energy that produces this constant factional friction within the party and that renews itself again and again. It is a pity that it does not qualify for tradeable renewable certificates because then they would have the opportunity to make a motser and they would not have to rely on union dues. We well know that who pays the piper calls the tune. The truth is this: the Labor Party have no renewable energy policy. Until they pull the plug on their union bosses, they will have no renewable policy energy.429715:02:004297Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, you have just admitted that Nauru has not taken all of the action necessary to shut down possible terrorism and money laundering activities. Minister, why then did Minister Ellison lobby the OECD to have Nauru taken off its list of money laundering countries, and who authorised him to do so?4297Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I have explained already that the simple proposition here is that the Australian government assisted Nauru with its anti money laundering legislation: we provided significant assistance there. I am not aware of the details in relation to Senator Ellison's discussions with the OECD.DT4Crean, Simon, MP4G4Mr DOWNER—What a brilliant point you have come up with! I was not actually at every single meeting every government minister has ever had with the OECD. Without knowing precisely what Senator Ellison said at any OECD meeting, I can say this to you: I have no doubt that Senator Ellison would have drawn the OECD's attention to the work that the Australian government had done to assist Nauru in this respect. I would have thought, contrary to the rather puerile imputations in the Labor Party's questions, that the government should be congratulated for assisting Nauru to address these issues, rather than leaving these issues unaddressed. Is that the proposition from the Labor Party: that we should have done absolutely nothing about assisting Nauru to counter this problem of money laundering through their offshore banking system?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Wills!4G4Mr DOWNER—I would have thought it was a no-brainer: it is obvious we should have been assisting, it is obvious we were assisting and it is right for us to draw that to the attention of the OECD.429715:04:004297Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister inform the House of additional funding which would have been available to Queensland state schools if the Queensland government had increased funding at the same rate as the Commonwealth?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This question is the same as a question that was asked last week, and it cannot be renewed. This is virtually—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat. I would remind the member for Werriwa that I have had the opportunity to look at the question asked of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations that is allegedly the same as yesterday's and I can reassure him that it is not. I am assuming that precisely the same thing applies in the case of this minister, the Minister for Education, Science and Training, and I call him.4298Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thank the member for Petrie and indeed all my Queensland colleagues for the great commitment to and interest that they have in Queensland government state schools, in particular the Norris Road State School, which we discussed last week after question time. Just to recap, the story so far is that the Commonwealth government this year increased its funding to Queensland government state schools by 5.8 per cent. On the day after the Commonwealth budget, the Queensland state Minister for Education, in criticising a 5.8 per cent increase committed to their state government schools by the Howard government—in fact, she thought it was a 6.2 per cent increase—dismissed it and said it was no good. So I invited honourable members last week to ask themselves what figure above 6.2 per cent might increase it in their own— K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has clearly said that he is recapping—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa has a point of order?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—He is recapping on the information he provided—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—This is tedious repetition—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat! If the member for Werriwa continues with frivolous points of order, I will deal with him.RW5Dr NELSON—So the Commonwealth increased its funding to Queensland government state schools, including the Norris Road State School, by 5.8 per cent. When the Queensland government delivered its budget for its schools, it increased its funding to its state government schools by three per cent.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—You're joking! Really?RW5Dr NELSON—That is right. A paltry three per cent.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—How did they do that? How do they do it?RW5Dr NELSON—The Treasurer wants to know, `How do they do that?' and I am getting to that. The point is that, if the Queensland government had increased its funding to its state government schools by 5.8 per cent, there would have been another $102 million available for Queensland students.I am asked whether there had been any other comments or criticisms of this policy. I was travelling down to Canberra on Sunday night and I was reading the Sunday Mail from Queensland. I got to page 46 and I had to do a double take: there was a beautiful photograph of a very disappointed young primary school student, and above the photograph was a headline that said, `She deserves better'. Below the photograph it said, `Beattie government fails to deliver again'. So I read on:The Beattie government has let down state school students again.I turned to my staff member and said, `Are we running advertisements in Queensland papers pointing out the truth in relation to Queensland state schools?'K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Turn around and face the Speaker!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa!RW5Dr NELSON—And he said, `No, Minister, we're not running advertisements in Queensland newspapers.' So I read on:Premier Peter Beattie's budget failed to give our children the priority they deserve.It went on:State school funding has now been stagnant in real terms for three years.I then stopped and said to my staff member: `Could this be—no, it couldn't be—the member for Jagajaga pointing out that the Queensland Labor government has delivered only a paltry three per cent increase in funding to its government schools?' Again, my staff member said, `No, Minister, no; it is not the member for Jagajaga.' I read on:This is despite earlier positive government announcements and Premier Beattie's supposed commitment to the `Smart State'. Tell the Beattie government to give our children the highest priority.I thought, `Who could be the source of this advertisement? It must have cost a lot of money.' Then at the very bottom I read:Authorised by John Battams, General Secretary, Queensland Teachers' Union. Extraordinary! The Queensland Teachers Union supported this with a media release entitled, `State Government school Budget flaws exposed'. It reads:The Beattie Government's state school Budget “fails miserably” when subject to close inspection, the Queensland Teachers' Union said today. It is to that very close inspection that I, as the minister, this government and my department will be subjecting every single state and territory education budget. The union went on to say:The Budget has let down the 475,000 students who attend state schools in Queensland. Premier Peter Beattie is continuing the same tired old pattern of talking boldly about education but failing miserably to deliver fair funding.Queensland: paltry one day, miserable the next! That $102 million for state government schools in Queensland would have funded another 14 primary schools, it would have funded seven high schools and it would have given a laptop computer to every student in Queensland state schools, plus a laptop to their teachers.As I reminded the House yesterday, the Vice-Chancellor of Ballarat University, Professor Kerry Cox, said in relation to education that, `If I white-ant every policy, I may not be serving and upholding the national interest'. Queenslanders are very much aware of fire ants; it seems now that they have a new pestilence, and that is policy white ants—the Creanites of the Labor Party who undermine national policy! If the Creanites, led by the member for Jagajaga, want to send a message to the Queensland government, it should be this: in relation to state government school funding, keep up with the Commonwealth. This government will be carefully scrutinising every single state and territory budget. After four state budgets, they are $400 million behind the Commonwealth's commitment to state government schools.00AKIDutton, Peter, MPMr Dutton—Mr Speaker, would you ask the minister to table the document—the picture of the poor child in Queensland.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will check the standing orders. I would remind the member for Dickson that it is extraordinary to have tabled something other than something from which the minister quoted. I am aware that the minister briefly quoted from that and I would not want to create a precedent, and so I retain my right.429915:13:004299Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyIND00—My question without notice is to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Is the minister aware of media reports that the US Senate voted 88 to 11 in favour of the energy bill, and unanimously on the ethanol amendment to that bill? Is the minister aware that the bill imposes a mandated five billion gallons ethanol content in US gasoline, enabling them to phase out the environmentally damaging MTBE over four years? Would the minister accept representations from various industry groups in an endeavour to advance this embryonic industry which, on the US model of a 10 per cent blend, would create some 20,000 jobs in secondary and primary industry throughout Australia's grain and sugar belts?4299Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—The ethanol industry in Australia is very much in its fledgling stages but has great potential for many farmers, including those in the seat of Wakefield, the seat of Groom, and other seats held by the many members of the coalition in regional Australia. This government is committed to further development of the ethanol industry, and the Commonwealth will undertake a $5 million two-year study on the market barriers to greater use of biofuels for transport. The study will develop a strategy to increase biofuels production by some 350 million litres per annum by 2010.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr Gavan O'Connor—Why don't you answer the question?WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—I thought I was, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will not respond to interjections.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—The reality is that this government is pursuing a strategy and part of that strategy will be vehicle testing and technical assessment of the E20 ethanol blend. The ethanol industry in Australia has the potential to provide Australia with alternative sources of fuel. I am always happy to speak with representatives of that industry; in fact, I have on a number of occasions already, both with representatives from within my own electorate of Groom and also with representatives from right across Australia. It is an industry which has some potential which we are keen to explore. 430015:15:004300Ley, Sussan, MPMs LEY00AMNFarrerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House about the progress of the federal coalition government's food industry strategy? How is the implementation of the strategy going and what obstacles are in the way of building a more efficient and world-class food industry?4300Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—May I thank the honourable member for Farrer for her question. I recognise the enormous importance of the food industry to her electorate and indeed to many people in rural and regional Australia. Last week the first meeting was held of the new National Food Industry Council, which will guide the implementation of the coalition government's $102.4 million food industry strategy. This will help establish for Australia a modern and progressive food processing sector. I believe that is absolutely essential for the future prosperity of our food production industry and to make sure that Australia retains a market share in the fast-growing food processing sector. The reality is that trade in processed food is growing at twice the rate of trade in raw materials and yet Australia's share of that market is actually declining. So I think it is very important that we put in place the necessary strategies to make sure that Australia deals with the issues of trade liberalisation, e-commerce, the emergence of global supply chains, changing consumer demands and important issues like food safety and the environmental requirements that make an impact on the food processing sectors.I think it is essential that instead of exporting our farm products as raw materials we do more to process them in this country. The strategy that the Prime Minister and others have led in developing an approach to an innovative and competitive food processing sector has certainly got off to an excellent start. I would have thought that there would be some degree of bipartisanship in support of the idea of processing more of our food in Australia and having these jobs created in this country rather than exporting the jobs overseas. But sadly, members opposite, the opposition, have nothing by way of a policy to support the food processing sector. They did have a noodle nation policy, but I do not think that had much to do with food. And yet there are so many things that the Labor Party could actually do to help build a constructive food processing sector. As they are 60 per cent owned by the trade union movement, it is important for them to recognise that one of the most important barriers—and this was an issue the member raised in her question—to developing a competitive food processing sector is to have one which has competitive industrial relations. We are sick and tired in this country of having factories closed down because unions will not agree to reasonable working conditions and so these jobs are exported overseas.The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations mentioned last week the fact that the unions have been rowing now for well over a year about the proposed new pasta and cheese manufacturing facility at Melton. As a result, after a year of industrial dispute to try and get this factory built, the proponents are now talking about taking these 170 jobs to New Zealand. If that is not bad enough, we had the Swiss company Barry Callebaut recently decide to build their new plant in Singapore rather than Victoria. Their reason? Victoria's appalling record in industrial relations. Nestle have announced the closure of their plant at Maryborough—and I would have thought the honourable member for Bendigo would be very concerned about that—again because of industrial relations problems. They are again facing enormous difficulties in their new plant in Melbourne because of the barrage of industrial disputes. What about Unilever? They moved their tea blending and packaging from Victoria to Indonesia. Heinz Wattie closed Dandenong and moved to New Zealand, again because of the annual Victorian tomato strike which was always causing problems for that industry. Arnotts moved out of Victoria. This is the kind of record that Labor has in dealing with the food processing sector. They are far more interested in closing factories than endeavouring to work constructively towards developing the sorts of practices that will keep these jobs in Australia and not export them to Singapore, New Zealand or other countries. I call on members opposite, while they are still controlled by the trade union movement, to do something about developing a constructive approach towards the food processing sector. Have these jobs created in Australia; do not export them around the world. 430115:21:004301Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Attorney-General. I ask him if he is aware that as recently as 6 June Mr Rick McDonell, head of the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering secretariat in the National Crime Authority was asked a question: `Could money still be laundered through Nauru to terrorist organisations', to which Mr McDonell replied, `Yes. Until Nauru has a full and comprehensive law in place and other money laundering standards and measures, then it will be a vulnerable place for money laundering and it will be attractive to money launderers.'4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—That is why we have been helping them.DT4Mr CREAN—Oh, that is why you have been helping them, Minister! In light of the help and the fact that that was still said categorically as recently as 6 June, why did you, Attorney-General, authorise Senator Ellison to lobby the OECD in recent weeks to have Nauru taken off its list of money laundering countries?4301Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I am not aware of the statement alleged by the Leader of the Opposition to have been made by the officer of the Asia-Pacific regional group of the Financial Action Task Force. I will check to see whether the Leader of the Opposition is correct. But I can say about Nauru that it has been the subject of considerable attention by the Asia-Pacific regional group and by the Financial Action Task Force. As recently as early June, it was the subject of discussion at the Asia-Pacific regional group and, as recently as last week, it was the subject of discussion at a full meeting of the Financial Action Task Force. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has made absolutely plain, Australia has been assisting Nauru to bring its legislation and structures into place. As he said, Nauru is a small country; it does not have extensive and sophisticated mechanisms in place. Australia has been assisting Nauru and will continue to assist. It is not plausible to accuse the Howard government of being soft on terrorism or soft on crime. We are working with Nauru to get it right.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: to assist the Attorney-General, I seek leave to table a transcript of the interview with Mr McDonell, which I referred to in my question.Leave granted.430115:24:004301Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer advise the House of the results of the June quarter manufacturing survey released this morning by the Australian Industry Group? What does this survey show about the strength of Australia's manufacturing?4301Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I can tell him that the Australian Industry Group survey of Australian manufacturing for the June quarter was released this morning. It showed that manufacturing production in this quarter is at an eight-year high. On the basis of the survey results, AIG expects manufacturing to grow strongly on a national account basis. The strongest influence on production in the June quarter was increased demand, with stronger new orders improving exports. The net balance of 31 per cent reporting stronger sales in the June quarter is the highest result recorded by the survey. A net balance of 28 per cent of firms reported stronger new orders in the June quarter. Interestingly—and I am sure both sides of the House will welcome this news—employment and overtime both increased in the June quarter, suggesting continued strength in the labour market.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—Those bad unions!CT4Mr COSTELLO—My goodness, the member for Fremantle is still with us! A net balance of eight per cent of firms reported rising employment in the June quarter, and this rate is expected to continue into the September quarter. That is good news for the manufacturing industry. The manufacturing industry is reporting increased demand, demand for labour and increased overtime and production, and that is consistent with a strongly growing economy. The Economist magazine forecasts Australia to be the strongest growing economy in 2002 and 2003, with a low inflation regime, low interest rates and a new taxation system, which has taken all taxes off exports. It does not take much of a memory to remember two years ago, when the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition used to come to the dispatch box day after day, telling us that if the GST did not give us interest rate rises it would give us interest rate falls, and if it did not give us an overheating economy it would give us a recession, and whatever else was going to come down upon us in plague and pestilence upon the land. But the good news is that Australia has come through that period. Our economy is strong, we have survived the US downturn, and manufacturing is looking optimistic. Economic management is important for giving people jobs, and that is what the coalition government remains committed to.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, on that very good note for Australia, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice4302430215:27:004302Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—I would like to add to part of an answer I gave earlier, when the member for Gellibrand asked a question about child-care services that might be facing some financial difficulty. I want to reassure the House that, if those services are having financial difficulty, we can certainly enter into arrangements with them to get them through this transition period. Also, just to clarify, we have 710,000 children using Commonwealth funded child-care places. Finally, there has been some criticism about my shirt. I just want to say—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Calwell's association with the member for McMillan does not seem to be doing her a great deal of good, if I may make an observation from the chair.Personal Explanations430215:29:004302Mr MURPHY,MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?83DMr MURPHY,MPMr MURPHY—Yes.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.83DMr MURPHY,MPMr MURPHY—During question time today the Minister for Foreign Affairs misrepresented my position in relation to my question No. 606 on today's Notice Paper. Part (4) of that question on today's Notice Paper states:Will he consider replacing the policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers with a community-based alternative, allowing enough time to make the relevant checks, which may be both cost effective and more humane; if not, why not.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lowe has indicated where he has been misrepresented. 15:30:004302Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented? WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—I do. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—Earlier in question time, it was suggested by those who sit opposite that I had backed down on the government's pursuit of industrial relations reform in the motor vehicle industry. Let me assure the House that I have not backed down from my observation that the car industry is vulnerable from the illegal actions of trade unions which is placing in jeopardy the assistance— Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The minister is entitled to be heard without that interruption, as everyone is aware. Has the minister concluded his personal explanation?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: the minister is now debating the issue and going far beyond demonstrating where he has been misrepresented.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser is, I think, aware of the fact that the chair was at something of a disadvantage given the background noise. I have recognised the minister, but I will not allow him to debate the question. If the minister has anything to add, it must be within the confines obliged by the standing orders. The minister will resume his seat.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: in his earlier remarks, the minister was seeking to raise an alleged misrepresentation that was made in a question and, as you know, questions in this House are not statements; they are questions. So how can anyone be possibly misrepresented by a question to another minister?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, I have a further point of order.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa on a further point of order.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—The minister has just reflected on your ruling saying that—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat. The member for Werriwa is now reflecting on the chair himself. I understood the minister was responding to a statement that had been made in the House.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—I was, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I will listen closely to what the minister has to say. WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—Finally, may I also make it clear to the House that I fully support the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in his legislation—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat! 15:32:004303Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the member for Bendigo claim to have been misrepresented? 83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—I do.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Bendigo may proceed.83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—Today in question time the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry challenged me in relation to the decision by Nestle to move their manufacturing plant out of Maryborough. In doing so, the minister stated it was because of the industrial relations climate. At no stage did Nestle management at the Maryborough factory say that it was to do with the industrial relations climate; it was everything to do with greed.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Bendigo is aware that I am not aware that he was personally misrepresented. I have heard him out.15:33:004303Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 64, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the member for Chifley claim to have been misrepresented?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I do, Mr Speaker, by yourself.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Chifley may proceed. QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—During question time, you said:The member for Chifley is so full of his importance on procedure ...Mr Speaker, it is true that I have been a member of the Procedure Committee for some time. It is also true that I put a number of proposed standing orders on the Notice Paper. But I never have been, nor will I be, full of my own self-importance on procedure. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Chifley is aware that at that time he was interjecting. I accept his personal explanation, as he must accept that I had at the time exercised a great deal of tolerance in not taking action earlier.Privilege430415:34:004304SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yesterday, the honourable member for Melbourne raised as a matter of privilege a threat of legal action against him that he said had been made by representatives of Telstra. The honourable member said that the threat was made at a meeting relating to his shadow portfolio responsibilities. The House has the obligation and the ability to protect its members against improper interference with the free performance of their duties, but I think members also accept that the exercise of the House's power to protect members does not itself ever constitute an unreasonable restriction on the rights of other citizens. I appreciate from the honourable member for Melbourne's remarks yesterday that he is certainly alert to that consideration. As I understand it, a large part of his concerns are that the actions about which he has complained were taken by senior representatives of what the member regards as a government controlled organisation and that this raises questions of the proper relationships between parliament and such entities. In this sense, the matter may have wider implications than the issue of privilege. I do not have sufficient information to make a final decision on the member's complaint. I cannot, therefore, give precedence to a motion at this time. If the honourable member has any further details, I will of course consider them. 15:36:004304Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, may I seek your indulgence to respond?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne may proceed.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Mr Speaker, I thank you for your consideration of the matter that I raised yesterday and the ruling that you have just given. I accept your point that the substantive issue at stake here—namely, the threat to sue a member of parliament, and indeed a shadow minister, by a government owned body with a board that is appointed by the minister and with direct power on the part of the minister to direct that body—may be broader than the traditional scope covered by the responsibilities of the Privileges Committee. I acknowledge that a mere threat to sue may not by itself constitute a breach of privilege, but I believe that when that threat is made by a government body against the shadow minister who has responsibility for matters associated with that body there is a serious issue of potential misuse of power by the executive against the parliament, particularly when the action concerned would be funded by the taxpayer. Indeed, the legal advice purportedly obtained by Telstra was implicitly half-funded by the taxpayer, as Telstra is half-owned by the taxpayer. Members will be aware that there is at least one country where it is notorious that government defamation actions are used as a political weapon to intimidate opposition members from criticising the government. Although I do not suggest that Telstra's threat to sue me is directly comparable, I believe it is vital that parliament remains vigilant in defending the right of members to speak out in the face of any such threat from the executive.I raised this issue yesterday, Mr Speaker, not with any great desire to generate a major inquiry but to ensure that the matter is noted by the parliament and that consideration is given to the broader principle at stake. I note your point that you do not have sufficient information to enable you to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee at this point. Should further information come to light or should Telstra take further action to pursue its threat, I will raise the matter with you again.Documents4304430410000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 61 of 2001-02 entitled Information support services: managing people for business outcomes. Ordered that the report be printed.Documents4305Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.38 p.m.)—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:That the House take note of the following paper:2 TREATIESBilateralProposed treaty action with National Interest AnalysisTimor Sea Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of East Timor, done at Dili on 20 May 2002.Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Democratic Republic of East Timor concerning Arrangements for Exploration and Exploitation of Petroleum in an area of the Timor Sea between Australia and East Timor, done at Dili on 20 May 2002.Multilateral Proposed treaty action with National Interest Analysis and Regulation Impact StatementAgreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, done at Rome on 24 November 1993.List of Multilateral Treaty ActionsSection A: Negotiations for New Treaties, Amendments, Protocols, etcSection B: Treaties, Amendments, Protocols, etc where the text is finalisedSection C: Treaties to which Australia is a party but where further action is under considerationDebate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance4305430510000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Barton proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Howard Government's confrontationist approach to industrial relations.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:39:004305McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The concluding parts of question time today were indeed curious. I think, from his comments, that the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources has rejoined the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in tying industry assistance to the car industry to the industry's indicating their preparedness to take on the government's industrial relations agenda. That seems to be quite clear from his statement.We also saw in the Treasurer's last answer in question time today an indication of the government's schizophrenia on this issue: on the one hand, they talk about the significant achievements of the manufacturing industry and then, on the other hand, they bag the producers in the manufacturing industry, who of course are Australian workers. There is no doubt that right across these sectors Australian workers have made tremendous advances in terms of their productivity, their flexibility and their skills. I think generally the focus on enterprise negotiations that has evolved right through the eighties to the present has been instrumental in that. But the government cannot fairly represent that. They cannot represent advances in these sectors and attack those who have been the producers, the Australian workers.The focus of my MPI today is the issue of industrial relations strategy: should it be based on confrontation or should it be based on partnerships—or literally, should it be a war zone or should we be looking at productive partnerships? I note that yesterday in question time the minister for workplace relations commenced an answer to a question from me by saying:The last thing I would do is encourage confrontation. We, of course, were here to witness what occurred in the parliament. Matt Price in the Australian today gave a pretty fair account, which stated: MPs on both sides roared with disbelief. Everyone knows Tony Abbott avoids confrontation like Bronwyn Bishop steers clear of hair spray. Peter Costello exploded with laughter and seemed in awe of Abbott's shamelessness.Indeed, we witnessed that. I note that the minister in an earlier campaign on the republic said, `Australians shouldn't trust politicians.' Certainly, the indication of that was in his body language and, in fairness to the minister, he conveyed that same body language on the 7.30 Report in answer to a question. On my reading of public opinion, the public do not like politicians very much in the first place but they certainly do not like politicians promoting conflict. They are used to the concept of a fair go in industrial relations. They are used to the concept of a fair go adjudicated by an independent umpire in the form of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Indeed, I recall that our current Pope, on a visit to Australia in recent years, actually complimented Australia on its industrial relations system, which was very much based on that concept of an independent umpire.The problem is that the conflictive approach being pursued by the government looks very much to the past, where there were gangs coming apart and then coming together in a great confrontation to achieve what they could get in terms of how the cake was divided. The reality is that modern industrial relations, in terms of how it is being pursued in Western countries, is quite different from that. It is about getting both parties to come together to form cooperative partnerships to work out ways of growing the cake not simply fighting over how it is divided. That is where the government is missing out in pursuing its confrontationist strategies. If there is any doubt about that, there is a statement I have referred to on a few occasions and I will continue to do so. It is the minister's statement to the H.R. Nicholls Society in March this year, when he said to chief executives assembled there:My hope is that chief executives will make it—that is, 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.If a trade unionist or if a member of the Australian Labor Party similarly used that language by calling parties to war—ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr Barresi—Craig Johnston!JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—imagine what drama would be involved. The member intervenes by referring to one trade unionist. He has been roundly condemned for the use of that language by all fair-minded people in the labour movement. That form of language is inappropriate and indeed the conduct that is associated with that form of language is equally inappropriate. I go further and say that it is quite unAustralian. But that is the language that regrettably is being used by the government in this debate. I must say it is based on a fundamentally flawed analysis.We saw in the Treasurer's report at the end of question time the tremendous achievements that are being made in Australian industry and have been made as a result of dedication by Australian workers and a preparedness to implement flexibility and world's best practice production techniques. The basic Australian worker is a proud worker—indeed, they work hard to further their own interests, their families' interests, the community's interests and the national interest. The government completely ignores that in the agenda that it is pursuing. The government ignores the position that we are in in terms of the rest of the world. We are a country of fewer than 20 million people. We are competing against massive middle-class markets. I say `middle-class' not from the point of view of judgment but from the point of view of purchasing power. They are massive middle-class markets. The United States has about 281 million people. In the European zone there are now about 292 million people, I understand, under a common currency. No nation in the world owes us a favour. We no longer belong to the British Commonwealth. We are attempting to negotiate a range of—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—We are.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—We are a member of the Commonwealth. We are no longer, as a result of that, given economic favouritism. I thank the member for Fraser. But no nation in the world owes us a favour. If we are to succeed, we literally have to be better than world's best practice. The reason I say that is the simple factor of distance in terms of communicating our product to the rest of the world. We have to be better than world's best practice. The question becomes: how are you going to achieve that? Are you going to achieve it by confrontation or are you going to achieve it by making workers feel that they are not simply a cog in a process but that they are very much partners in production? To frame that question answers that question, but the government ignores that. It has no interest in promoting partnerships. It is on a political crusade to demonise trade unions, irrespective of the consequences and the disruption that causes. This current minister, I might add, is no different from earlier spokespersons for the Liberal Party in that respect. We saw Peter Reith using security guards and rottweilers on the waterfront. A question today in question time suggested that the ends justified that means—a way of referring to waterfront reform, ignoring the fact that that reform also occurred in companies where that assault of dogs and security guards did not occur. We also saw the Prime Minister on 24 June 1992, when he held the portfolio, answer a question whether it was his intention to stab the Industrial Relations Commission in the back. He said quite frankly: ... we will stab them in the stomach.The government has gone further than that. It has completely emasculated the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. It refuses to acknowledge the tremendous input that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has had in resolving disputes.We have seen in recent months ministers getting up in question time and making all kinds of dramas, accusing the ALP of not getting in there and solving disputes in the airline industry involving air traffic controllers. There was the same thing in respect of BHP Western Port in Victoria. But we heard not one word from them when these disputes were resolved, other than the minister in respect of the BHP dispute saying he wanted a continuation of that dispute in the common law courts. But the government did not acknowledge the vital role played by the independent umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, in those two matters.The government has gone further in promoting this confrontational approach to industrial relations. It has used the power of the purse to attempt to intimidate other employers, and indeed state governments, to take its aggressive confrontational approach to industrial relations. We have seen it in respect of the Melbourne Cricket Ground, we have seen it in respect of the Scoresby Freeway project, we have seen it in respect of Commonwealth funds that will be used in the construction of schools, and we have seen it more recently in respect of the government tying assistance to the car industry to the pursuit of its industrial relations agenda. But it is not only the Labor Party that is questioning the government's motives. Bob Herbert, the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, has also done that. Speaking on ABC radio on Monday morning, in answer to a question, he said:I am not sure what the motives of Tony Abbott have been in what it's been reported he has said over the weekend on these issues ... 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 politics out of this.That is absolutely sound advice. These executives of the companies involved in the automotive industry are skilled people and they are trained in industrial relations. They are competing on the first grade playing field and in the international global economy and it must be said that they are succeeding. They have achieved exports of $7 billion a year and they have done that by working through and achieving industrial relations reforms. They are entitled to pursue, and workers have an interest in pursuing, ongoing reform of their workplaces; but, as the industry has also acknowledged, you are far more likely to get that by sitting around a table and talking through the issues—not only the issues that are in dispute but also how you develop the industry.We recognise that there has been a lot of change in Australian work forces. The effects of globalisation, mergers, acquisitions and contracting out have caused a lot of insecurity in a lot of workplaces. That can breed a militant attitude, but do you get over the top of that attitude by talking about warfare or do you get over it by actually bringing the work force into the decision making process in the form of a productive partnership approach, by talking through the issues that are of mutual advantage and by working through growing the cake, not simply dividing it? The questions answer themselves. As a small nation, we do not maximise our productive potential by confrontation. We are going to achieve our maximum potential only by way of a productive partnership in workplaces. That will be achieved only by fair, sensible policies administered by an impartial industrial relations tribunal. (Time expired)15:54:004308Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Let me say at the outset of this debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002 that I would be the first to concede that the shadow minister for workplace relations, the member for Barton, is a thoroughly decent bloke. If people like the member for Barton were running all our unions and all our businesses, I would be the first to concede that we probably would not have too many squabbles. However, I am not sure that we would have a great deal of progress either, because the trouble with the member for Barton is that his irenic attitude towards the world is not shared by some of the key people on the side of the union movement which his political party is institutionally bound to support and defend.Over the last couple of days we have seen the Labor Party returning to their comfort zone, talking about unions where they feel so familiar: defending strikes. Let us face it, the Leader of the Opposition has never seen a strike which he did not support. Let us bring this debate to its essential points. The essential points are that since 1996 this government has produced more jobs, higher pay and fewer strikes. There are nearly one million new jobs. Average weekly earnings are up by 12 per cent in real terms and strikes are down to their lowest levels since records were first kept in 1913. If that is failure—some failure; let's have more of that kind of failure if that is what the opposition shadow spokesman really thinks constitutes failure.Let me take up a couple of points made by the member for Barton. He loves to talk about a throwaway comment that I made at the H.R. Nicholls Society. I was alluding to the famous statement by Sir Winston Churchill that war is too important to be left to the generals and I said that workplace relations is too important to be left to the colonels. I was saying—and I am happy to say it again—that everyone in the workplace should be interested in building a better partnership; not at the peak level, not at the level of Bob Hawke style summits or at the level of beer and sandwiches at No. 10, but at the level of the workers, the foreman and the line managers, who need to talk to each other rather than rush off to the courts, the commissions, the unions and the employer organisations at the first sign of a dispute.The member for Barton also made great play of my alleged antipathy to unions. As a former union member myself, let me say that I am all in favour of unions, but I want to see responsible unions. I want to see unions that are interested in creating jobs and building industries, not destroying jobs and holding industries to ransom. I share the concept of partnership, but the partnership that I support is a partnership at the grassroots. The partnership the member for Barton supports is the kind of accord that we had in the days of Hawke and Keating. It is the kind of accord between big government, big business and big unions. The trouble with that kind of partnership was that it cut out the little man and the ordinary worker. It meant that the whole of the workplace was dominated by decisions made up there, not decisions made down here, where workers really live and where managers need to be involved with them. That is the fundamental difference between us. This government supports the ordinary worker; members opposite support the ordinary union official, the ordinary general secretary of a trade union. This government fully supports the role of the Industrial Relations Commission as an umpire. Members opposite want the Industrial Relations Commission not as an umpire in the so-called game, but as a player in the game. Members opposite want the Industrial Relations Commission not to hold the ring between parties, but to make management decisions that are much better left to the parties themselves. Let me come to the issue of recent controversy in the motor industry and deal with some of the issues that the member for Barton has been raising. The name of Bob Herbert has been invoked regularly in this parliament over the last few days. It has been alleged by members opposite that I have been rebuked by Bob Herbert. Bob Herbert and I do not always agree on everything, but Bob Herbert is a fine man. He has a great record in industry and, on balance, Bob Herbert supports a lot more about this government than he does about the opposition. Let me quote Bob Herbert from the radio last night:... there's a whole range of provisions that the Government have been supporting by legislation that we've been arguing for three or four years and they've been blocked every time in the Senate ...The government has not been blocking the legislation that Bob Herbert supports in the Senate; members opposite have been blocking the legislation that Bob Herbert supports in the Senate. On PM last night Bob Herbert was asked by the reporter, `You'll be asking him'—referring to me—`to back off?' Bob Herbert said, `No.' He was asked—to be colloquial—`We don't want to be the next waterfront?' and Bob Herbert said, `Of course we don't want to be the next waterfront.' I can fully appreciate that the last thing that Bob Herbert wants is to see the car industry go through the kind of trauma that the waterfront went through about five years ago. But wishing ain't gonna make it so. The problem is that, regardless of what Bob Herbert wants, people like Craig Johnston and Doug Cameron want confrontation and they will give Bob Herbert confrontation. Sometimes the alternative to confrontation is capitulation, and the last thing that anyone should want is to see the motor industry capitulate to the ultramilitant unions in this struggle which is going on between the militants and the ultramilitants, the Doug Camerons and the Craig Johnstons. Much as I appreciate and support Bob Herbert's desire to do everything possible to avoid confrontation, let me simply point out to the House that, if you look at the result of what happened on the waterfront, you will see that an international laughing-stock has become a world record holder. Container lifts have increased by 70 per cent, there has been about a 20 per cent drop in price to customers and the pay of workers has gone up. They now have sustainable jobs where before they had unsustainable jobs, and that has been the result of simply doing what needed to be done, of not putting off what had to be done any longer. The last thing I want is to see confrontation anywhere. The last thing I want to see is unnecessary confrontation, but this government will never apologise for upholding the law. This government will never apologise for being on the side of the job creators and not on the side of the job destroyers. Unfortunately, while members opposite love to say that the policy of this government is confrontation, the truth is that the policy of members opposite is appeasement—appeasement of the powerful union officials who hold the purse strings, appeasement of the powerful union officials who control the preselections, appeasement of the powerful union officials who have held important industries in this country to ransom time and time again. Let us stay with the motor industry. Three times in the last 12 months, the AMWU has brought the motor industry to its knees. The member for Barton talks about confrontation. I did not stop the motor industry. This government did not stop the motor industry. The person who stopped the motor industry was Doug Cameron, a long-time member of the ALP, whose union controls the largest single block vote in the Victorian ALP and has donated some $3 million to the ALP over the last six years. What we have seen time and time again and what has been brought into sharp focus over the last couple of days is the continued enslavement of the once great Australian Labor Party to a union movement which is increasingly out of touch with the real workers of this country. We saw the Victorian government supinely give in to the CFMEU, probably the most militant union in the whole of the union constellation. I notice today that the Victorian government has been joined by the New South Wales government and the Queensland government in meekly and cravenly falling into line with the wishes of the CFMEU. Again, the sad truth is that members opposite simply cannot afford not to fall into line with the union movement, because not only does the union movement pay the bills; the union movement picks the members who come into this parliament. The real issue was encapsulated by the Australian newspaper's editorial of today, which talked about Labor's obsession with the past, when Australians were heavily unionised. It says:Reducing union control only marginally to the 50-50 position mooted by Queensland Premier Peter Beattie would make little difference to the culture of a party that is beholden to a clutch of small-minded union leaders, many of them bent on snatching safe parliamentary seats as a reward for their loyalty.That is what the Australian newspaper said, but let us listen to no less an authority than Senator Chris Schacht, who has been in the Labor Party for most his life. Senator Schacht said in his MPI last week in the Senate:There are four unions in South Australia that have over 70 per cent of the trade union vote.That is four unions in South Australia that have 70 per cent control of the local Labor Party. Chris Schacht goes on:The secretary of the union says, `I've got 25 votes to nil here. That is how the faction is voting.' If you are an individual, you have to round up 25 votes somewhere else to balance that block vote.... ... ...I do not normally raise the internal affairs of the Labor Party in this chamber. I think these matters are now public—the extraordinary events in the Victorian branch of the Labor Party in the last two weeks, where one union, on the say-so of the secretary, decided to change its faction and, as a consequence, the Victorian ALP branch is in collapse. This chaos is the result of the union being able to say that it will affiliate the 30,000 members without reference to the membership. The members of that union were not consulted about the factional change. I go back to my proposal that members should be consulted and be required to tick the square and then they elect the delegates to represent them in the forums of the Labor Party.What Senator Schacht was highlighting is the democratic deficit at the heart of the union movement and the democratic deficit at the heart of the Australian Labor Party. That is a democratic deficit which would be in part remedied by the government's secret ballots legislation, which was, I am sad to say, opposed by members opposite in this chamber just a week ago. Senator Schacht—good on him—is quite crystal clear about the problem. But the dinosaurs live. We have the other member of the ACTU presidents troika, the member for Throsby, constantly criticising the Leader of the Opposition. She says:I think the 60-40 focus is the wrong focus. If we woke up tomorrow and the rule was 50-50 do we really think the world would have changed? You have got to look at the that fact in New South Wales the Carr government has done extremely well in a state where 60-40 is the rule.We have members opposite squabbling like cats in a sack. We have members opposite daily confessing their despair and their pain to the general public and to the wider world. We had Senator Schacht last night. Last Thursday we had Barry Jones saying that Labor has lost its way. Last Friday we had former senator Michael Beahan saying, `My party has lost its soul.' What the members opposite really need is a good grief counsellor. Unfortunately, they have got as a leader a union hack who cannot help himself and still hectors the Australian people like he is badgering the brothers at a trade union meeting. Is it not surprising that I pick up a document from the Australian Labor Party web site that says, `True Believers merchandise: “Kim Beazley for PM” cap—sold out.' Sold out. But there are no `Crean for PM' caps. So even the members opposite—even the ALP—do not believe in their leader. (Time expired)16:09:004311Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The shadow minister for workplace relations, the member for Barton, quite properly set out the difference in approach between the Howard government's industrial relations policy and Labor's industrial relations policy. The minister's response to that was to characterise it as a difference of partnership at the workplace versus partnership at some more senior level, which just indicates his continuing lack of understanding of what industrial relations is all about. This is not something where you have a choice as if the two are competing influences. They are not; they are quite complementary. Indeed, you cannot have successful industrial relations, you cannot have a successful partnership at the workplace without a successful partnership at a more senior level, nor can the opposite be the case.The Labor approach to these matters in industrial relations has for more than a generation been about building those partnerships. What we have from this government is a steel capped boot approach to industrial relations, and it is the way in which they have conducted affairs for some time now—indeed, since the current Prime Minister was the shadow minister for industrial relations. This has not always been the case. Liberal Party governments prior to this did not adopt this divisive, aggressive, vindictive approach. You only have to look back at the record, at former ministers like the former member for Goldstein, Ian Macphee; or go back even further in time to the Menzies years when Harold Holt was a minister. There is not enough time in this debate to go through the examples, but they were people who saw the role of government and of ministers as being one of settling disputes not inflaming them; not creating problems but seeking to prevent and solve them; not making situations worse but trying to calm the waters.Here we have a government that does exactly the opposite, and that was clearly demonstrated by the reaction on both sides of the House to the response of the minister yesterday and again today when he sought to present himself as someone seeking to resolve disputes. I just want to remind people, as I did in a debate last week, about the role this government and this minister took in the Tristar dispute in the automotive industry. These workers were not seeking to increase their pay at all but simply wanted a guarantee that if the company went broke they would get their entitlements—no more, no less. That is a pretty fair request from any worker in this land. For their trouble in taking industrial action they were attacked by this minister, who has just walked out of the chamber, as traitors and guilty of treason. That is what the government said to them at the time. It not only did that but publicly berated the company, urging it not to come to an agreement.This is not an isolated case, although it did prompt an interesting commentary from the cartoonists at the time. One had Minister Abbott in firemen's garb but with the petrol pump browser in his hand saying, `Another fire extinguished.' This is the Fahrenheit 451 approach. We had the Minister for Education, Science and Training the other day wanting to burn books in schools and censor what can be in the schools. We have the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who adopts the same Fahrenheit 451 approach to industrial relations—more fuel on the fire. That is what he did in Tristar, that is what he has done on other occasions, but it is characteristic of this government.During the life of the last parliament, I had many representations from employer groups and individual employers coming to me in a couple of different industries saying that they felt intimidated by this government, they felt intimidated by the former minister, that if they did not tow the government's line on industrial relations, if they did not go out there and create disputes, if they were not willing to fight to the last drop of their blood for this government's agenda, then they would not get government contracts. That was all behind the door in the last parliament. It was under the table stuff, the brown paper bags. That is the way they operated in the last parliament—trying to intimidate business. I do not want to expose those people and I am not willing to betray their confidences. I have first-hand knowledge of a number of companies who felt set upon by the former minister, this government and this Prime Minister in that way. But the government have now come out from the closet. They have now come out and said publicly to the vehicle industry, `If you want to have protection and support in your industry policy packages, then you will do what we tell you to do in industrial relations, and what we tell you to do is go out there and kick as many union heads as possible.' That is the shorthand version of it. That is precisely what they have been saying for six years. This is not new. What is new is that they have now managed to come out into the daylight and say it. But those of us involved know that that has, in fact, been the agenda that this government has run in a very thinly veiled attempt to blackmail and intimidate people in Australian industry. They do not like it; nor should they. If the government wants to talk about intimidation in the workplace, let me say that, at a senior level, the greatest intimidation felt by the business community today comes from this government's approach to these matters. Whenever the minister comes under attack on these things, he keeps saying that he supports unions—that he supports good unions. Last night he was challenged on the 7.30 Report by Kerry O'Brien to say what the last justifiable strike was, and he could not give an answer. The reason he could not give an answer is that he does not believe there was one. This is the minister who talks with a forked tongue. This is not a minister who can say, `Read my lips.' I used to say about his predecessor, `Forget about the lips; just watch what his hands are doing,' because he would say one thing and would do another.This fellow is playing the same game. It is Peter Reith in short socks and short pants. This is a guy who is trying to tough it like Peter Reith did on the waterfront, but does not, frankly, have either the wit, muscle or the intellect to pull it off. But that is the way in which he wants to conduct industrial relations except, whereas Peter Reith was smart enough to try and intimidate some of the business people behind closed doors, this bloke has decided that he will come out into the open and bash them about the head publicly. But when he wants to hop up and say that there is such a thing as a good strike, you know what he will end up coming back to in his answer, as he did today in question time. He said, `I used to be in a union, and when I was in a union I led a strike.' I have never bothered to check that out. I find it a bit fanciful. He certainly was in a union, and he certainly was involved in a strike, although I think his claim to be a leader of it is some self-promotion that is not shared by others who were working with him in the newspaper industry at the time. But leaving that aside, if we are to take this minister at face value, there has been one justifiable strike in the last generation and that is the one that he was in. Everything since then has been improper, unjustifiable and the cause of everything bad that has happened in our economy and our society but for the common flu and AIDS.It has to be said that this government's agenda on industrial relations is understood by the public, not just by those of us on this side of the House. It is understood by the public, which is why in all of the opinion polls this government's standing on this issue lags dramatically behind the Labor Party's. The public understand that this government is not a fair agent; they do not seek to mediate with clean hands. The government is often talking about the strikes that go on or the strikes that are threatened and the problems they present. Not one comment by one minister in this government since it took office has been critical of a lockout that has occurred—not one comment. When strikes occur, typically the strike is for one, two or three days. If a strike goes for a week, it is a calamity, and you can be assured that an array of ministers on that side will get up and lampoon unions and anyone associated with them; nary a word, though, about lockouts. These are not lockouts for one, two or three days or even a week; these are lockouts for three or five months.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—What about Joy Manufacturing?ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I am indebted to the interjection. Joy Manufacturing—Joy Mining—locked the work force out for three months in a bargaining period, where they simply said to the workers, `We will not talk to you until you agree to our terms. Forget about negotiating in good faith. Here is the demand. Sign on the dotted line, and until you do that you have got no job and no pay.' For three months the company shut the gate and would not let the workers in. There was not a word of complaint. But that is by no means the worst example. There are others. ACI at Box Hill in Victoria, on Christmas Eve, of all days, told its workers that they were being locked out for five months. There is a Christmas present of goodwill from the company. That is how you build esprit de corps in an organisation—on Christmas Eve you lock the workers out for five months. But the one that takes the cake is G&K O'Connor's abattoir, who locked the work force out for nine months because the workers were not willing to sign an agreement that cut their pay by 17 per cent. It is strange that they did not want to cut their pay by 17 per cent, but they did not. So they got locked out for nine months. To this day, there has not been a word of criticism from one minister about any of those lockouts or any others that I could cite to you. This is not a government and this is not a minister seeking to establish fair and proper rules for the conduct of industrial relations. It is not a government seeking to resolve disputes. This is a government that has sought to put in place the most divisive, biased and unAustralian system that has denigrated ordinary workers. (Time expired)16:19:004313Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—It is a privilege to be asked to speak on this matter of public importance on the failure of the Howard government's confrontationalist approach to industrial relations. I find it a very curious MPI because it could just as easily have been reworded to say, `The failure of the CFMEU's, the AMWU's and the AWU's confrontationalist approach to industrial relations,' because they have very much been at the forefront of a lot of the militant actions that this country has seen in the last 12 months. I will refer to some of those examples a little later on. I find it quite amusing, but also not surprising, that the ALP have come up with this MPI today. Why today? What we have seen today on the front page of the newspapers is, once again, more bad news for the Australian Labor Party. We now see that the Leader of the Opposition's dissatisfaction level has actually surpassed his satisfaction level. He is on the ropes. The member for Brisbane talks about Fahrenheit 451. To the member for Brisbane, the only heat that is on at the moment is the heat that has been applied to your leader. I certainly look forward to the day when the big B decides to come back to the frontbench in an attempt to rescue the party, because at this stage we are seeing all the heat—the blowtorch—being applied to the frontbench of the ALP and, in particular, to the Leader of the Opposition.The member for Barton talks in terms of endearment and about conciliation. He has in mind some idealistic world of industrial relations—`A modern approach is for parties to come together; the modern Australian worker is a proud worker.' No-one disagrees with those sentiments. Of course the modern approach is for parties to come together. But, once again, where does the CFMEU lie in that particular philosophical stance? Where does the AMWU lie in that particular stance?What the opposition is basically saying by default in this matter of public importance, which is accusing the Howard government of being confrontationalist, is that the union movement have been wimps—that they have actually failed to stand up for the rights of the workers. No-one, I am sure, can say that Craig Johnston or Dean Mighell or Dougie Cameron have been backward in coming forward in terms of industrial relations militancy. We all acknowledge that the Australian worker is a hardworking individual—someone who does take pride in their workplace, in the product and in the service they are involved in. The problem is that this responsible Australian worker is more and more often pressured by these union officials to put at risk their job security. When was the last time a union official put their pay packet on the line out there in the work force? They do not put their pay packet on the line when there is a strike. They do not put their pay packet on the line when there is a picket line or when boycotts are being taken. No, it is the worker that has to do it, while the union official glows in some sort of pride of achievement for having these people stood down. The workers are partners in production, as the member for Barton rightly says, but they are too often subjected to interference by union officials. The member for Barton also mentions that we should be supporting the commission rather than stabbing it in the back—or stabbing it in the stomach, as he accuses us of. I wish the commission was able to enact some of its orders, but too often we are seeing the commission's orders totally ignored. We saw it with Walkers and we saw it with Tristar. Their orders for return to work were totally ignored by the union movement. We saw it also with the maritime union. It is one of those curious things—if the commission brings down an order which is in favour of the union movement then the employer must obey. Of course, travesty and outrage will come to pass if the organisation does not obey the commission's order. But if the union disagree then, of course, it is legitimate for them. We see it over and over again. They keep putting the pressure on the commission and the employers by taking retaliatory action.I am sure the minister was referring to this in his speech—and I find it curious that the member for Barton keeps referring to this as war. The words of warfare have been uttered on numerous occasions by those on the other side or by union officials who are supported by those on the other side. We saw it with Bill Kelty, with his `line in the sand' and the `full symphony' speech. We saw it last year with Craig Johnston's comments. The member for Barton says, `Yes, but those union officials have been condemned for those comments.' They might have been condemned, but they are still out there doing it; they are still out there saying it; they are still out there acting in a warfare-like manner. What the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the previous minister have been attempting to do for the last 6½ years is to provide an extra form of security and strength to the employers to enable them to stand up to the thuggery that is often disguised as employee action during the bargaining phase.The industry that has come to the fore in recent days, of course, is the car industry. In recent days, we have seen the Assistant Secretary of the AMWU—I think it was Darren Nelson—say that next year, when the bargaining period is over, once again we are going to have union warfare. That means that 500 automotive companies next year are liable to be affected by this sort of action from the union movement. Let us not be two-faced about it, members of the opposition, when we talk about a confrontationalist approach. Let us have a look, midway through next year, in 2003, at whether or not the threats by Nelson and the AMWU and anyone else who signs up to their tactics come to pass. Let us see members of the opposition stand up in this House and roundly condemn that action when it takes place.Yesterday the member for Boothby—someone who I know is very much affected by the plight of the automotive industry—in an excellent contribution to the House, reminded us: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 Manufacturers 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. Member for Boothby, well done on exposing that particular strategy from the AMWU! I see phrases there such as `shut down', `militant work force', `strategic vulnerability' and `industrial warfare'. So this matter of public importance condemns the Australian Labor Party and condemns the union movement that they are so beholden to.The opposition are in dire straits out there, electorally. They have got people breaking out all over the place—former members, current members and those who have lost preselection. Yesterday on Lateline Senator Chris Schacht, when he was asked by Tony Jones why they moved against him and what threat he posed to the machine, answered, `I wouldn't join them. I wouldn't toe the line.' So, by default, what he is saying is that everybody else out there is toeing the line. You guys are toeing the line—why would you not toe the line? In the last six years, union donations to the Australian Labor Party have amounted to $27,384,000. That is one large carrot. I would have to say that if you had $27,384,000 you would want to be silent as well, wouldn't you? Of course, at the top of the hit list we have the AMWU with over $3 million in contributions, the AWU with $2.9 million in contributions and the highly militant CFMEU with $2.7 million in contributions. That $27 million certainly buys a lot of toeing of the line. This motion should be rejected. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time for the discussion has concluded.Committees43154315431516:30:004315Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 19 August 2002. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 19 August 2002Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday, 19 August. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows:PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Mrs Moylan to move:That this House:(1) condemns the action of foreign nationals:(a) illegally fishing in the Heard Island and McDonald Zone and stealing an estimated 2,000 tons of Patagonian tooth fish per month;(b) for their flagrant disregard for the sovereignty of Australia's exclusive economic zone;(c) for decimating an endangered species of albatross and other seabirds by using illegal fishing methods, flouting Australian and international environment regulations; and(d) for threatening the future of the species in the area and the commercial sustainability of the Patagonian tooth fish fishery;(2) notes that the Australian fishing industry is limited to catching 2,815 tons of Patagonian tooth fish this year;(3) notes that if this practice continues, it threatens the estimated $30 million earned annually by the Australian fishing industry, puts at risk the direct employment of approximately 120 people and the indirect employment of approximately 500 people;(4) commends the Australian Government for its decision to propose the listing of Patagonian tooth fish on schedule two of the Convention in International Trade and Endangered Flora and Fauna;(5) commends the Australian Government for its previous successful apprehension by the Australian Navy of several illegal foreign fishing vessels; and(6) in light of the continuing serious breaches, calls on the Government to further strengthen action to prevent any further illegal incursions of our southern Exclusive Economic Zone by:(a) continuing naval action to apprehend those responsible for this illegal action;(b) implementing a civilian surveillance patrol with an armed boarding capacity;(c) substantially increasing the financial penalties to a level that deters future offences; (d) working closely with the Australian fishing industry to strengthen surveillance and apprehend offenders;(e) seeking further co-operation with the French Government whose territorial integrity is similarly threatened;(f) pursuing offenders through dialogue with various countries where operations supporting illegal fishing are based; and(g) ensuring Australian territorial integrity is maintained. (Notice given 20 June 2002.)Time allotted — 45 minutes.Speech time limits —Mover of motion — 10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking — 5 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins, 7 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2 Ms Hall to move:That this House: (1) condemns the Howard Government for failing to address:(a) the shortage of general practitioners in regional, rural and outer metropolitan areas; and(b) the decline in general practitioners bulk billing in these areas; and(2) calls on the Howard Government to immediately implement a strategy to address the decline and shortages. (Notice given 12 March 2002.)Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits —Mover of motion — 10 minutes.First Government Member speaking — 10 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3 Mr 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. (Notice given 24 June 2002.)Time allotted — 30 minutes.Speech time limits —Mover of motion — 10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking — 10 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4Mr Latham to move:That this House declares its support for:(1) the role of Australia's 1700 municipal libraries in providing information services and community-based learning throughout the nation;(2) Federal responsibility for assisting the development of the local library network, especially with new IT services; and(3) ensuring the National Library of Australia's Kinetica database is affordable for local libraries. (Notice given 19 June 2002.)Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits —Mover of motion — 10 minutes.First Government Member speaking — 10 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins, 2 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Miscellaneous431710000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 26 June 2002, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous4317Mr LLOYD (Robertson) (4.31 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Family Law Amendment (Child Protection Convention) Bill 2002Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2002Question agreed to.Delegation Reports4317431716:31:004317Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—by leave—I present the report of the Australian delegation to the 107th Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Marrakech, Morocco, from 17 to 23 March 2002, and a bilateral visit to Kuwait from 25 to 28 March 2002, and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.Leave granted.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—The Australian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference has a history of hard work and constructive and practical contributions to meetings and to debate. I am pleased to report that the delegation to the 107th IPU Conference held in Marrakech, Morocco, maintained this record. The Australian delegation, particularly my senatorial colleague Senator Jim McKiernan, was given a specific brief from the executive committee and the Australian IPU group as a whole to argue strongly for comprehensive and meaningful reform of the IPU as an institution, particularly in relation to its finances and budget. Australia led the way in these debates and we are confident that our persistence will result in a more active and relevant Inter-Parliamentary Union. At each IPU Conference, several issues of international importance are placed on the table for debate and resolution. Each member of the Australian delegation chose one of these issues, attended the meetings on it and contributed to the debate and the formulation of the final resolution. The report that I have tabled today records these contributions in detail.I will use the time left to me to say a few words about the delegation's bilateral visit to Kuwait, as the report on the IPU Conference was given very well in the other house by the other members of the delegation—namely, Senator Chapman, Senator McKiernan, Senator Brenda Gibbs and Senator Jeannie Ferris. I am sure that I speak on behalf of Senators Chapman, Ferris and Gibbs when I say that the visit to Kuwait was very successful. Although we were in Kuwait for only some four days, the delegation met with the Speaker of the National Assembly, several ministers of state and the Chief Executive Officer of the Kuwait Petroleum Co., as well as visiting local industries and research institutes.There is no doubt that relations between Australia and Kuwait are very strong. I am sure most members of the House would be surprised to learn that over 30,000 Kuwaitis visit Australia each year. They do so because it is seen as a safe and family orientated tourist destination. I am pleased to inform the House that many of these tourists visit South-East Queensland and some visit my own electorate of Bowman. It is also interesting to note that Australia has significant and increasing trading interests with Kuwait, amounting to $485 million in exports. Kuwait is now ranked 31st on Australia's list of top export destinations. Australia has significant strategic and military relations with Kuwait, having responded decisively to Kuwait's plight in 1990 by condemning Iraq's invasion, committing military forces to the Gulf War and continuing support for the UN-mandated multinational interception force enforcing UN Security Council sanctions upon Iraq. It is not usual for delegation reports to contain recommendations. However, the delegation considers it appropriate to recommend that the Minister for Foreign Affairs consider establishing residential diplomatic representation in Kuwait. This issue was raised at almost every meeting the delegation attended. Given the significant tourist trade and strategic relations between the two countries, the delegation considers that this matter should receive attention. I might say that Kuwait only recently—I think this year—commenced operating a full embassy in Canberra.On behalf of the delegation, I record our genuine appreciation to the National Assembly of Kuwait and its Speaker for coordinating the delegation's excellent program and for the warm welcome and hospitality extended during its visit. I also record our thanks to Mr Ridwaan Jadwat, Second Secretary at the Australian Embassy in Riyadh, for his comprehensive briefing on Kuwait upon our arrival and his excellent assistance during the delegation's visit. Mr Jadwat accompanied the delegation, providing information and focused advice on each of the delegation's appointments and on Australia's relations with Kuwait. I particularly thank the people who were with the delegation. Neil Bessell from the Senate side was terrific—I am looking forward to him coming with us on other IPU delegation visits in the near future—as were Phillip Allars from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Mr Peter Keele, who has just retired and was on his last delegation visit. Finally, I place on record my very good wishes to Senator Gibbs and Senator McKiernan, who are both retiring. They were wonderful company, and I am sure that they will remember that trip as one of the highlights of their time in the Senate. I commend the report to the House.Committees43184318431810000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The Speaker has received advice from the Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip that they have nominated members to be members of certain committees.Mr WILLIAMS (Tangney—Attorney-General) (4.37 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That:(1) Mr Somlyay be discharged from the Standing Committee on Industry and Resources and that, in his place, Mr Tollner be appointed a member of the committee; and(2) Mr Melham be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and that, in his place, Ms Hall be appointed a member of the committee.Question agreed to.Bills4318R16064318Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.431816:38:004318Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I am pleased to introduce the International Criminal Court Bill 2002 and the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 in due course. The purpose of the International Criminal Court Bill 2002 is to establish procedures in our domestic law that fulfil Australia's obligations under the International Criminal Court statute, such as the obligation to cooperate with investigations of the court. The International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 makes a series of amendments to various Commonwealth acts for the proper operation of the International Criminal Court Bill 2002 and Australia's obligations under the statute. The most significant of these are the amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995, which enact the crimes punishable by the International Criminal Court as crimes in Australian law. The past decade has seen many atrocities committed in armed conflicts. While this violence is not new, there has been an increasing belief around the world that the individuals who perpetrate and plan such violence cannot be allowed to go unpunished. The primary responsibility to bring to justice the perpetrators of such crimes has always been and will always be with domestic courts. Unfortunately, on occasions, the domestic courts of certain countries have been unable or unwilling to bring the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes to justice. This saw the international community resolve that the appalling acts of the Second World War should not go unpunished. The creation of the Nuremberg Tribunal was the first action towards international accountability for the most serious international crimes. Similarly, the horrific atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia saw the United Nations Security Council create ad hoc criminal tribunals to deal with crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But the creation of an ad hoc tribunal after the fact to try suspects is not always the best way to deal with such tragedies. It can be slow, it can be complicated, it can be costly and, as it is only created after the event, it has no capacity to deter the perpetrators of such crimes and can lead to allegations of victors' justice.After years of preparatory negotiations, 162 nations gathered in Rome in 1998 to finalise and adopt a statute for a permanent International Criminal Court—a court that could bring to justice the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes when national jurisdictions were either unwilling or unable to do so. A statute was adopted at the Rome diplomatic conference by a vote of 120 in favour, seven against, with 21 abstentions. Australia signed the statute on 9 December 1998 and is one of 139 states which signed during the period up to 31 December 2000 when the statute was open for signature. The ratification of the International Criminal Court statute has come quickly, underscoring the widespread support for the statute in the international community. The statute required 60 ratifications before it would enter into force. Ten states ratified the statute at a special ceremony on 11 April this year, bringing the total number of ratifications to 66. Another three states have ratified since, making a total of 69 to date, and the statute will enter into force on 1 July 2002. Australia is delighted that the overwhelming majority of the international community have given their assent to the court. In keeping with the processes adopted by this government in 1996, the ICC statute has been the subject of detailed scrutiny by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The committee also considered exposure drafts of these two bills.I would like to thank the committee and its secretariat for their excellent work in examining Australia's proposed ratification and exposure drafts of these bills. After an inquiry lasting over 18 months and considering over 250 submissions, the committee tabled its report in this parliament on 14 May 2002. The committee recommended that the government ratify the statute and introduce the legislation as soon as practicable. These recommendations endorsing ratification of the statute were subject to a number of further recommendations. The committee recommended that the government strengthen its statement of the principle of complementarity in the legislation, which has been done. The committee recommended that the government review certain definitions of crimes, particularly the definition of rape, which has been done. The committee recommended that the government make a declaration when it ratifies the statute, which will be done. The committee recommended that the government closely monitor the operations of the International Criminal Court and report on these operations annually to parliament. These reports will allow the government and the parliament to ensure that the operation of the International Criminal Court and the way in which its jurisprudence develops remain in Australia's national interests. The government has embraced this recommendation in clause 189 of the International Criminal Court Bill.In addition to the committee's recommendations and reporting process, Australia's proposed ratification has been the subject of rigorous debate in the government's joint party meeting, where over 70 members and senators spoke on the issue, as well as personal consultations by the Prime Minister with relevant stakeholders. This process of consultation has resulted in improvements being made to the domestic implementing legislation, including those detailed above. Australia has a direct national interest in the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court based on the role the court will play in enhancing international peace and security, including in our immediate region. The court's establishment has been one of the government's prime human rights objectives. The commission of serious international crimes poses a threat not only to individual countries but to the international community as a whole, and the court will deter individuals from committing these crimes.The International Criminal Court will have jurisdiction over only the most serious crimes of concern to the international community; namely, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.It is important to recognise that the court will have jurisdiction only over crimes committed after it enters into force, on 1 July 2002, and likewise the crimes created under Australian law will apply only to conduct after the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill commences.The court will also have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression when an acceptable definition of the crime can be agreed.If the statute is amended to include the crime of aggression, a state party may decline to accept it, in which case the court may not exercise jurisdiction over it in respect of nationals of that state or in respect of crimes committed in that state's territory.The government has decided that, if a definition of the crime of aggression is adopted that is unacceptable to Australia, we would decline to accept it, as is allowed under the statute.The court will not replace national courts but be complementary to them.This means that it cannot act except when national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate and prosecute.A fundamental element of the International Criminal Court statute is its recognition that it is the primary duty of every state to exercise its national criminal jurisdiction over these crimes.The principle that the International Criminal Court does not replace, or stand above, national courts is reflected in clause 3 of the International Criminal Court Bill, which reiterates that the International Criminal Court Act `does not affect the primacy of Australia's right to exercise its jurisdiction with respect to crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC'.This clause reflects a recommendation made by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.The International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill makes every crime under the International Criminal Court statute also a crime under Australian law.This means that Australia will always have the option of prosecuting persons under Australian law rather than surrendering them to the International Criminal Court. In these circumstances, it is most unlikely that it would ever act in a case which could be dealt with by Australia. The International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill also sets out the principle of complementarity in similar terms in clause 268.1, as recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The principle of complementarity also means that the ICC is not part of any domestic judicial system. It only operates when the domestic systems fail. The ICC will have no authority over any Australian court and in particular will not become part of the Australian court system and will have no power to override decisions of the High Court or any other Australian court.As mentioned, the government has included in the bills a number of measures designed to afford further protection of Australia's national interests. The government has decided that Australia's ratification will be accompanied by a declaration which will indicate how Australia will practically give effect to the statute while fully adhering to our obligations. The declaration, as recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, will reaffirm the primacy of Australian law and the Australian legal system. To make this clear, the matters in the declaration have been incorporated in the legislation implementing our obligations under the International Criminal Court statute.The International Criminal Court Bill requires that the arrest of a person at the request of the ICC may not be authorised, nor may a person be surrendered to the ICC unless the Attorney-General has, in his or her absolute discretion, signed a certificate that it is appropriate to do so. Decisions of the Attorney-General to issue or refuse to issue these certificates are final and may not be challenged in any court other than the High Court. In addition, the Attorney-General must consent before any person can be prosecuted for an offence under the crimes that will be inserted into division 268 of the Criminal Code by the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill. Again, decisions of the Attorney-General to give consent or to refuse to do so are final and may not be challenged in any court other than the High Court.Australia retains comprehensive jurisdictional coverage over members of the Defence Force for crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court wherever committed.The Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 enables the investigation and prosecution of Defence Force members for offences under the act committed anywhere in the world. These offences include all those under the criminal law applying in the Jervis Bay territory. In addition, if the amendments to the Criminal Code contained in the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 are enacted, Australia will have primary jurisdictional coverage over all the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, wherever committed. This would enable Australia to take full advantage of the principle of complementarity in the ICC statute, under which Australia retains primacy of jurisdiction in cases in which we are willing and able to investigate and prosecute.The Defence Force is satisfied that, under this regime, the interests of its members are adequately protected. This was affirmed recently by both Admiral Barrie and Lieutenant General Cosgrove in their discussions with the Prime Minister.There are numerous additional safeguards built into the several stages of an investigation and prosecution. The ICC prosecutor is subject to onerous duties designed to ensure that the provisions in the statute are observed. The role of the prosecutor is subject to the scrutiny of the court at all relevant stages. States must be informed when investigations are commenced, and they have the right to challenge the court's jurisdiction. The safeguards, and the rights to challenge, ensure that politically motivated prosecutions could not take place.Action before the court may be commenced in any of three ways. These are: referral by a state party, referral by the United Nations Security Council acting under chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, or by the initiative of the prosecutor. In the last mentioned case, the prosecutor's capacity is subject to the authorisation of the pre-trial chamber of the court. In the case of state party referrals or cases initiated by the prosecutor, the court may only act if either the state on whose territory the conduct occurred or the state of nationality of the accused is a state party, or, if not a state party, either of these states has accepted the jurisdiction of the court.The court's statute sets out its principles of criminal law and the trial process that it will follow. It is not an exhaustive code and would be supplemented by rules of procedure and evidence and, once the court becomes operational, by the court's own decisions. The principles are drawn from the major legal systems around the world.The trial process and the protections for defendants are very similar to the common law procedures that we have in Australia. The court will provide due process and fair trials for those brought before it.The standards embodied in major human rights instruments are incorporated in the statute. In particular, persons before the court are entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; they have the right to silence; the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt; and the court must be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.The court can impose imprisonment for up to life for serious cases. It may not impose the death penalty. It may order fines and forfeitures of the proceeds of crime and is also empowered to order a convicted person to make reparation to victims.The International Criminal Court Bill 2002 sets out the procedures to allow Australia to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in its investigations and prosecutions. These procedures are based on the tried and tested procedures that have allowed Australia to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and strike a careful balance between fulfilling Australia's international obligations and protecting Australia's national interests and Australian citizens.Part 2 sets out the general principles for dealing with requests for cooperation from the International Criminal Court. Obviously, these provisions must be read in conjunction with the Attorney-General's absolute discretion as to whether to issue a certificate enabling the arrest and surrender of a person at the request of the ICC.Part 3 deals specifically with the procedures if the ICC asks Australia to arrest and surrender a person for trial.Part 4 sets out the procedures for providing other forms of assistance to the ICC in great detail. Such assistance could include taking evidence in Australia, serving documents, facilitating the attendance of witnesses to give evidence or examining places.Division 14 of part 4, along with part 11, allows the procedures for the tracing, freezing and forfeiture of proceeds of crime that are provided for in the Proceeds of Crime Bill 2002 to be used against the proceeds of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, in response to a request from the ICC.Part 5 allows the prosecutor to conduct investigations in Australia and the court to sit in Australia.Part 6 deals with the powers of search and arrest in executing a request for cooperation from the ICC. These powers are the same as the powers that the Australian Federal Police have under domestic law. Parts 7 and 8 limit the disclosure of information by Australia to the ICC where that information raises national security issues or has been provided to Australia in confidence by a third party. If a request from the ICC cannot be carried out without prejudicing Australia's national security interests, then the Attorney-General can refuse to authorise that request.Part 9 establishes procedures for transporting a person to or from the ICC through Australia. Any such transportation is still subject to the requirement in section 42 of the Migration Act 1958 for the person to have a valid visa.Parts 10, 11 and 12 allow Australia to cooperate in enforcing sentences imposed by the ICC. Part 10 allows Australia to enforce relevant fines or reparation orders made by the court. Part 11 allows Australia to enforce a forfeiture of order in a similar way to which foreign orders are enforced under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987. Part 12 establishes procedures that will allow prisoners from the ICC to serve their sentences in Australia, if Australia chooses to accept those prisoners.Part 13 allows Australia to request that the ICC assist Australia in the domestic investigation or prosecution of an indictable offence, which would include a crime of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.Part 14 contains a number of miscellaneous matters, including the obligation for the government to table an annual report on the operation of the International Criminal Court Act, the operation of the court and the impact of the court on Australia's legal system.Once tabled, the parliament can refer the report to its committees for further examination if required. This report, to be prepared by the relevant departments, including the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Defence and the Attorney-General's Department, will allow the government and the parliament to monitor the activities and jurisprudence of the ICC to ensure that they do not develop contrary to Australia's national interest.Finally, I would like to extend my personal thanks to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his work on the international stage in advocating ratification of the International Criminal Court statute. I look forward to further joint initiatives with him in the future. I would also like to extend thanks to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and my government colleagues for their contributions to the debate on Australia's proposed ratification, which has resulted in several improvements to these bills.In conclusion, the International Criminal Court represents the international community's determination to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the world's most serious crimes. Australia has a hard-won reputation as a champion of human rights and should throw its weight behind a court that will bring to justice the perpetrators of the most heinous international crimes. This legislation will pave the way for Australia to join in that endeavour. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.16:58:004323Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—by leaveI intend to talk for a few minutes about these matters and the processes that we have been through.7V5Williams, Daryl, MP2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—That is okay; I have the right to do that now. I will not be doing it again, although I could if I wanted to.I wish to describe the chaotic, disorganised and shambolic parliamentary program that this House has been subject to today. The opposition was presented with this bill a matter of minutes ago. It is simply a disgrace and an affront to accountability in this parliament. It is representative of, and indicates, the chaos and division within the Howard government. The fact that I am now speaking on this question before the chair is testimony to that fact. This rarely happens in the history of this parliament. Why is the parliament being subjected to this disgrace and this lack of accountability? It is being subjected to this because there has been a brawl in the cabinet, in the ministry and in the party room about the legislation to establish the International Criminal Court. We have seen all of the tensions within the Howard government emerge and boil over, both internally and publicly, as a result of this measure. This is the chaos that goes right to the top of the Howard government. Day after day in question time we, on this side of the House, sit here as the PM watches his henchmen play `Look at me; look how big and powerful I am', trying to appeal to the constituencies of the backbench, so much so that on some days this parliament has simply become unworkable. The first the opposition heard of this bill coming back to the House was last night. I did not even get the courtesy of an official phone call until some time this morning. That is simply disgraceful and unacceptable. This comes on top of what has been a completely inadequate sitting pattern since the election. Parliament has sat only 31 days out of the last 264 days and it is about to go into recess for 50 days. If all of the bills currently before the House are not passed by the end of June, they will carry over to the second half of the year, and the chaos will be transferred down the line. There are something like 80 bills currently before the House of Representatives. The government proposed 37 pieces of legislation at the beginning of the year for introduction and passage in the autumn sitting. Today, on top of all of this chaos, the government have introduced two International Criminal Court bills, with no notice, to be passed on the same day, limiting speaking rights to three hours. This is just not acceptable in a modern parliament which claims to have some pretence towards accountability. This is so offensive because this comes on top of the chaos in this House in March when five anti-terrorism bills were dumped and we were given something like 16 hours to look at them. Isn't it ironic that those bills are still floating around the system and have not yet passed the Senate because the government has been in chaos behind the scenes about those as well. One of those bills, the ASIO bill, has had to be withdrawn by the government—and this is a government that claims to be tough on terrorism and terrorists! A government that claims to be tough on terrorism and terrorists cannot even get its terrorism legislation through the parliament, because it is always playing politics. Why were those terrorism bills dumped into this House in March? Because the government had been on the very rough end of the `kids overboard' inquiry. All of its lies and deceit had been exposed, and suddenly it needed an agenda change. Isn't it funny that we are back to that again? The budget brought down in May has gone on the nose and suddenly the government is out there again seeking an agenda change. Who is in charge of all of this? Ultimately, it is the Prime Minister. As I said before, he bears ultimate responsibility. He sits in this House day after day encouraging all of his henchmen to compete and show their wares to the backbench in the alternative leadership stakes. They are there day after day parading their wares. But he is not the only person responsible. The other person who is responsible is the Leader of the House. He does bear a lot of responsibility for this, even if it is an agenda that is imposed upon him by the Prime Minister. Accountability in this parliament is a victim to the political game playing of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. Today, the Leader of the House was in the parliament saying that he is not a confrontationist; he is actually into free love. We are all supposed to now believe that he is some sort of cuddly person who now has embraced consensus in the parliament. If he wants to be the Narcissus of the North Shore and play day after day `Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the greatest of them all?'—he can. But we cannot have accountability in this parliament victim of his ego and victim of the game playing that is going on in the government. There has not been proper accountability in this House when it comes to the terrorism package, because this House has not been given the time that it required. Once again, this package of very serious legislation was dumped in this House a matter of minutes ago. That is why it very important for this House to record just how unaccountable and how arrogant this government has become. We saw an example of this in the House a couple of weeks ago on 4 June where the Leader of the House gave an answer to a question which blew the decorum in this House to smithereens. We have seen it in the House by the behaviour of the Treasurer. We have seen it in the House with the behaviour of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We have seen it in the House with the behaviour of the Minister for Education, Science and Training. All of them were out there parading their wares to the backbench; all of them were out there proving that they are each better than the other—all in this sort of titanic struggle that is going on to see who will succeed the Prime Minister after he turns 64. The problem is that, while this Liberal leadership contest is being played out on the floor of the House, in the party room, in the ministry and in the cabinet, parliamentary standards of accountability are being junked and shredded because this government is not on the ball when it comes to putting policy before political game playing. Because it is always out there playing politics, we have seen no response to the very constructive suggestions that the opposition put forward about parliamentary reform. There has been no response to our proposal for the reform of question time. There has been no response to our proposal to move towards an independent Speaker. And why would you? If you are a government and a political party that is totally consumed with political game playing, why would you move towards an independent referee and why you would move towards a set of rules? Why would you do that? I notice that a few weeks ago the Prime Minister was quoted as saying in a column that his `hands are still relaxed around the grip of the bat'. The behaviour of this government in the presentation of legislation— whether it be the terrorist bills, the ASIO bills or the International Criminal Court legislation—would not suggest that this is a relaxed government. It would not suggest that at all. What it does suggest is that this is a government which is consumed by internal power plays, and the minister at the table today knows that very well; I saw the wry smile on his face. He has had to handle the latest eruption—the conflict between the Bishops on the backbench and all the rest of them.There could be no other reason why this legislation would turn up in this way. You could not put it down to competence; you could not put it down to efficiency; you can only put it down to a brawl which has made this government completely dysfunctional and which is making this parliament dysfunctional. When the government returns with a response to our package of proposals for parliamentary reform, we might well know that normality has returned to the Howard government. But I do not believe that the people of Australia deserve the sort of treatment that you have dished out in your parliamentary procedure and processes—and that is why these facts need to be placed on the record about the completely unsatisfactory way in which these bills have been brought into this parliament today.17:08:004325Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want to reply to that diatribe, except to say that the bills that the honourable member refers to as being `dumped' on this parliament have been available as exposure drafts since August of last year.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—How come they took so long?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order!7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—How come it took you that long to get it into parliament?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Prospect knows that any interjection is disorderly, but an interjection from outside her place is grossly disorderly.Bills4326R16074326Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.432617:09:004326Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The main purpose of the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 is to create, as offences against the criminal law of Australia, each of the offences over which the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction—genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.Many of these crimes are already crimes in Australia.For instance, Australia has specifically recognised grave breaches of the Geneva conventions and Additional Protocol 1 as crimes in the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. Australia can also already prosecute members of our Defence Force for crimes committed in the course of their duty anywhere in the world.However, it is important that Australia enact laws specifically covering all of the crimes in the International Criminal Court statute so that we can take full advantage of the principle and protection of complementarity. By enacting these crimes, Australia can be sure that we will be able to investigate and prosecute under Australian law persons accused of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. These offences apply regardless of whether the conduct occurred in Australia or not, and regardless of whether the person is an Australian citizen or not. In this way, Australia can never become a safe haven for the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes.While these crimes cover the same acts as the International Criminal Court statute, they are part of Australia's criminal law and they have been defined according to the same principles, and with the same precision, as other Commonwealth criminal laws.These bills are expected to have little direct impact on Commonwealth expenditure or revenue.There will be some resource implications for Commonwealth agencies, such at the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General's Department in providing cooperation and assistance to the International Criminal Court. However, these costs will depend on how much assistance the court requires of Australia in its investigations and prosecutions. In the unlikely event that the court ever conducts hearings in Australia, there would be further costs involved.The court is funded by the states that are party to the statute. All states that have ratified the statute, including Australia once it becomes a party, will make annual assessed contributions to the court's running costs in accordance with the scale adopted by the United Nations for its regular budget. It is estimated that, initially, Australia's annual contribution to the court will be approximately $2 million, with that amount likely to reduce in time as more states become parties.The government believes that the establishment of the International Criminal Court is an important development to ensure that those who commit the most egregious crimes against humanity are brought to justice. It is clearly in Australia's national interest to be part of this important international effort to deter and punish those who commit atrocities. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Rudd) adjourned.Bills4327R14824327Debate resumed from 24 June, on motion by Mr Abbott:That this bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr McClelland moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“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”.17:13:004327O'Connor, Brendan, MPMr BRENDAN O'CONNOR00AN3BurkeALP00—I rise to resume the remarks I was making on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002 late last night. Before I sat down, I indicated that, if you had listened to the speeches already made by those on the other side of the House with respect to this bill, you would believe that the enterprise bargaining system was created since 1996 and by the Liberal coalition. Any fair observer would have already noted that it was the Labor Party that in fact introduced the enterprise bargaining system. It was a Labor government that ensured that, in order to bring about micro-economic change in the workplace, enterprise bargaining would occur—but it would occur with protections for employees. Of course, that is something that now seems to be a target of this current government.As I said yesterday, this bill is no more than a rehash of earlier proposals rejected by the parliament. Like many other bills, it is Orwellian in nature and certainly in name. It does not attempt to facilitate genuine bargaining; it attempts to stifle it. It is hardly surprising that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations attempts to persuade the parliament that the important proposed section in the bill, proposed section 170MWA(2)(a), will help the Industrial Relations Commission on matters that tend to indicate whether a party to enterprise bargaining negotiations is genuinely seeking agreement. The minister wrongly suggests that this provision is consistent with the metals decision handed down by Justice Munro. Indeed, a close reading of the decision by Justice Munro will show that there is no need for this provision, as the commission certainly has sufficient power and discretion under the existing act to intervene where it believes that genuine bargaining is not taking place. This point was made by the Senate inquiry into this bill, and I concur with their findings.Not only does the metals decision show no evidence of the need for this bill but the minister wrongfully concludes that pattern bargaining, or the pursuit of common claims in the form of a log, is contrary to genuine bargaining at the workplace level. Let us look honestly at what happens in the real world of industrial relations, rather than in the deluded mind of the minister. It is common to have a combination of industry and enterprise negotiations. Many employers, for example, would be justly concerned if they were asked to consider an X per cent wage increase if other companies—that is, competitors of that company—were asked to accept a lesser offer. In other words, employers would hope that they would not have to consider acceding to a greater amount than their competitors. Certainly from an employee perspective, they would not wish to see their representatives, the unions or agents on their behalf, seeking different conditions and wages for comparable jobs, as this would be unfair to those members who were being asked to accept lesser conditions of employment.Within this context it would not be unusual for certain differences to transpire. There will be occasions on which, as a result of a number of factors—not least of all whether the employment is in the country rather than in the city, or indeed the variance that occurs between or amongst states in this country—you will see some differentials. However, it is not fair for people to be expected necessarily not to have a common claim across a group of employers or an industry. This government would have you believe that pattern, industry or multi-employer bargaining happens because of unions. But, as Munro said, pattern bargaining is practised by employers as well as unions. In the decision I have referred to, he had this to say: It is not unusual for major corporate employers to attempt to achieve a consistency and sometimes a relative uniformity of outcomes in negotiations affecting workers.It appears that some of the more loudly voiced and caustic criticisms of pattern bargaining as practised by the unions are muted or tolerant of corporate practices intended to achieve similar uniformities of negotiating outcomes across different workplaces. Industry wide demands are often made by unions and are sometimes pursued at a national level. It is not the character of the demand that may cause offence under the policy embodied in sections 170MP and 170MW(2)(a). I see no reason why such claims may not be advanced in a way that involves a genuine effort to have each employer concede the benefits sought. In such cases, the pattern character of the benefit demanded, its source and even the uniform consent of it may be a cogent demonstration that the negotiation conduct is genuinely directed at securing agreements from the other party.Munro's observations successfully dismantle the government's alleged objective in introducing this bill. As for employers serving industry claims, Liberal governments have been amongst the worst offenders. Indeed, in my own state in Victoria during the period of the Kennett government many negotiations undertaken by the government could be described as pattern bargaining. Negotiations in the water industry, for example, often involve common claims across all water boards that have been constructed under corporate laws. That is, in spite of the corporatisation of water boards and the requirement to regulate employment conditions at an enterprise level, there would often be standard non-negotiable provisions handed down from the government that would be expected to apply to all water boards, otherwise the agreements would not be approved or signed off by the government.Against the rhetoric of this minister in this parliament we see not only evidence of the double standards of earlier governments of the same ilk as this one but also the double standard at the Commonwealth level. The minister on the one hand attacks pattern bargaining for being obsolete—an outdated, one size fits all approach—but, on the other hand, mysteriously the Commonwealth government serves common claims and sets particular policy parameters on workplace arrangements to apply across departments and agencies. It is a case of do what I say, not what I do—one rule for the workers and one rule for Minister Abbott.The motives behind this bill are clear. This bill is a short-sighted and irrational attempt to prevent uniformity of claims by unions and their members upon their workplaces. This bill fails to recognise that uniform claims will not necessarily lead to uniform settlements, nor does it recognise that many employers would consider it discriminatory to be logged for different and possibly more expensive conditions than their competitors. Most of all, this bill is hypocritical. It asks employees and their representatives to deal at the micro level—that is, at the workplace—when indeed many employers, peak employer bodies and even the Commonwealth government continue to apply across-the-board macro standards. This hypocrisy—this double standard—should not surprise anybody who has been observing the behaviour of this government. This government seeks to smash unions and, as a consequence, hurt employees in this country, along with their entitlements, particularly when they are above the safety net.If the government is unhappy with a Federal Court decision, it seeks to legislate against any outcome that might be found in favour of employees. If it does not get its way all the time in the Industrial Relations Commission, it reacts, as it did last year, when it broke from decades of convention and appointed predominantly employer sided commissioners. Indeed, it appointed nearly all of them as senior deputy presidents in a way that flagrantly abused the convention to ensure that there were people from both sides of the industrial relations arena.The government uses the word `union' but it may as well use the word `employees'. It seeks to balance laws entirely in favour of employers. It also seeks to exploit another divide. It will favour those employers who are willing to fight their employees and the unions and it will castigate those employers who seek agreements without a bloody fight. As I said last night, we saw the government's disappointment only last week when the industrial dispute at BHP was resolved by the parties. We see this government's inclination towards sponsoring industrial conflicts by the hooded men and the attack dogs on the waterfront. We see the government's obsession with the union movement when, on almost every occasion a front bench member speaks, he or she mouths anti-union mantras whether or not the matter has to do with industrial relations. This government rants and raves about militancy but it exhibits signs of militancy itself. We see this government's hatred of unions. It is almost a pathological hatred. It is very hard to rationalise or reason with, but it is there. It is there in the context where there is low industrial disputation and where people generally at the workplace level are only after a fair and reasonable outcome for their day's work. The government would have you believe that the country was rife with industrial conflict, and it is completely and utterly off the track when it makes those claims.From viewing the behaviour and conduct of the government since its inception in 1996, we would advise employers to beware. Any employer who wishes to ensure that there is a consensual approach to industrial relations, any employer who wishes to sit around the table and discuss concerns with the employees and their representatives, should beware because that is not the way in which this government would have you operate. Employees should also beware. Unless you are a submissive employee or an employee who eschews unionisation or prefers not to operate on a collective level, beware of this government because this government is about removing your rights to collectively bargain. It is about removing your leverage against your employer. Unless you are an employer who is spoiling for a fight, you are not an ideal employer as far as this government is concerned. Unless you are a submissive employee, you are not an ideal employee. For this rabidly, anti-union government, the only ideal workplace is clearly one without a union present.I ask those members who have some wit about them to consider a country without unions and to consider those countries that currently do not have democratic unions. Is that the ideal place in which we would like to live? The government wants to gut the Industrial Relations Commission and this bill is one means by which it will attempt to do that. The government and the minister want to remove the umpire and produce an environment that weakens employees' rights. I urge all members of the House to oppose the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Entsch) adjourned.Bills4329R1606BillsR16074329Debate resumed.17:28:004329Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—The passage of the International Criminal Court into the body of international law is a good thing for Australia and it is a good thing for humanity. The debate on the International Criminal Court Bill 2002 and the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 occurs in the context of the international community's efforts to develop a comprehensive body of international law and to develop a comprehensive body of international humanitarian law as part of our multilateral system.Anyone interested in comprehending the dimensions of the revolution in the multilateral order that occurred after the defeat of the Axis powers should read Foreign Minister Evatt's statement on foreign affairs to this House on 13 March 1946. As Evatt surveyed the international scene following his return from a meeting of the executive of the preparatory commission of the United Nations in London, you cannot help but be awe-struck by the scope of the project in which he was engaged. Evatt was almost matter of fact as he reminded the House that it had only just received and approved a bill for an act to approve the charter of the United Nations and that, in the few short months since then, three of the six principal organs of the United Nations—the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Economic and Social Council—had come into being, while the fourth, the International Court of Justice, was just about to.Evatt was not blind to the deficiencies of the new order that he had such a large part in shaping. The tone of his parliamentary address is anything but utopian. It has all the flavour of a gritty Australian realism, but a realism coloured nonetheless by that other great Australian virtue—fairness; a view that, by virtue of our common human endeavour, we might just be able to shape something better than the organised barbarism which we had tasted, not just once in the century, but twice. Half a century later, it is worth reflecting on what the doc had to say. He said:I do not wish to quarrel over words, but I think it is quite erroneous to describe the United Nations organisation merely as an `experiment'. On the contrary, it is the best presently available instrument, both for avoiding the supreme and ultimate catastrophe of a third world war, waged with all-destroying weapons, and also for establishing an international order which can and should assure to mankind security against poverty, unemployment, ignorance, famine and disease. The United Nations ... existed to help realise the twin objectives of freedom from fear of aggression, and freedom from want. We shall continue steadfastly and courageously to play our part in this organisation, on which must rest most of the hopes of men of goodwill throughout the world.Those were heady days. Evatt casts a long shadow which few, if any, of his successors have eclipsed as foreign minister of Australia. Australia chaired the first ever session of the United Nations Security Council and, through Evatt himself, Australia was the third President of the United Nations General Assembly. Australia, largely through Evatt, was the prime mover in the creation of the Economic and Social Council, and the list goes on.Evatt grasped this single and central fact: for small powers, the multilateral system offers the only chance; for middle powers, it offers the best chance. Evatt had experienced first-hand Australia's marginalisation at the hands of Churchill, both in the conduct of the war and in the construction of the peace. Evatt's experience was little different from what Hughes's had been a generation before. Evatt crafted a tradition of comprehensive Australian engagement in the construction and operation of the new multilateral order. It was not just a Labor tradition—although Evatt, beyond dispute, was its prime mover—it became very soon a bipartisan tradition, an Australian tradition. Where Evatt led, Spender and Casey soon followed. Whereas Evatt constructed the Economic and Social Council, his conservative successors constructed its regional embodiment, the precursor of ESCAP, the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. With the ebbs and flows along the way, an unapologetic and uncompromising commitment to multilateralism became part and parcel of the Australian foreign policy firmament—at least until recently. It is difficult to point out when all this began, but at some stage over the last five years it is beyond doubt that the unravelling of our multilateral commitments began in earnest. In the world view of the minister, UN multilateralism has become the province of the fairies at the bottom of the garden or, to borrow one of the minister's favourite terms, the `self-indulgence of bourgeois intellectual leftists'.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—Pseudo-intellectual.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—`Pseudo-intellectual'—my apologies to the minister! Real men, according to Alexander, do bilateral, not multilateral security. Bilateral security is hard. Multilateral security is soft, be it disarmament, peacekeeping or the UN Security Council. Real men do bilateral free trade agreements. Multilateral agreements through APEC or the WTO are now seen as second rate. Real men, it seems, have not been able to do the ICC successfully until very recently, although this has created a problem for the foreign minister's political world view on the question of multilateralism. The retreat by the government from multilateralism is now manifested across the field. It is not just in the area of human rights that we have seen the government's failure to ratify a range of UN protocols, in addition to the government's undisguised hostility to UN Special Rapporteurs; nor is it just in the field of the environment and the government's refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. We also see it at work in relation to the ICJ—for example, when Australia in March this year made a declaration excluding the setting of maritime boundaries from compulsory dispute resolution. Australian contempt for multilateralism was also made manifest at the Monterrey International Conference on Financing for Development this year. This conference was attended by 50 heads of state, including presidents Bush and Chirac and Prime Minister Chretien. There were also more than 200 ministers present. Australia was represented by a junior parliamentary secretary. In foreign policy, as in domestic policy, symbols sometimes count. This one certainly did.Disengagement from the UN is one thing; going on the offensive against the UN is quite something else. That is what the Howard government did in the year 2000, when it launched its review of the UN treaty body system in direct response to critical comments by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Geneva. The minister seems to believe that he and his government are somehow Robinson Crusoe when it comes to periodically having to deal with critical reports from Special Rapporteurs. The minister neglects to mention that, in March 1998, the UN Special Rapporteur probed the German government's commitment to religious tolerance. In April 2000, a Special Rapporteur probed the British government's role, through its security forces in Northern Ireland, in the 1989 murder of a Belfast solicitor. We have also not been told of the July 2001 UNHRC report critical of the Netherlands government for its controversial new law on euthanasia or of the April 2002 preliminary report by the UN Special Rapporteur alleging that Italian judges and prosecutors had `reasonable cause' to fear for their independence, which had been threatened—it was stated—by politicians under the government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Surprisingly, none of these governments have deemed it necessary to declare open season on the United Nations. Disparaging the United Nations has become a matter of general sport for this government. It is being seen as a good lark. It is also being seen as good politics, because the unwritten script in all of this is that, in Australian domestic politics, the UN has become the perfect counterfoil for the purposes of the government asserting its nationalist credentials for the further conduct of the domestic political debate.I sometimes wonder whether the government fully appreciates how fragile the political consensus is that underpins the fabric of the UN system, and the multilateral system more broadly. It is not an overstatement to say that when a country like Australia, which has had a 50-year long history of active and by and large bipartisan support for UN multilateralism, turns around and then attacks the very system it has helped create it has an effect. In the eyes of the multilateral community, Australia, once a contributor state, is now seen by some as a problem state. Whereas in Australia it is simply seen as part of a broader domestic political frolic, in which our foreign minister is unhappily complicit, the problem is that the ramifications of this domestic political strategy extend well beyond our shores.Of course, in all of this, the foreign minister should have known better. As the foreign minister of the Commonwealth of Australia he has particular responsibilities. His job is to keep the barbarians from the gate, particularly when our long-term national interests are in danger of being fundamentally compromised by the short-term partisan impulses of some of his domestic colleagues. The role of a foreign minister of the Commonwealth of Australia is not dissimilar from that of the Treasurer of the Commonwealth. Both have responsibilities which transcend the immediate partisan impulses of the moment and go to the nation's longest term national and international interests. However, rather than acting as a voice of systematic restraint, the minister in the main, while not a ringleader, has certainly been a cheerleader prepared to go along for the ride as the criticism of Australia's UN engagement and the UN system more broadly has been advanced. Australian diplomatic history, I fear, will record our minister as being one of our longest serving foreign ministers, but on this question it will record him as one of our weakest. It continues to this day. Only two weeks ago in this House the minister unleashed on the United Nations once again, this time in the context of the recent visit of the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention. In a preplanned dorothy dixer, Mr Downer said:We do not run off to the United Nations asking how Australia should be run. One of the great contrasts between the Australian Labor Party and this government is that we make our own policies. The Labor Party has no policies and goes to Geneva and asks United Nations officials in Geneva what its policies should be. It is, if I may say so, a stark contrast.A stark contrast indeed, Minister—the UN seen as yet another instrument of domestic wedge politics. But an even starker contrast emerges when we compare Foreign Minister Downer's commentary on the United Nations with the commentary of Foreign Minister Evatt in this House half a century before:It is all so almost squalid by comparison.Recent debate over Australia's ratification of the Rome statute establishing the International Criminal Court is the most recent example of the government's at best ambivalent embrace of the multilateral system. As Tim McCormack in Res Publica states:The concept of a permanent international criminal court is not a new one. As early as 1874 the Swiss lawyer, Gustave Moynier, one of the co-founders of the International Committee of the Red Cross, argued that respect for the then newly emergent international law of war would only come with effective enforcement mechanisms. He drafted a statute for his proposed international tribunal and the international community has discussed the concept on numerous occasions since.Urgency was delivered to these deliberations by the war to end all wars and then, barely a generation later, another war—with fewer military casualties, admittedly, but whose civilian casualties reached beyond imagination. As the chairman of the drafting committee of the Rome statute has noted:Since then—World War II—some 250 international regional armed conflicts have occurred. These conflicts, along with human rights violations perpetrated by tyrannical regimes, have produced an estimated 170 million casualties as well as incalculable losses.So when the Rome statute was finally agreed in 1998, more than a century after Moynier's initial proposal, its time had well and truly come—or at least that was the view of most states in 1998. Since then, of course, the United States has withdrawn its support and Australia, it seems, came perilously close to doing so.The central characteristics of the ICC, its powers and its personnel are already on the record. There is ample literature on it and I will not repeat it here. The arguments in support of an ICC are clear-cut. First, the existence of a properly resourced permanent court will act as a partial deterrent against individuals contemplating future acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. At present, such individuals are able, by and large, to hide behind state sovereignty. For this, the Cambodian genocide is eloquent and horrid testimony.Second, the indirect effect of the court is that it will require state parties to apply the principles of the statute of the ICC to their national courts, which may in turn have an even greater deterrent effect on any future perpetrators of this class of crimes than the direct application of the international jurisdiction in The Hague. Third, in the event of future crimes of this class being committed, the ICC constitutes the vehicle for the delivery of retributive and restorative justice. As Chairman Bassiouni of the drafting committee of the Rome statute has observed:Sympathy for victims of international crimes, no matter how sincere or widespread, is meaningless. Indignation by itself is never enough. Retributive and restorative justice is what makes sympathy meaningful and indignation credible. Arguments against the International Criminal Court focus on a loss of sovereignty, the independence and professionalism of the courts and the potential vulnerability of Australian and/or allied personnel engaged in peacekeeping, peace enforcing or other coalition operations abroad. The sovereignty argument is bogus. The essence of any multilateral system is shared sovereignty. Even in the absence of a multilateral system, sovereignty is never absolute. It is shaped by the relative power of the state concerned—the less powerful the state, the less capable that state is in the assertion of its sovereignty. It is a matter of empirical fact that our sovereignty is qualified by every international treaty obligation we undertake, including many non-UN treaties such as the ANZUS Treaty. Just pretending that our sovereignty now is somehow virginal and complete is a monumental act of intellectual self-delusion.On the impartiality and professionalism of the court itself, a range of safeguards have been built in. These safeguards relate to the transparency of the selection procedures for the bench and the office of the prosecutor, the procedures outlined in the statute through which a matter may be referred to the ICC and the nature of the pretrial hearings foreshadowed in the statute in order to screen out any frivolous matters being brought to the attention of the court by a particular state party. While these procedures are not foolproof, they are more elaborate than a number of protections built into a number of national legal jurisdictions.A third and related argument against the ICC arises from concerns about the vulnerability of Australian or allied service personnel serving abroad. The first safeguard in this respect is the long history of professionalism of the ADF itself. After our having had more than a million men and women in uniform in 11 different theatres of war, I am unaware of any occasion since the foundation of the Commonwealth on which Australian service personnel have been accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Second, the statute has entrenched the doctrine of complementarity, whereby any Australian or allied service person who commits a crime in this category in future will be tried in an Australian national court. Third, this option of employing complementary national jurisdictions is not available to parties who have not ratified the statute. What that means, in effect, is that service personnel from a non-party state who commit crimes in this category will not have the option of being tried in their home jurisdiction; they will be immediately extradited and tried by the ICC in The Hague. As a matter of logic, therefore, this creates a significant incentive for states to be party to the statute, rather than remain outside it. These arguments for and against the ratification of the statute have been around for a long time. There is nothing new in any of them. There is a significant literature on each of them.It is regrettable that we have got to a stage whereby ratification of the ICC statute has been left so late in the day as a result of the agony and the ecstasy of the internal debate within the coalition itself. When it comes to reviewing in detail what has happened over the last several weeks in this building in the debate on the ICC within the coalition party room, I will leave it to the minister himself to comment on that. However, I simply make this point: 3½ years after signing the statute, we seem to have literally got to one minute to midnight before we have got down to the business of ratifying it. Ratification has been made possible only because of the Faustian compromise which the Prime Minister shaped in his press statement of last Thursday, which somehow saved the minister's face while appealing to the rabid right of his own party and his coalition. What are the consequences of 3½ years of dithering and delay on the part of the minister?4G4Downer, Alexander, MP83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—There are two practical consequences, Minister. One is that here we are with 2½ days to go, on the eve of when ratification must be completed—1 July—if Australia is to be represented at the first conference of the parties to the statute in September. The September conference of the parties is significant because the rules of procedure of the court, the rules governing the procedure by which judges are appointed to the bench of the court and the rules governing the procedures by which members of the office of the prosecutor shall be appointed will be determined and shaped there. Hence the fundamental importance of the 1 July ratification deadline. The second consequence of this 3½-year period of dithering and delay is as follows: today we have before us 353 pages of legislation—legislation that ratifies one of the most important international instruments to which this country has become party since the foundation of the United Nations, and we are reduced to a debate of two or three hours in this chamber. With these 353 pages of legislation—both bills combined—containing within them, on my quick count, 172 amendments, at least nine of which are substantial, we are reduced to a situation where we cannot, as a parliament, provide proper scrutiny. As I have said, with 353 pages, 172 amendments, of which nine are substantial, and two explanatory memoranda comprising some 66 pages between them, the time provided to us to give this substantive scrutiny has indeed been limited. That is where I enter a caveat in terms of our deliberations on the bills before us. I note for the record that the shadow Attorney-General and I received the draft bills, the explanatory memoranda and the document outlining the amendments to the exposure drafts 10 minutes before question time today. Here we are, barely 3½ hours later, expecting to deliberate finely and formally on this most important statute.I say to the minister and the parliament that the opposition cannot be held responsible in the future for any fundamental errors of drafting which may be contained within the statutes. The time for normal legislative scrutiny has simply been too short, particularly for a piece of legislation which cannot be regarded as marginal, which is demonstrated by the fact that it has been the subject of such internal angst within the coalition parties for such a period of time. The reason we are cooperating with this extraordinary truncation of the time available for debate is simply that we believe that the 1 July deadline is an important one for Australia to meet, and we on our side of the House believe that our international standing on this question is so important that we cannot afford not to meet the deadline. The regrettable thing about the foreign minister's handling of this issue until recently is that he seems to have been prepared to have taken the diplomatic plaudits but to have done none of the hard work on the way through. The Prime Minister has done the hard work by bailing out the foreign minister.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—That is a cheek.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—It is actually the truth, Minister. The Prime Minister has bailed out the foreign minister and delivered an outcome for the party room which enables the rabid right within his coalition to be appeased. But, regrettably, the hard work has been done by others. Also, the opposition has played a constructive role in this, because the opposition has reduced the minister to a position of abject humiliation within his own party room, requiring the Prime Minister to bail him out. That is the role which the opposition has played most constructively in it, and the international legal fraternity recognises that. We have received much communication from international lawyers around the country, simply saying, `Thank heaven the opposition has put the minister under pressure on this point because, if the minister had not been put under pressure, the Prime Minister, following his visit to Washington, may well have folded the country's cards on the ICC.' So the Prime Minister has saved the foreign minister's bacon, and the opposition has been part and parcel of that process as well.We come to the substantive provisions. I would simply make this point: on the list of proposed amendments contained within the documents provided to us by the office of the Attorney-General, I would draw your particular attention to sections 22 and 29 of the International Criminal Court Bill 2002 on the powers of the Attorney, section 181 of that bill which relates to privative clauses and section 268.114 of the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002. Sections 22 and 29 purport to assert an absolute discretion for the Attorney-General as it relates to requests for the arrest or surrender of persons in response to a request by the ICC of Australia. Section 181 purports to make such decisions by the Attorney-General non-appellable. Section 268.114 of the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 seeks to exempt from subdivision J of division 268 of the code—on crimes covered within the scope of the statute—the capacity of the Attorney-General not to issue a certificate to surrender a person who has been sought by the ICC. The key question in all of this is whether these several amendments of substance actually add up to a substantive veto or not. Our concern with sections 22 and 29 is whether the language that has been used to date in relation to consent on the part of the Attorney-General has been shaded up to in fact become a de facto power of veto. This is a most important question and it goes to the heart of the substantive amendments before us at present. The issue it raises is what happens when a matter of jurisdictional conflict arises between the Australian national jurisdiction and the international jurisdiction residing within the ICC. The language of absolute discretion has caused some concern on the part of international lawyers who have studied the statute closely. What we would need to establish in the course of this debate—and I would seek to obtain assurances from the Attorney-General on this question—is that this in fact does not constitute, from the government's perspective, a power of effective veto.It is difficult to conceive of the circumstances that an Australian would find themselves in in the future whereby the relevant provisions of this bill would actually be activated. Firstly, what we have to rely on is the century-long tradition of professionalism on the part of the Australian Defence Force—100 years, and not a single accusation as it relates to the three categories of crime covered by the scope of this statute. That is not so much the point. The point is: what subsequent message is sent to the rest of the international community, those who have signed but not yet ratified the statute, when it comes to an interpretation that might be placed on it through these two particular clauses that in fact a power of national veto exists within the statute which could then be copied by states with a very dubious human rights record, unlike the human rights record of Australia over the last century and during its membership of the United Nations?It would be unfortunate in the extreme for Australia to send a message and to set a precedent around the world which conveyed to jurisdictions that might in the future seek to hide within their sovereignty the Milosevics and Pol Pots of this world the idea that an absolute discretion on the part of that national jurisdiction's Attorney-General, based on an identical form of language, could prevent such a criminal, or alleged criminal, from being handed over to the ICC. Specifically, therefore, what we seek from the Attorney-General is a clarification that this discretion will only be exercised in accordance with Australia's fundamental obligations arising from the body of the Rome statute, from Australia's obligations under parts 3 and 4 of the bill and from Australia's obligations under the object section of the bill as well—specifically, object 3(1). These are critical as far as the opposition's view of these matters is concerned—critical for us, for the parliament, for the country and for the international community.I began by referring to Evatt and I would conclude with some observations of Evatt as well. Evatt said to this parliament 53 years ago, reflecting on the multilateral system:It is not difficult to find some flaws in the Charter itself. Neither would it be difficult to prove that the machinery of the United Nations is not being used as effectively as it might. The important thing, however, is that a Charter does now exist, and that a world organization has been set up under which the habit of international conciliation and consultation can and must be developed. It is the duty of all of us to encourage the habit of reference to the United Nations ...Australia has consistently maintained the view that the United Nations organisation should be given the fullest possible support by each member. While the ICC is not formally a UN body, it will be part of the multilateral system based on the UN. The ICC is not perfect; it is flawed. But the opposition would wish it well in its future mission on behalf of our common humanity. (Time expired)17:58:004336Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—Naturally, I join with my learned friend and colleague the Attorney-General in supporting the International Criminal Court Bill 2002 and the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002. I would like to say how much I particularly appreciate his help and support in making it possible for Australia to accede to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. I note that the opposition spokesman on foreign affairs criticises the government for spending time consulting not only with the coalition members and senators but also with two parliamentary committees—the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. We make no apology for that. We think the approach taken by the Keating government, in particular, and by other previous governments to the whole question of ratification of treaties was appalling, and it undermined very substantially domestic support for a lot of the international instruments that Australia has acceded to. This government has worked very hard on transparency and consultation, not just with the parliament but also with people in the Australian community who are interested in these matters. The honourable member for Griffith bleats that he was not able to see the bills until recently. In fact, on the contrary, exposure drafts of these bills were presented to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in August last year. I cannot be held responsible for a person who does not do his homework. Talking of homework, I was disappointed that the first 20 minutes of the opposition spokesman's speech were extremely familiar. It sounded to me as though he was just reading out the speech he made at the Australia New Zealand Society of International Law conferencea week or so ago. I think this issue deserves a great deal more than just a repeat of a speech already made.The establishment of the International Criminal Court has been a long-term foreign policy objective and human rights commitment of this government. The adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Courton 17 July 1998 represented the culmination of a century-long search for the political will and the appropriate international framework for a permanent international tribunal to investigate and prosecute the worst crimes of international concern: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Australia played no small role in achieving this goal. It is therefore right and proper that parliament should now place the final seal on Australia's commitment to the International Criminal Court by passing legislation that will enable Australia to ratify the statute.In recognition of the role that Australia had played to that point in laying the groundwork for the final negotiations on the statute, I was given the honour of making the opening statement to the diplomatic conference in Rome that adopted the statute. I made it a matter of personal concern that the Australia delegation should maintain this high profile. I still remember receiving a call at 3 a.m. from Australia's delegation leader, Richard Rowe, who is an extraordinarily able officer in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, for final instructions prior to the adoption of the statute. It may seem a brave thing for a public servant to wake his minister at 3 a.m. but, in relation to the International Criminal Court, it would have been far worse for him not to have called. Australia's profile was further recognised during the Rome conference when we were asked to chair the like-minded group, the key negotiating group of over 60 countries that was instrumental in shaping the statute. Australia continues to chair the like-minded group, which has been committed to the establishment of a credible and effective court. We have used the leverage this profile has given us to ensure that Australian values are reflected in the court's statute and in its supplementary instruments, particularly the elements of crimes and the rules of procedure and evidence.In my address to the diplomatic conference, I referred to the 20th century as `the schizophrenic century', because it contained the brightest achievements of human endeavour with the darkest atrocities of institutionalised cruelty. In the face of such barbarity, the conscience of the international community forced it, in the most egregious cases, to establish ad hoc criminal tribunals to prosecute and punish perpetrators. These ad hoc tribunals, such as the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials and the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, provided a measure of justice for the victims of atrocities. But, coming after the event, they played no role in deterring the atrocities in the first place and thus justice came too late for the millions of victims. It was not only the ex post facto nature of these tribunals that created problems for proper international justice. Their ad hoc nature—meaning that they were established in relation to specific atrocities—made them prey to accusations of victors' justice or unequal treatment. Why have tribunals for these atrocities and not for others? The most telling failure of this model is the failure, after several years of negotiation between the United Nations and the government of Cambodia, to establish a tribunal to prosecute the leaders of the Khmer Rouge for the killing fields and other atrocities during Pol Pot's regime.The International Criminal Court will not suffer from these failings. It will be a permanent institution. Any would-be despot or tyrant will now need to think twice before embarking on the kind of career that made butchers like Hitler, Idi Amin and Pol Pot infamous. Any popular leaders who hitherto may have believed that power and political influence were obtainable and sustainable through systematic brutality—killings, maimings and rape—will now need to factor in a far greater probability of being held accountable for their acts. The culture of impunity has been replaced by a culture of accountability.The true power of the International Criminal Court in creating a genuine international culture of accountability does not lie in its ability to investigate and prosecute crimes itself. From the political perspective, that is really the court's secondary function. The primary purpose of its existence is to be a permanent reminder to states that it is their responsibility, and not the responsibility of the court, to investigate, prosecute and punish atrocities committed on their territory or by their nationals. This powerful political function is inherent in the court's principle of complementarity. The court is there to complement, not to replace or override, national jurisdictions. When a particular crime is being, or has been, genuinely investigated or prosecuted by a state, the court has no role to play at all. It is only when the justice system of a state has broken down or a corrupt regime cynically uses a tame justice system to conduct fake prosecutions that a case even becomes admissible before the court.When the government ratifies the statute, it will make a declaration reinforcing the primacy of Australia's jurisdiction. This declaration is perfectly consistent with the statute and with the government's long-term commitment to the court. It has to do with the sovereignty of Australia. It is a statement that we accept the responsibility for the prosecution of atrocities in Australia or by Australians as our own. Such a declaration should be seen by the international community as an affirmation of the complementary role of the court and as a signal from Australia that we hold ourselves accountable for the administration of justice in Australia. But in a very real sense the existence of the court, and the international culture of accountability that it will steadily establish and entrench over time, will itself reinforce Australian sovereignty.The crimes that come within the statute are the crimes that lead to a breakdown in international peace and security, that prolong conflicts and lead to civil strife and that displace hundreds of thousands of people across borders, thus leading to further instability in neighbouring countries. These phenomena and their tragic aftermath touch Australia directly today in the disruption to Australian trade, in the necessity to deploy Australian soldiers abroad and in increased flows of asylum seekers. Even a small reduction in their incidence strengthens Australia by reducing threats to our national security, to our forces and to our borders.In conclusion, I would like to recognise the role played by a number of people in making Australia's accession to this statute possible. I would like to recognise the role played by the member for Curtin, as the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. She has done a very sound job, and she has been a very committed and a very hardworking member of this House in the work that she has done. Her efforts in conducting numerous public hearings into the ICC and in bringing the committee together in a unanimous recommendation in favour of ratification have helped make this day possible. I would also like to recognise the member for Flinders, who was on my personal staff at the time of the Rome conference in 1998 and who, frankly, has continued to play an important role in this issue during his brief time as a member of parliament. Also, I would like to pay tribute to the Attorney-General, as I did at the beginning of my speech, because he too has been instrumental in making all of this possible. In the last minute or two available to me, let me say this: it is claimed sometimes that this government is not committed to any multilateralism whatsoever, that we reject multilateralism, whereas the truth is that we promote Australia's national interests and, where multilateral institutions are useful to do that, we pursue those interests. We have done so through the World Trade Organisation, through the extraordinary job this government did in making the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty possible when we brought it to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1996 and had it voted in and, as I have explained in this speech, through our work in making possible the establishment of an international criminal court. No amount of falsified and exaggerated rhetoric will ever detract from the truth of the simply extraordinary things the government has been able to do in the multilateral as well as the bilateral sphere over the last few years.In ratifying the International Criminal Court, Australia will join almost 70 other nations that have already committed themselves to the court—a membership covering all geographic regions of the world. In the coming years, this number is likely to top 100. As I said at the outset, our joining their number is only fitting, as we played a significant role, through our chairing of the like-minded group and through our international diplomacy, in leading these nations to the formation of the court.18:11:004338McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I acknowledge in the presence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he did make a tremendous effort in the ratification of the Rome statute and also in the development of the International Criminal Court Bill 2002 and the passage of it through the government party room. While acknowledging that, I must say that—and this is in response to the minister's comments towards the end—it is a shame that this government has retreated from the role that Australia could play in the international arena. I think it is fair to say that in modern history, at least since the Second World War, Australia has well and truly played above its weight on the international stage. I have some pride in the international efforts of the late Dr Evatt—and, I suppose, it is because he was the member for Barton at the time—and his role in the establishment of the United Nations and his role in the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promoting in particular not only the reference to political and civil rights but also the reference to socioeconomic rights. He was a statesman, irrespective of personal idiosyncrasies, and we have had a number of statespersons since that time. As a result of their efforts—which we should acknowledge in this House—Australia has well and truly been able to play on the first grade field where, without those efforts, our size and our location would have meant otherwise. In other words, we have achieved tremendous international success as a result of the skill, the effort and the dedication of a number of individuals.While at the outset I acknowledged the contribution of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and also the Attorney-General, I am the first to acknowledge that different political pressures within political parties can impede decisions. I think, however, that they are still recovering on the international stage from the government's three-person performance, with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, where they attacked international bodies because they dared to criticise Australia. We can all take on board the make-up of international bodies, their procedures and so forth, but the appropriate course of action is to pay arguments their due respect, note the response to those arguments and do what you can to address any problems that you perceive in procedures. While acknowledging the efforts of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I regret to say that his attack on international institutions has been somewhat opportunistic. In the national interest, I would like to see him desist from that and work on re-establishing Australia's reputation as not a major power but a significant power because of our determination, our dedication, our balance and our effort. All these things have given Australia tremendous diplomatic influence. Commonsense suggests that, if you have that diplomatic influence, all kinds of other benefits will come to the Australian community, including economic benefits.Addressing the alarm in the community with respect to this bill: the bill does not usurp Australia's sovereignty. The precondition to exercise of the jurisdiction is that the domestic country is unable or unwilling to deal with matters that are before it in terms of these very serious crimes against humanity. We are effectively talking about non-states. We are not talking about the states of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain or the European nations; we are talking about non-states such as Somalia and East Timor after the Indonesian forces moved out. We are talking about an absence of law. An absence of the rule of law is effectively the pre-condition to the International Criminal Court having jurisdiction.I want to dismiss very firmly the notion that in some way this International Criminal Court will apply to trivial circumstances or to circumstances of political controversy. It has been suggested, for instance, that it may apply to the government's decided policy in respect of refugees. That clearly is a fallacy. The preamble to the Rome statute indicates that the whole purpose of the International Criminal Court will be to address `the most serious of crimes' and not pedantry, as some people have insulted us by suggesting in their arguments against the bill.The preamble is an acknowledgment by the international community—and we literally see it on television these days—that during this century millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity. We have all seen that. You have two choices, quite frankly: you can say, `Well, I'm here in Australia safe and secure, and that's a terrible shame,' or you can get in there with the international community and do something about it. That is precisely why the International Criminal Court has been established.In perhaps even more dramatic times—after the Second World War as compared with the time we are looking at, which is after the terrorist attacks in New York—the international community said, `We've got to come together.' There has been tremendous oppression and injustice in the world. As an international community, we need to do something about it not only because of the morality but literally because it is in our interest to do so. Oppression, the denial of rights, the suppression of humanity—indeed, the committing of atrocities against humanity—inevitably breeds conflict. In these days of international communication and travel, conflict inevitably affects the globe. I think it is fair to say that the most controversial issue within the Australian political system is that of asylum seekers. Clearly, most of those who are seeking asylum in Australia come here because of some conflict. The origins of those conflicts inevitably lie in some abuse of human rights and, in worst case scenarios, in some unimaginable crimes against the people who have come here.The other thing I want to address in this speech is the view that in some way the International Criminal Court is going to prevent our military from undertaking the role that they have performed with great distinction as peacekeepers and that we would in some way be putting them at risk of prosecution under this court. The military has rejected that argument. In fairness to the Minister for Defence, Senator Hill—a fellow for whom I have some respect—has also dismissed that argument as being fanciful. In fact, the military very much supports Australia's ratification of this treaty and the legislation necessary for that to occur. My colleague Kevin Rudd has referred to the reservations of the government. I endorse his comments. The opposition do have some concerns with regard to those reservations but, in the national interest, we think it is vitally important that this parliament passes the legislation this week so that Australia again can have a role in the establishment of the court. Quite frankly, there is any number of eminent Australians who could serve on the court with great distinction.Returning to this argument as to the position of the Australian military, they argue, and it has to be commonsense, that the mere existence of the court and the fact that there are these highly skilled, highly trained prosecutors attached to the court will be a disincentive to those countries who might otherwise commit their own atrocities against Australian forces if they fall into captive hands. So there is already a disincentive. The court will have a disincentive towards nations that we may come into conflict with and which may capture Australian forces. They point out, for instance, on the reverse side of the equation, the history of the Korean conflicts and the conflicts in Vietnam, where Australian servicemen were held in very spurious circumstances, having allegations made against them that they committed atrocities—that they were the perpetrators of crimes against humanity or were the perpetrators of war crimes. They were held on very spurious grounds rather than being treated as legitimate prisoners of war under the Geneva conventions. The military points out that, if that argument was made after the establishment of the court, the international community could say, `All right, you've got your allegations, you've got your arguments to that effect, but the appropriate place for those to be resolved is in the international court, not in your kangaroo court.' That is the second argument that the military point to.Again, I come back to the issue of the jurisdiction of the court being activated only in circumstances where the domestic state is incapable or unable to prosecute and try people—it is focused on individuals—for offences that they commit. The military points out that, if there were any transgression of these international principles of decency by Australian troops, then inevitably they would be tried under Australian law and, quite frankly, the existence of the International Criminal Court would be irrelevant to that process. Once they are tried, even if acquitted, the court has no jurisdiction.The military also points out the reality of occupation forces in countries such as Somalia and, again, East Timor, where there is an absence of prosecutors and an absence of a legal system. The military actually have to get in there and build the legal systems, with prosecutors. That in itself obviously takes up resources and time. The fact that someone is arrested or detained by the military inevitably is a source of drawing in further conflict. They quite properly say that, if they can get, for instance, the warlords in Somalia out of the equation—take them out of the country—you remove at that point a source of conflict. Also, if you take the example of East Timor, a tremendous amount of valuable work was done by the Australian defence forces in collecting and preserving evidence for subsequent prosecutions for war crimes. Again, the military points out that, if you have the expertise of prosecutors attached to the International Criminal Court, it would relieve them of that responsibility and they could focus more on building the infrastructure of the nation.All these reasons unquestionably indicate that the Australian parliament is doing the right thing by passing this legislation. Clearly, it needs to be done urgently. It is regrettable that it is being left to the eleventh hour. It needs to be done. All we are saying is, `Look, there is a great opportunity for this nation to develop and build upon the reputation we already have.' This government, quite frankly, is letting the side down—the side being the Australian people. You have to do better than this. This is important, but it really should have been done in a much better way.18:27:004340Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—On 1 July 2002 the International Criminal Court will be established, with the International Criminal Court statute coming into effect as of that date. The creation of this first permanent international criminal tribunal is a historically profound achievement. Australia joins at least 67 other independent sovereign nations, acting collectively in taking a stand against the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes known to humanity. The idea of an international criminal court is not new. In fact, it has been mooted at various times throughout the past 100 years or more; not surprisingly perhaps, given that the 20th century may well be remembered as the most bloody and violent century in recorded history—a century littered with a litany of inhumanity and cruelty on a massive scale, often involving nonmilitary personnel; civilians, including women and children. A consideration of just some of the gross atrocities committed in decades past, where the perpetrators have largely escaped justice and have proceeded in the expectation that they would not be brought to account for their crimes, ought to be reason enough for Australia to support this effort on the part of the international community to cultivate a culture of accountability. The catalogue of crimes, as incomplete as it is, will be a grave reminder of why an international criminal court is necessary: the acts of genocide in Armenia, the Holocaust, Rwanda and the killing fields of Cambodia; the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo; the death squads in Bolivia, El Salvador and the Argentine; the acts of torture in Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union; the forced removals in East Timor. These have all passed; there is little to be done now, except to act to deter future criminal acts of this nature, to deter those who would otherwise act with impunity.The world was appalled by the atrocities committed during World War II. The international community supported tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo to deal with some of the crimes. A body of international law evolved, together with a number of conventions—the 1948 genocide convention, the 1949 Geneva conventions and, more recently, the 1984 convention on torture—but there was no permanent international mechanism to enforce this body of international law. After the establishment of the two ad hoc tribunals regarding Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the international community met in Rome in 1998.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—Before the break, I had mentioned that it was after the establishment of the two ad hoc tribunals regarding Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia that the international diplomatic community met in Rome in 1998 and 120 nations voted in favour of signing a draft statute to establish a permanent International Criminal Court. Australia was an early and vocal supporter of the statute. The Australian delegation has taken an active role in the drafting of the statute, as well as the rules of procedure and evidence and the elements of crime, which are still to be adopted by the assembly of states parties. It is worthwhile noting that United Nations bureaucrats have not drafted this statute; it represents the collective effort of the signatory states acting with the authority of their respective governments. Australia chaired, and still chairs, the like-minded group of about 60 or 70 nations that are committed to the early establishment of the court. I congratulate our Minister for Foreign Affairs for his unswerving and personal commitment over many years to this most laudable objective on the part of the international community. I applaud the efforts of the minister and those of the Attorney-General in their dedication to what will hopefully become the most effective institution in the prosecution of egregious international crimes. I acknowledge our minister's efforts to encourage our accession, and that of like-minded nations, to this statute for the more countries that ratify the more effective will be its operations. Turning to the ICC statute itself, its objective is to establish this permanent International Criminal Court whereby those accused of, or who have committed, one or more of the three crimes covered by the statute—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity—will, as from 1 July 2002, be able to be brought to justice. The intent of the statute is to ensure that each ratifying state has the primary obligation and the primary jurisdiction to handle matters involving its nationals or crimes committed in its territory within its own domestic laws. It is a two-tiered approach. At the first level, the ratifying states have primacy of jurisdiction. So for Australia this means that we will implement laws into our domestic legal system—the bills that are currently before the House—that reflect the crimes covered by the International Criminal Court. We will have primary responsibility to deal with our nationals or with crimes committed on our territory. We will investigate and, if necessary, prosecute such crimes in our country under our laws with all the protections and safeguards of our legal system. The second level of the two-tier system is complementary to state laws—that is, it is the permanent International Criminal Court itself as part of a backup regime. So if all else were to fail, the International Criminal Court could step in to investigate and, if the evidence were available, could prosecute these three crimes. This is the complementarity principle. The International Criminal Court can only take a role if a matter is referred to the court by a state or by the Security Council of the United Nations, or if a matter is referred to the prosecutor of the court. The prosecutor does not have unfettered discretion to proceed. For example, if a matter is currently being investigated by the state with primary responsibility to do so, the ICC cannot intervene. If a state investigates and then decides not to prosecute, the ICC cannot override that decision. If the state prosecutes and there is an acquittal, the ICC still has no role whether or not it agrees with the outcome. It is not an appeal court; it is not part of Australia's law. It is not a court of appeal for Australia. The only circumstances where a prosecutor could act is if he or she is able to convince a three-judge pre-trial tribunal that the state with primary responsibility is unable or unwilling to act—unable in the sense that its legal system has been disabled or it has no legal system and unwilling in the sense that the state refuses to investigate or conducts a sham investigation or a fictitious trial to shield someone who ought otherwise be investigated or prosecuted. I cannot conceive of a circumstance where the Australian military or civilian legal systems would be unable or genuinely unwilling to handle these investigations or prosecutions within our system of law. The International Criminal Court Bill 2002 and the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 before the House this evening enact the domestic laws to reflect the crimes set out in the International Criminal Court statute, enabling Australia to be in a position to deal with the investigation and prosecution of these crimes within the Australian legal system. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties conducted an exhaustive inquiry into the merits of the International Criminal Court statute and considered the draft legislation now effectively contained in these bills. I note that the government has accepted virtually all of the 11 recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, including a declaration reaffirming Australia's primacy of jurisdiction and a requirement that there be an annual report on the activities and operations of the International Criminal Court to be tabled in the Australian parliament. As Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I am delighted with the government's response to our report and our decision to ratify as soon as possible. I am satisfied that ratification of the International Criminal Court statute is in Australia's national interest not only because it is in Australia's security interest to support efforts by the international community to maintain international peace and security—as evidenced by the overwhelming support of the Australian defence forces for this initiative—but also because it is in our national interest for a society such as ours, with the values that we hold, to take a stand against gross violations of human rights. Australians abhor acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. One only has to recall the collective Australian response to the human rights violations we witnessed in East Timor shown on our TV screens not so long ago. It was not so much—in fact, not even—a concern for regional security, but the response was that of outraged humanity. This cause deserves the unequivocal support of both houses. I urge passage of these bills through the parliament so that Australia is in a position to ratify the International Criminal Court statute by 1 July 2002. Australia should seek to continue to play an active role in the development and the ongoing operations of the International Criminal Court. I commend these bills to the House. 20:07:004343Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I start by commending the member for Curtin for her actions as the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and in support of the statute and the ratification of the treaty. On Thursday evening I will have the pleasure of attending a reception hosted by the ambassador of the Netherlands. The occasion is to celebrate the establishment of the International Criminal Court. I will attend, along with my colleague the member for Griffith, proud of the role that Labor has played in bringing about Australia's ratification of the treaty, resulting in Australia being one of the members of the International Criminal Court. I will also attend with a degree of embarrassment: I will be embarrassed about the way this government has handled Australia's membership of this body and embarrassed about the complete absence of leadership by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General on an issue that the government had publicly promoted and developed during the last six years. The foreign minister says that this treaty was held up because of the consultation process. That is a blatant porky. This legislation has been held up by dissent within the coalition's own ranks. I noted the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs interjecting earlier, before the suspension of the sitting for dinner; I wonder which way the National Party voted at the joint party meeting on this particular issue. I note that there are no members of the National Party speaking on the treaty. I have spoken on several occasions in the course of this parliament about the government's mismanagement of its legislative program. Nothing has changed. 0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr Bartlett—Aren't you committed to this treaty? Speak to this treaty.84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE—What a farcical situation—that in the last three sitting days before the treaty must be ratified, the government finally introduces the enabling legislation! This situation exists despite the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General, as far back as December 1999, proclaiming that the government would introduce enabling legislation so that the treaty could be ratified. I wonder what sort of message Australia sends to the international community when we have a foreign minister who travels the world advocating for the International Criminal Court but we wait until the last possible moment to ratify it. One of the loudest opponents of Australia joining the International Criminal Court has been the member for Mackellar, but she seems to have only found a voice in the last few weeks. I wonder whether Bronnie is getting her revenge—and I refer to an article by Malcolm Farr entitled `Bronwyn's revenge'. We did not hear one word from her during the last six years, when the foreign minister, the Attorney-General and the former Minister for Defence were all strongly advocating Australia's membership of the International Criminal Court. It is not as if the government's position on the International Criminal Court was not clear, given the number of times the foreign minister has spoken on it. How strange it is that we obviously misunderstood the foreign minister! For example, the meaning behind the following statement by the foreign minister:That is why I want to make this one of the Government's prime multilateral and human rights objectives in the next two years. The world needs an International Criminal Court and Australia is uniquely placed to help deliver it—could obviously be misunderstood! How silly that the opposition took this to mean that the government was committed to the International Criminal Court and that, as a member of the government, this might also include the commitment of the member for Mackellar! With all that time on her hands since being dumped from the ministry, the member for Mackellar obviously found her very own road to Damascus on the International Criminal Court and has launched a last-ditch bid to protect Australia's sovereignty.0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr Bartlett—Say something positive about the court. Come on!10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—The member for Macquarie will be able to participate in the debate very soon. 84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE—But again you have to ask the question: where has she been for the last six years? The member did not bother making a submission to the inquiries undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the very committee that this government trumpets as being the great consultative mechanism for recommending whether or not Australia should ratify international treaties. For some reason in the last few weeks the member for Mackellar has had a bee in her beehive. Bronwyn is getting her revenge, isn't she?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I ask you to refer to members by their correct title or seat.84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE—No ocean is too deep to dive into and no continent is too wide to cross for the member for Mackellar in her crusade for revenge masked as a so-called quest to preserve Australia's sovereignty. Such is the member's commitment to protecting Australia's sovereignty and opposing the International Criminal Court that she is not even in the chamber this evening to be part of this debate. In fact, she is not even listed to participate in the debate on this bill. What a magnificent commitment that demonstrates!But the simple fact is that the member for Mackellar and her extremist mates were wrong. Joining the International Criminal Court will not derogate Australia's sovereignty—quite the opposite, it will enhance it. If the member for Mackellar had been interested in being a worthwhile contributor to the debate about the court, she should have at least bothered to get her facts straight. The best way for Australia to ensure the court operates to the highest standards is by being part of it. If we are not part of it, we cannot influence the procedures or elect the judges or prosecutors.Opponents of ratification have stated that they were influenced by their concern for our Defence Force personnel, and this position was echoed by government backbenchers last week. They do not place much faith in the standard of our defence forces. For several reasons, it is highly unlikely that an Australian soldier would ever be brought before the International Criminal Court. Also, with the number of nations that are signatories to the court, the weight of international opinion means that vexatious prosecutions would be highly unlikely. Training for our Defence Force personnel includes instruction in the laws of armed conflict. This means that our Defence Force personnel know what is acceptable in these situations. The ADF has a long history of professionalism, having served in 11 different theatres of war without any accusations of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. I have the utmost faith in our defence personnel to apply their training and act appropriately in conflict situations.The member for Mackellar and the rest of the extreme right-wing rabble that is almost half of the government backbench—and I remember that this was only passed by two votes, from what I heard—would have done themselves and their constituents a service if they had read accounts of the ADF personnel who served in Rwanda. Many witnessed atrocities but were powerless to intervene and knew nothing would be done to bring the perpetrators to account. They knew nothing would be done because, at the time, no permanent international instrumentality existed. The situation would be remedied by the creation of the International Criminal Court. This bill also enables Australia to deal with any nationals who may be charged with these crimes by placing them under Australian law and providing for Australia to deal with any perpetrator in Australia. Currently, this is not the case. Given the high esteem in which Australia's legal system is held around the world, if it got to the stage that the international community still felt it necessary to try an Australian before the International Criminal Court then it strikes me that there would be very good reason do so. But that is hypothetical. As I have said, I am confident that it is unlikely that any Australian would ever face that situation. Just over a year ago, in a media release, the Attorney-General said:Today I challenged the scaremongers who would derail the important international initiative to establish an International Criminal Court by debunking some of the myths that have been circulated about the ICC ... Contrary to the fear campaign being waged against the ICC, it will not undermine Australia's sovereignty ... That was a pretty unequivocal position from the Attorney-General. However, the Attorney-General has been conspicuously absent from the debate in the last few weeks. He has said nothing in response to the scaremongers amongst his own ranks. Obviously, his debunking days are over.The hypocrisy and the political games did not end with the member for Mackellar. We have witnessed the response of other government members when this issue has been debated in the parliament. The foreign minister treats questions from the member for Griffith as a source of amusement, adopting a trite response that became the standard for former defence minister John Moore. The foreign minister jokingly claimed that the government's position in relation to the ICC was well known, except it took all of last week for the government to actually reach a position.We all know how regularly and how forcefully the foreign minister has argued in favour of the ICC in the last six years. Two weeks before the deadline to sign up to the court, the foreign minister obviously thought he had said enough on this issue. He even lacked the intestinal fortitude to respond to a matter of public importance last week on this issue and the government's performance on international relations. Instead, we saw the brains trust of the National Party, the minister for science, trotted out to try and defend the foreign minister and the government's record. He treated the issue with the same level of importance—again, as though it were some kind of joke. It is strange that he made not one mention of the International Criminal Court. But this has been typical. When the government has had time allocated to it in parliament to outline its position on the ICC, it has run away and hidden. Clearly, the minister for science has such a limited grasp of international relations that he even has trouble understanding some of the terminology. The minister may wish to consult a dictionary and familiarise himself with the difference between a rapporteur and a raconteur.Then there was the member for Flinders, who described Labor's position as a failed and irresponsible opposition foreign policy. Labor's consistent support for the International Criminal Court is a `failed and irresponsible foreign policy'? Labor's consistent support for a permanent international court to prosecute the perpetrators of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity is a `failed and irresponsible foreign policy'? Like the minister for science, the member for Flinders referred to every single foreign policy issue he could think of except the International Criminal Court. To the government, it was some kind of joke. Labor does not consider an international instrumentality to prosecute war criminals to be a source of amusement. It is part of Labor's historically strong support for a foreign policy based on multilateral engagement.My colleague the member for Griffith recently addressed the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law and very clearly outlined just how Labor and this government differ in their approaches to multilateral engagement. For Labor, multilateral engagement has been a central pillar of our foreign policy since foreign minister Evatt led Australia's efforts in the creation of the United Nations. Until the election of this government, multilateral engagement enjoyed bipartisan support, simply because it was in the national interest to do so. Successive governments recognised that Australia had an ongoing role to play in supporting and developing international agencies. It was an issue that was almost off-limits from party politics—that is, until the Howard government came along.The government's approach to the International Criminal Court needs to be put in that context because it clearly demonstrates the government's approach to multilateral engagement in general. Opposition to multilateral engagement in general and the International Criminal Court in particular have been used as tools to further the government's domestic agenda. It is simple wedge politics. The government has consistently attacked multilateral agencies and agreements by claiming that they will compromise the role of the sovereign government—as a means of furthering its own domestic agenda at the expense of furthering the national interest and at great cost to Australia's international reputation. In this instance, it is Australia's international reputation on the deterrence and prosecution of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity that has been tarnished. Finally, the role the Prime Minister on this issue must not be overlooked. In recent weeks, he has demonstrated an appalling lack of leadership. Last week, he came close to being rolled by his own backbench. The government was so divided—0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr Bartlett—What nonsense! You do not know what you are talking about.84GWilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE—Try and deny that the party room of the Liberal-National Party almost had this minister defeated by two votes. That shows a lot of commitment on behalf of the government! The government was so divided that the different factions had to count the numbers to see which way the vote would go, and members had threatened to cross the floor.I remind the House that this issue is whether or not Australia should be a party to a permanent international instrumentality to deter and prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. These crimes, according to Professor Rummel from the University of Hawaii—who has made a study of genocide and democide—have seen 169,198,000 people murdered from 1900 to 1987, and we had the government treating this issue with contempt. This government had to do the numbers to see where it stood on war crimes and whether it could even get this treaty approved. Shame on this government!A Prime Minister capable of leadership would have pulled his party room into line. The Prime Minister finally realised he had to support the International Criminal Court because it was the only way to save the bacon of his foreign minister and the Attorney-General. His support for ratification of the treaty is not based on a fundamental belief in the importance of the court; rather, it is based on short-term domestic political considerations. He dressed up his public statement that Australia would support the court with a declaration statement that was nothing more than a restatement of the statute. While the Prime Minister tried to make out that his declaration statement represents significant concessions to the statute, it is nothing more than a political smokescreen. The only reason Australia will become a member of the International Criminal Court is the pressure Labor has brought upon the government in recent months. Labor has shown its consistent support for Australia's ongoing multilateral engagements, a unified position within its party room and, most significantly, its belief in the importance of a permanent international instrumentality to deter and prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.I am proud to have played a role in advancing Australia's national interest through support for the International Criminal Court by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I also recognise that the changes to this legislation announced by the Prime Minister largely reflect the recommendations put forward by the treaties committee. Some of these changes were submitted for our consideration only a short time ago. To avoid further international embarrassment, my sincere hope is that they reflect the majority report of the treaties committee and are not contrary to the statute. The law we are passing today, makes assaults on our common humanity the common business of mankind. Today, reasoned argument has prevailed over ill-informed scaremongering. Today, the Australian parliament will legislate its position, albeit not as clearly as it could be, against war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. I am proud that we have done so and I commend the bill to the House.20:22:004346Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Let me preface my remarks in the debate on the International Criminal Court Bill 2002 and the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 by saying how disappointed I am with the speech by the member for Swan. He was far more interested in trying to score pathetic, cheap political points than in advocating in a genuine or passionate way that we ratify the treaty to establish the International Criminal Court. For the last two years I sat with the member for Swan on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties trying to come to grips with the complex issues involved, and I am very disappointed that he allowed his speech to descend to such a pathetic effort. Over 50 years ago following the post World War II Nuremberg and Tokyo war trials, the international community seriously considered the establishment of an international court to try those guilty of the grossest atrocities against humanity. Since then, there had been little progress, at least until quite recently. Time after time, the world has been horrified by the most appalling atrocities in countries such as Rwanda, Cambodia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Iraq, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Burundi and East Timor, to name but a few. Apart from the successful establishment of ad hoc tribunals to bring to justice the perpetrators of these atrocities in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, very little has been achieved. On only two occasions since World War II had the Security Council agreed to establish such tribunals. In the words of the submission by the Australian Red Cross to the treaties committee's hearings, in that time the world has seen:... a myriad of atrocities in other parts of the world ... and a litany of ineffective prosecutions, cover-ups, token inquiries and court martials and often pathetically lenient sentences. Judicial processes have been followed in a small minority of cases.The establishment of a permanent international court is a very positive step forward in this regard. As the Rt. Hon. Sir Ninian Stephen pointed out in a speech earlier this year at the University of Melbourne:There can be no doubt but that, once up and running, it will be the single most effective instrument in the enforcement of international humanitarian law. Its jurisdiction will be world-wide and its existence will ensure a new factor in humanitarian law and a new effectiveness.The point is that the existence of a permanent court, while no panacea, will certainly be a very substantial improvement. It will avoid the difficult, lengthy and often failed process of trying to establish an ad hoc tribunal. Its permanent existence will provide greater deterrent value than ad hoc retrospective tribunals. It provides for the development of more consistent jurisdictional standards and it is less likely to be affected by current political issues that may affect attempts to establish an ad hoc tribunal—thus its support from a broad cross-section of the Australian community and most of the world's Western democracies. The Australian Red Cross said in one of its submissions to the committee:As an institution, Australian Red Cross strongly believes that the ICC is not only viable but an essential step towards international justice ... The creation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court in Rome in July 1998 is the culmination of years of effort and indicates the resolve of the international community to ensure that those who commit grave crimes do not go unpunished.The Australian Red Cross went on to say:The Australian Red Cross was proud of the progressive and constructive role the Australia Government played at all levels of the negotiations to create the treaty.Much of the debate has focused on concerns about Australia's sovereignty. This is an issue which is not to be dismissed lightly and which was the subject of considerable attention by the treaties committee. In response to these concerns the following points need to be made. Firstly, the ICC's operation is based entirely on the principle of complementarity—that is, the jurisdiction of the ICC will be invoked only if a member state's judicial system is genuinely unable or unwilling to prosecute an alleged perpetrator of one of the listed crimes. It cannot interfere in the affairs of Australia if Australia exercises its proper jurisdiction. To further reinforce this point and to give clear notice to other countries, Australia has made a very strong declaration of the primacy of Australia's own legal system. To quote the declaration:Nothing in the bill affects the primacy of Australia's right to exercise its jurisdiction with respect to crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC.Further, contrary to what is frequently argued, the ICC cannot operate as a court of appeal above the Australian judicial system. Once an Australian court has properly heard a case, there is no right of appeal to the ICC. The Australian legal system has primacy and the final say.Secondly, concerns have been expressed about the definitions of the crime of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This addresses concerns that some have that the ICC may over time develop or evolve a jurisprudence that includes a broader definition of those crimes than was initially intended. For this reason, Australia's enabling legislation—the bill before us—very clearly defines these crimes. Further, our statement of declaration clearly states that the crimes to be tried by the ICC will be interpreted and applied only in a way that accords with these definitions and the way they are implemented in Australian law. Thirdly, in order to further protect our sovereignty, the Australian declaration includes a statement ensuring that no Australian accused of a crime can be arrested by a warrant of the court or surrender to the court without the written consent of the Attorney-General and no proceedings are to commence against an Australian without such consent. Thus Australia will have the final say in whether or not an Australian citizen appears before the International Criminal Court.Fourthly, there is the possible threat to Australian defence forces serving overseas. It has been suggested that they may be subject to action in the ICC on allegations regarding war crimes or other listed crimes committed while on active service overseas. The facts are actually the reverse. If Australia were not a party to the treaty, an Australian serviceman accused of a war crime in a state which is a party could be seized and tried under the International Criminal Court. However, if Australia is a member of this court and a signatory to the treaty, then that person must be subjected to the primacy of the Australian legal system. In simple terms, membership provides greater protection for members of the Australian defence forces. In this context it is worth noting that the former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Admiral Barrie, and the current Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Lieutenant General Peter Cosgrove, have both publicly supported ratification by Australia of the ICC. It is their view that ratification is to the benefit of Australia's defence personnel serving overseas.Fifthly, another safeguard is incorporated into the annual review process. The treaties committee recommended that the Australian government, pursuant to its ratification of the statute, table in parliament annual reports on the operation of the International Criminal Court and, in particular, the impact on Australia's legal system; and that these annual reports stand referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, supplemented by additional members of the House of Representatives and senators, if required, for public inquiry. The government has agreed in this legislation to an annual report to parliament to ensure this high level of scrutiny.Sixthly, there is the concern relating to Australian sovereignty. The ultimate protection for Australia's sovereignty is that if somehow, unexpectedly, the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court evolves in any way which may be contrary to Australia's interests and which may be outside the original intentions of the court, Australia can then exercise its rights under article 127 and withdraw from the treaty with one year's notice. These concerns have been expressed by a number of people. I have no doubt that they are genuinely held but I believe that the declaration and the definitions included in this legislation clearly address those issues and they no longer need to be such a concern. In conclusion, I believe the strengths of this treaty and the fears about it have both been overstated to a certain extent. Certainly I believe that the fears have been substantially overstated. This has no doubt been a very difficult issue for many people to decide upon. There are strong competing, convincing arguments on both sides. We certainly had strong arguments put to the treaties committee both for and against Australia's ratification. For some, the debate has been characterised as one of sovereignty versus justice. However, there is strong protection of Australia's national sovereignty. I am convinced of that.In the final analysis, the question is: what is right? What is the right thing to do? How can we express revulsion at the gravest atrocities—genocide and war crimes; the vilest crimes against humanity—and yet refuse to be part of a concerted attempt by leading democratic countries to do something about them? How can we in Australia turn a blind eye to these atrocities and pretend they have not occurred? How can we dismiss them as someone else's responsibility? How can we, on the one hand, condemn the perpetrators—Milosevic, Pol Pot, Mugabe and many others—and yet, on the other hand, abrogate any responsibility to try and bring these perpetrators to justice? As strong believers in the rule of law, as strong believers in the sanctity of human life and in fundamental human rights, and as a leader in our region, we simply cannot refuse to be involved or to play our part. We must accept our responsibility to address the vilest of crimes against our fellow man. If the International Criminal Court leads to even an incremental improvement in the world's commitment to justice, if it provides, even in a few cases, an effective deterrent against such atrocities, then it is well worth supporting.20:34:004349Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—The International Criminal Court Bill 2002 establishes procedures that enable Australia to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. It deals with the arrest and surrender of suspects, obtaining evidence in Australia, serving documents in Australia and confiscation of proceeds in Australia, and it contains safeguards to protect Australia's national security interests. The International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 creates new crimes in the Commonwealth Criminal Code, covering all the crimes in the International Criminal Court statute, to enable Australia to prosecute in Australian courts, under Australian law, persons charged with offences within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. This legislation allows Australia's ratification of the Rome statute establishing the International Criminal Court.For the past 100 years, there has been discussion surrounding the need for international law to address international humanitarian issues. Since World War II, the international debate has escalated and included a globally acknowledged need to enforce international humanitarian law. Since World War II, there have been about 170 million casualties in more than 250 conflicts. The United Nations General Assembly recognised and formalised the need for an International Criminal Court in 1948, following the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. By 1953, the United Nations had drafted a constitution for the International Criminal Court. The Cold War delayed the progress of the development of the International Criminal Court, and the international community must not allow any other wars or conflicts to further delay the establishment of the International Criminal Court.A draft proposal from the International Law Commission was submitted to the United Nations in 1993. The proposal recommended an international conference be held to finalise a treaty for the International Criminal Court. The conference was held in Rome in July 1998. It was this conference at which Australia and 119 other states voted in favour of signing a draft statute, now known as the Rome statute, for the establishment of the International Criminal Court.International interest and support for the International Criminal Court proposal were reignited following the two ad hoc tribunals established for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Unlike those ad hoc tribunals, the International Criminal Court will be a permanent body and there will be no retrospective application. The International Criminal Court will exercise jurisdiction over the three most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole: acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. As Malcolm Fraser pointed out in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 June this year:The court constitutes one of the most significant multilateral institutions since the establishment of the United Nations ... The court is a major advance towards the goal of ending impunity for the worst atrocities.Australia—or, more accurately, the government—has travelled a rocky road before coming to the position which is embodied in this legislation being discussed at the eleventh hour. Two and a half years ago Foreign Minister Downer promised that Australia would move rapidly to ratify the International Criminal Court. At the same time, Senator Minchin reportedly had the reverse view. The member for Mackellar had said that ratification would undermine Australia's sovereignty, while her colleague the member for Curtin, Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, supported immediate ratification. We had the defence minister, Senator Hill, move to debunk the argument put forward by backbench opponents that Australian troops could be charged with genocide for doing their job. Senator Hill said the court was designed with the experiences of Rwanda, Kosovo and Cambodia in mind. We had the former justice minister and the current community services minister, Senator Vanstone, also supporting the International Criminal Court. As recently as this month, when the foreign minister was asked whether he was still a strong supporter of the court, he was reported to have said:I agree with what I say. I've made a lot of statements in the past and I still agree with the statements I made. I agree with me.That was in the period of doublespeak when the government was not able to put a clear message to the electorate on what it actually stood for. In the meantime, the Prime Minister was looking to his best mate, George W., for advice. The US is not ratifying the Rome statute and, as we have seen here today, the Prime Minister did not take his best mate's advice this time.If Australia is to be able to vote at the first meeting of the assembly of states parties in September 2002, it will need to have ratified the International Criminal Court statute by 1 July. At this first meeting in September a president will be elected and a number of documents relating to privileges and immunities of the court, financial regulations, the first budget and the procedures for the election of judges, the prosecutor and the registrar will be submitted for adoption. The elections will take place at the second meeting planned for January 2003.It is imperative that Australia live up to its public statements of 2½ years ago and become a party to a convention dealing with future war criminals and those responsible for future crimes against humanity. I reiterate that the first meeting of the assembly of state parties, which will establish the court and elect its judges and prosecutors, will occur in September. If Australia does not ratify the statute by 1 July, we will be relegated to the role of observer and the considerable expertise which Australia has to offer the assembly will be wasted. It would be a disgrace if Australia missed the opportunity to be a founding member of the court because of the government's legislative backlog. A national interest analysis prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General's Department in 2000 observed:It is important for Australia to be one of the first 60 ratifications, in order to have influence in the Court's administration, including its financial matters, the setting of its budget and the appointment of its judges.The court, which will try those accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, is due to begin operating in 2003.There are examples of atrocities which have been committed against humanity over the years. In Cambodia we saw up to two million people—nearly one-third of the population of Cambodia—die between April 1975 and January 1979 during the rule of the Khmer Rouge. Despite extensive documentation of the Khmer Rouge's calculated policies of mass execution, torture and starvation, none of the officials suspected of orchestrating these crimes against the citizens of Cambodia have been held accountable. There have been no credible trials and most major suspects continue to travel more or less freely within Cambodia and abroad.In East Timor, our nearest neighbour, the 24-year Indonesian occupation that led to the deaths of 200,000 East Timorese ended in 1999 following a UN sponsored referendum on independence. Immediately after the release of the results, however, Indonesian forces and local militias launched a final systematic campaign of destruction that left hundreds more dead, hundreds of thousands displaced and up to 80 per cent of East Timor's infrastructure destroyed. In Sierra Leone we have witnessed mass killings, mutilations and sex crimes which characterised a series of conflicts between 1991 and 2002. Decades of misrule, corruption and state collapse had made Sierra Leone susceptible to power grabs and warlord profiteering, all reinforced by the scramble for Sierra Leone's rich diamond fields. In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu extremists took advantage of political instability and longstanding interethnic tension and distrust in the region to launch a calculated genocide. Between 500,000 and one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were brutally murdered in only three months. In the former Yugoslavia, the wars in Bosnia and Croatia in the early 1990s were characterised by repeated wide-scale attacks by soldiers, paramilitary forces and police against civilians, which resulted in up to 250,000 deaths and the displacement of over one million people.Although the establishment of the International Criminal Court and Australia's ratification of the Rome statute will not alone deter future acts of atrocity against humanity, they will provide just one vehicle for the international movement of human rights to send a clear, unambiguous message to would-be perpetrators that if they do commit these crimes, they will be found, arrested and tried. In conclusion, Judge Laity Kama, the former President of the International Criminal Tribunal, speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1996, said:If justice is not done, there may be no end to hatred, and atrocities could go on and on, with the executioners believing they are immune to prosecution and the victims thirst for revenge fuelled by a sense of injustice and the idea that an ethnic group was responsible for the atrocities committed against them. In this regard it is of paramount importance that justice be done, because it will help replace the idea of collective responsibility with the idea of criminal responsibility.20:46:004351Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLP10—I rise to speak on the International Criminal Court Bill 2002. In 1996, this government went to the people and sought to be elected. One of the things it said to the people of Australia was that it would never enter into and ratify international treaties in the way Labor had done in 13 years in office. Gareth Evans, the foreign minister of the time, said that he would never submit treaties to the vagaries of parliament. The vagaries of the parliament are the elected people who represent the nation and are responsible to it. To insult them by calling them `vagaries' was part of the arrogance of that government, which caused its defeat in 1996. We said that we would put the question of treaties to a specially created treaties committee which would examine international treaties and report to the parliament before there was any exercise of power by the executive to ratify those treaties. That has happened since we came to office in 1996.With the statute of Rome, which was done in 1998 but which began its course in 1988 under the previous Hawke-Keating government, the reference to the treaties committee was not made until late in 2000. The committee had extensive hearings, it gathered evidence and it was ready to report, except that an election was called and the committee failed to report prior to the election being held. After the election, a new committee was formed and further hearings were held. It finally reported to the parliament in May this year. Within days of that report coming down, a fast and furious debate raged as to whether or not Australia should ratify the statute of Rome, which established the International Criminal Court. It was a very important debate, because at its heart was the sovereignty of our great nation. Sovereignty means that a nation is able to make laws to protect its people and to determine that its court should be the final court of appeal for its people. I was one of those who supported the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. It was not because they gave us bad law—indeed, they gave us good law—but because I believed that only an Australian court should be the final court of appeal for Australian citizens.So we come to the statute establishing the International Criminal Court, and we look at the way in which the statute is constructed and the obligations it requires ratifying nations to enter into. One of the things I spoke about during the debate, which I believe to be of fundamental importance and which was of most concern to me, was the thought that Australian service men and women could conceivably be called before that international court, with the international court directing the Australian government to arrest and surrender one of its own citizens to that court without the protection of extradition. Indeed, article 89 of the statute states that the ICC shall determine whether or not the so-called complementarity provisions have been followed. This means that a signatory nation or ratifying nation has the first onus of investigating and/or prosecuting an alleged charge concerning one of its citizens, but the ICC, on its own initiative, determines whether or not it deems the ratifying nation to have carried out that investigation and/or prosecution to the ICC's satisfaction. Let me give an example. Let us suppose that an Australian who had been deployed overseas had been accused of committing a war crime and that the Australian powers that be had investigated that charge under Australian law and said that there would be no prosecution because there was no case to answer. It would be perfectly open to the ICC to hold that Australia had been either unwilling or unable to properly investigate and/or prosecute that case. Indeed, it could hold further that Australia was protecting its own citizen, and, having been a ratifying party, the Australian government could be ordered to arrest its own citizen and deliver that person to the ICC.After the debate, in which 70 people in our party room took part, the Prime Minister made an important statement that would address this very important question of sovereignty and protection of our nationals—basically by making a declaration, which in my view has no effect at all, but more particularly by entrenching in the legislation, the domestic legislation, the obligations set out under the statute. We say that we will not be bound by article 89—that is, the ICC will not be able to order Australia to arrest its own citizens and surrender them. The bill says that there shall be no such arrest or surrender without the Attorney-General issuing a certificate that that may take place. We made a further commitment that the law which will interpret what is a crime of genocide, a crime against humanity and a war crime will be Australian law and not the international code, which is described as being an amalgam of doctrines of differing legal systems.The one thing that was common in the debate amongst the 70 people who took part was that everybody believed that butchers must be brought to justice. There was never any equivocation on that point. The question was how the international community may be able to politically or indeed maliciously interpret the words of the statute for political purposes. It was for this reason that a statement was made by Colin Powell, when supporting the position of the United States that it would not ratify. Colin Powell said:... the ICC, where prosecutors and a court beholden ... to the Security Council, not beholden to anyone else, and which would have the authority to second-guess the United States after we have tried somebody and take it before the ICC, we found that this was not a situation that we believe was appropriate for our men and women in the armed forces or our diplomats and political leaders.The French government, which is often touted as being very significant because it did ratify, exercised the power under article 124 to state that war crimes would not apply to France for seven years, as is provided under the statute, because it would be possible for fallacious and unwarranted complaints that could occur in respect of war crimes to be made in a manner which France would consider to be putting its people at risk. The foreign minister under the Jospin government said:Unwarranted complaints of a malicious kind could unjustly undermine countries which had the merit of accepting their international responsibilities to a greater extent than others by taking part in highly delicate peace making operations and you are well aware that France takes more than its share in such operations. The complaints could harm those states, the operations in which they are engaged and the newly established court, which could be corrupted by being used as a political instrument.He went on to say that this is not an unrealistic fear.There is a possibility that a court which is exercising international law, being an amalgam of differing legal systems, could indeed be capable of malicious or political manipulation. In the submissions that were made to the treaties committee, it was reported that Amnesty International had argued against the concept of `victors' justice'. The treaties committee, in its report, described a number of submissions which argued that neither the American President nor the British Prime Minister had been charged for war crimes committed during the NATO campaign in Kosovo, yet the former Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic, is currently being prosecuted before the ad hoc tribunal. In other statements that have been made by Amnesty International—and it is well to bear in mind that, under the statute, non-government organisations do have the opportunity to recommend to the prosecutor that prosecutions be brought—they have argued that there should be a prosecution of NATO personnel for the bombing of a television station in Kosovo during the campaign, because it was a civilian target—this is despite the fact that this television station was responsible for disseminating the propaganda of ethnic cleansing. So you can see that there is always the opportunity for the political spin.It is no wonder that there are many countries that have not signed. Among those that have not signed are the three large countries that are permanent members of the Security Council—that is, the United States, China and Russia. France has had only a qualified ratification. Great Britain is the only country that has given an unqualified ratification. In our own region, countries which have not ratified are Japan, the Philippines, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and India. In other words, there is a very large body of people with whom we deal on a regular basis that has not ratified this statute.Some speakers in this debate have said that those people who were opposed to ratification have had a win. It is not as great as the win I would have liked, but it is a win nonetheless. It is very important to note that, by entrenching in the bills that are now before the House the statement that we will not accept direction from the ICC under article 89, we are negating the effect of that article. This is quite significant, because article 120 of the statute says:No reservations may be made to this Statute.So I call it a Clayton's ratification. Perhaps it is not a ratification at all because the statute itself says you may not make a reservation, yet that is precisely what we are doing. We are also making the important statement that it will be the principles of Australian law, not the international amalgam of differing legal systems, that will interpret the meaning of war crimes and other crimes under the statute. That has been done through the amendment of the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002to be in line with Australian law.All of us wish to see an end to atrocities as we have seen them in the last century: never again to see what happened to the Jewish people and others in Hitler's Germany, not to see the term `ethnic cleansing' being given any acceptability in our language and not to see the slaughter in Rwanda repeated. Many people have spoken passionately on those questions. We were all in agreement. Yet, at the end of the day, we have to ensure that we protect our people against political or malicious interpretations of international arrangements into which we enter with goodwill. It is fundamental to us as a sovereign nation that we keep our sovereignty which we exercise through border protection and in so many other ways. As I said, we did not have quite the win that I would have wished as a result of this debate. Nonetheless, it is an important win and one which does ensure that Australia is better able to protect her citizens and retain her sovereignty than would otherwise be the case. I am proud to have taken part in the debate.21:02:004353Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—It is always warming to hear the generous support the member for Mackellar gives to her parliamentary and ministerial colleagues in the ratification of international law. But let me go to the substance of the International Criminal Court Bill 2002 and the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002. There are plentiful reasons why we need an international criminal court. Firstly, we need to remedy the deficiencies of ad hoc tribunals. The first internationalisation of the crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity took place with the Nuremberg tribunals. Many quite correctly described these as `victors' tribunals, but they nonetheless represented the first time that the international community resolved that there were certain standards of ethical behaviour whose breach—even if committed by sovereign states and even if committed by military forces acting under instructions and orders—warranted punishment. Standing alone, that was a beacon which could easily be seen as an example of those victorious in war imposing their will on defeated and subject peoples. 00AMUPanopoulos, Sophie, MPMs Panopoulos—Hurry up, Duncan.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Subsequently, there have been a number of other ad hoc tribunals formed to bring justice to those responsible for atrocities—for example, in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But there have been glaring omissions. No international processes were put in place in Cambodia, Argentina, Uganda, Iraq or East Timor. The international community often seemed helpless or unwilling to intervene and to enforce principles of established international law. The UN Security Council was accused from time to time of suffering from `tribunal fatigue'. A sporadic process that was often corrupted by being imposed by those who had the might to do so and applied only in circumstances where the political will of the UN Security Council could be brought to bear on specific circumstances was obviously not going to enable us to have a sense that international law would be enforced consistently. 00AMUPanopoulos, Sophie, MPMs Panopoulos—Boring. RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Ad hoc justice was too slow, inefficient, too limited and indeed unavailable in most instances. Therefore, the international community began discussing the establishment of a permanent international court. Having done that, and having reached a position where a recommendation to establish such a court was agreed, Australia was invited to sign the treaty establishing that court, and did so. 00AMUPanopoulos, Sophie, MPMs Panopoulos—Time, Duncan.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—The responsible ministers on both sides of government—the Keating government in the initial stages of discussion and the Howard government in the later stages—have consistently seen the importance of Australia playing a significant part both in the rationale for the court and in its operation.The Rome preamble begins by accurately and effectively describing the rationale for the court, saying:... during this century millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity.It goes on to acknowledge:... such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and wellbeing of the world.The International Criminal Court will stand as a third pillar, alongside the charter of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, for the promotion of global peace and security. The UN and the ICJ hold states accountable, and the International Criminal Court will complement them by holding individuals accountable. The very aim of the United Nations Charter is to maintain international peace and security, but that cannot be achieved if individuals responsible for international humanitarian crimes are not punished and if demands for truth, justice and compensation of victims are not addressed.We see in this legislation the coming into effect of Australia's ratification of that treaty. Effectively implemented between nations, there is an opportunity to see the end of impunity and a substantial increase in the deterrence of violations of international law. For most of the 20th century, until the Nuremberg trials, until the processes that were set up on an ad hoc basis in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, many commentators described the past century as a golden age of impunity, where a person stood a much better chance of being tried for taking a single life than for killing 10,000 or a million. The idea of `no peace without justice' has rarely been followed and too often violations of international human rights laws have been overlooked in exchange for peace. In Argentina, Haiti, Cambodia and South Africa, for example, amnesty was granted as a means to restore peace and democracy. But there is a risk that that kind of approach, seen as a way of escape for those in high office and holding high state positions, is only encouraging impunity and future violations. Amnesty International has said that the `vicious cycle of impunity that often transforms sporadic human rights violations into a systematic practice of abuse' has to be interrupted. The statute recognises that, in the case of genocide, the systematic mass killing is usually carried out by state authorities and leaders and therefore immunity is usually assured for the perpetrators. Frequently national courts do not or cannot prosecute leaders. The importance of having a statute under which international law will facilitate the trial of those accused of such crimes and provide all signatory nation states with an obligation to investigate violations of international human rights law ought be crystal clear. The obligation will be to ensure that perpetrators are prosecuted and to provide victims with proper remedies. Of course, the first obligation is that those prosecutions take place at the level of the nation state. But it must be absurd to posit that a single nation state can exclude the interests of the international community when the very statute is designed to internationalise a process and prevent the kinds of circumstances that would, for example, have allowed the Attorney-General of Yugoslavia or somewhere to preclude from prosecution the head of state or indeed himself if he were complicit in a war crime. Heaven forbid that any future Australian government of whatever colour will be in a position of that nature. But it draws attention to the absurdity of some of the propositions that have been put by those who have advocated some of the views that were put on behalf of those opposing this legislation before it reached this parliament. I might say that it would wash with me a lot more with those who assert the overwhelming importance of Australia maintaining its sovereignty against a response of establishing and international and impartial tribunal under the auspices of the United Nations under the Treaty of Rome—00AMUPanopoulos, Sophie, MPMs Panopoulos—Oh, Duncan!10000Price, Roger (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. L.R.S. Price)—Order! The honourable member for Indi is not in her seat. She has interjected three times. If she wishes me to deal with her, I will deal with her—and very severely. I call the honourable member for Denison.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—It would wash much more with me were such persons who raised these concerns speaking out against the unilateral imposition of state sovereignty by the United States of America against Australian citizens. We hear, for example, the member for Mackellar saying that it is absolutely fundamental to Australia's sovereign rights that its court should be the final court of appeal for its people, and making a declaration about a provision that allows the International Criminal Court to provide for the prosecution and arrest of persons who are accused of war crimes. Nothing is said of circumstances in which Australian citizens are held without detention or trial by the United States in a prison camp in Cuba. It does seem to me to be an absolute perversion of the notion of an assertion of national sovereignty that those instances can go unremarked, yet Australia participates in the establishment of an international court in which it will be at least charged as a joint party with the responsibility of establishing the membership of that court, the terms in which it will operate, against the possible prospect that an Australian may be dealt with. That does not draw attention to the circumstances that there are presently Australians held without detention or trial in circumstances where a better practice would be that they could be dealt with by an internationally constituted and proper court under proper jurisdictional terms. 00AMUPanopoulos, Sophie, MPRH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I might say, for the benefit of those who are so genuinely concerned by way of their interjections, that I would have thought that there would have been some great benefit were we to look at those instances. The opportunity of fighting terrorism is enhanced because many large crimes that would be violations of humanitarian law are also acts of terrorism. What we do by means where those overlaps do occur is to actually constitute an international tribunal with the capacity to exercise an impartial jurisdiction, not a partisan or local jurisdiction of the state which has effected the arrests, which is of course the criticism that is being made by many of the circumstances whereby the United States through its military tribunals is going to hear and determine perhaps at some future date allegations against those that it holds presently in detention. The ICC does not have an explicit, wide jurisdiction for anti-terrorism. Its jurisdiction, however, overlaps and there will be some circumstances, of course, where those who would be engaged in large acts of such magnitude that they would also constitute crimes against humanity could be tried under these circumstances. But it would be wise to also reflect on whether we ought expand the jurisdiction of the ICC in due course to cover international terrorism, to deal with those very issues where citizens of other countries find themselves in circumstances where there is no appropriate place for their prosecution and where others seek to shelter them.There are those who appear to suggest in this debate that no civilised nation can commit acts of punishable conduct. They suggest that democracies have some virtue that means their citizens would never act in such a way that an international jurisdiction may be necessitated. The truth is, essentially, that far too frequently states that are superficially democratic, such as the former Yugoslavia, fall to the persuasion of those who have pursued crimes against humanity. Nazi Germany was a regime established democratically in the first instance.00AMUPanopoulos, Sophie, MP10000Price, Roger (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I warn the honourable member for Indi.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—One only needs to look at some of the acts that occurred in the immediate postwar years when the British government surrendered Polish citizens to the then Soviet government, which promptly executed them. Some of the most heartless and terrible acts were committed. Some historians suggest there was complicity between those who ordered the surrender and those who conducted the executions. I will conclude by simply saying that Australia does itself no service whatsoever by being unwilling to accept the possibility that, at some future date, it may become the subject of complaint by those who—00AMUPanopoulos, Sophie, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Under standing order 304A, I require the honourable member for Indi to leave the House.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—We do ourselves no service to imagine that those circumstances cannot emerge in our own country. We have a strong tradition of respect for human rights and a strong tradition of having an independent and free court system that enables us to deal with these matters within the Australian jurisdiction. That is precisely what this treaty facilitates. The treaty says that, if any Australian is placed in a circumstance whereby a serious allegation of wrongdoing is placed against them for a crime against humanity or a crime that falls within the statute of this treaty, the first responsibility is for the Australian government to enable its own prosecuting authorities to proceed against them and to have a trial in this country. There is no real circumstance where the kinds of reservations that have been addressed by previous speakers are likely to be called in aid. Why would we expect the Australian government in ordinary circumstances—where it has been democratically elected and is operating properly and according to law—do otherwise than to act as we would all expect it to: to bring to justice those who are properly accused of some atrocity where there are some reasonable facts upon which that prosecution could be based?Were some circumstances to arise in the future where the system of law falls down, as has happened in other countries, or where, as has happened in other countries, the understandings that link us together as fellow Australians to fellow Australians break down and we do have some crisis where our government failed—one would hope of a momentary nature—why would we expect Australians to be immune from an international response to their wrongful conduct? Why would we allow anyone else who is not an Australian—which is more likely to be the case—and who had carried out atrocities that caused the deaths of Australians by way of terrorist acts to walk free of responsibility because we had not played our part in setting up an international process which would enable a fair trial, with punishment for acts which we would all wish not to be repeated again? The days of giving a free pass to those, whatever rank they be in society, who conduct themselves in such a way as to cause the shedding of innocent blood and who are the cause of acts that are properly regarded as atrocities are over. 21:19:004357Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I think we can all take it as read that all members do abhor the crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity that are in the International Criminal Court Bill 2002. It is just a matter of how it is done. Australia has a good record of supporting the ad hoc tribunals which were set up after World War II and in Rwanda and Yugoslavia during the 1990s. In fact, it was during the 1990s that these tribunals really got going. They were the two worst examples of human rights abuses in that decade. I have had some reservations about this court in principle and in practice, not for the good that it might do in a future East Timor or Cambodia but for the impact that it may have on democratically elected representative governments that uphold the rule of law. My concern has been to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards to prevent vexatious or political investigations.One important improvement that has been inserted is that no prosecution can be commenced or conducted without the consent of the Attorney-General. This will prevent vexatious cases such as the 1999 Buzacott case, in which Hugh Morgan was accused of genocide. Another improvement is that no Australian citizen will go to the ICC without a certificate from the Attorney-General. Traditionally the Liberal and National parties have been at least sceptical of multilateral institutions. We are more in the mould of hard-headed realists than starry-eyed idealists. Our approach could be summed up by Billy Hughes's response to the British government's request for Australian soldiers to defend Gallipoli and the diggers' war graves in 1922 from Ataturk during the Chanak crisis four years after the end of World War I. Billy Hughes refused. He stated:In a good cause, we are prepared to venture our all; in a bad one, not a single man.We have a strong human rights record and we take our international obligations seriously, but sometimes you have to say, `Fair go.' We have seen how the United Nations Human Rights Committee can be so unbalanced that Australia received more adverse recommendations than China. Our response was to suspend our involvement with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, pending reform. We have seen the United States voted off the UN Human Rights Committee and human rights violators like Sudan elected. In an ideal world, last year's Durban conference on racism and xenophobia would not have descended into racism and xenophobia and large doses of anti-Semitism. But it did. The same states that have been involved in the UN Human Rights Committee and the conference in Durban will be member states of the ICC. I do not believe it is drawing a long bow to see the same inversion occurring whereby judges from anti-Western states sit in judgment of citizens of democratic countries which do uphold the rule of law and take the violation of these crimes seriously.The ICC will introduce judicial process into international decision making. My concern is that there is the potential for the prosecutor to be politicised and that political warfare will be continued in the courts. Do members really believe that the protagonists in the Palestine-Israel conflict will keep this out of the court? There are very few checks to a self-initiating prosecutor. America's experience with a special prosecutor shows that they are highly political. In an otherwise positive review of the ICC in the Australian Journal of International Affairs in 1999, Gallarotti and Preis conceded that:... the statute allows significant possibilities for states and individuals to politicise justice.These concerns are not isolated but are held by other democratic countries such as the United States, Israel and France. I am under no illusion as to the impact of the declaration. A declaration cannot purport to modify or qualify our obligations to the statute. Article 120 of the treaty does not allow for reservations. The declaration says a lot about a country. This will be the only declaration which asserts the primacy of domestic law and the domestic legal system. It tells the world what is important to us. To give you an example of other declarations, New Zealand, Sweden and Egypt all said that this statute most certainly applies to nuclear weapons. France and the UK said it applies only to conventional weapons; it does not apply to nuclear weapons. France, which is cited as a key supporter, has said it will not accept the jurisdiction of the court with respect to war crimes for a period of seven years. It has done this, and its foreign minister has stated that this is to ensure that the safeguards to prevent political and vexatious investigations actually work. Israel, in their declaration, expressed deep disappointment and regret at the insertion into the statute of formulations tailored to meet the political agenda of certain states. They also warned that such an unfortunate practice might reflect on the intent to abuse the statute as a political tool.In Australia we did not have the critical public debate until very late in the piece. We do not appear to have the variety of opinion that you would expect in a pluralistic society. The NGOs, the departments and the ADF all had a uniform view on the ICC. It has been very hard to argue against. It has been only a few respected writers, such as Greg Sheridan, Janet Albrechtsen, some government members and a handful of others, and the editorials of the Australian that have put up a respectable, credible alternative view. Compare that with the United States. Whether we like it or not, the United States provides much of the weight in foreign affairs. Former US secretaries of state, from almost every administration for the last 30 years, have said of the ICC:The risk of international criminal prosecution will certainly chill decision-making within our government and could limit the willingness of our national leadership to respond forcefully to acts of terrorism, aggression and other threats. Indeed we believe that American leadership in the world could be the first casualty of the ICC.This is drawn from a letter to members of Congress which was signed by Henry Kissinger, Zbigeniew Brzezinski, George Schultz, James Baker, Caspar Weinberger, Lawrence Eagleburger and Donald Rumsfeld, among others. Henry Kissinger, in an article in Foreign Affairs in the year 2000, made the point that:Any universal system should contain procedures not only to punish the wicked but also to constrain the righteous.It is wrong to say that the Clinton administration supported the ICC. The US went from being one of the strongest proponents of an international court in the early 1990s to being an opponent of the court. It opposed it due to several objections: firstly, fundamental disagreement with the parameters of the ICC jurisdiction; secondly, desire for an `opt out' provision; thirdly, opposition to a self-initiating prosecutor; fourthly, disappointment with the inclusion of an undefined crime of aggression; and, fifthly, displeasure with the statute's `take it or leave it' approach.As I said before, the US voted against this statute in Rome and, although Clinton signed it in late 2000, he said he would not send it to the Senate for ratification and would not recommend his successor to do so because it was flawed—his words. In fact, legislation has been triggered in the Congress which treats the ICC as a hostile institution and authorises the President to use whatever means necessary to retrieve any US official or service member, or those of an ally, from the clutches of the court. It also bans US service personnel from serving in member states which are signatories to the ICC. It does, however, exempt allied personnel. It has already passed the House of Representatives and a similar bill has passed the Senate.We should recognise that some of the more political NGOs would like to see US officials and service personnel indicted for war crimes. In fact, after the government decision was taken on this on Wednesday night, Lateline screened a story in which an American NGO was calling for the United States to be investigated for war crimes in Afghanistan. The United States has denied it. How could the ICC have worked in Yugoslavia? Yugoslavia was a key test for the European Union, yet it was unable to stop atrocities in Serbia and Kosovo. Twice it was NATO air power which stopped Milosevic. In 1999, NATO began an air campaign in Kosovo to prevent ethnic cleansing by Slobodan Milosevic, but later Amnesty International supported a complaint by European and Canadian law professors who alleged that NATO had committed crimes against humanity. Rather than throw this claim out, the prosecutor implied that the international criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia had jurisdiction but was unable to proceed due to the inability to collect evidence and the inability to determine who was making the decisions. As members, we should reject this notion from Amnesty that there is a moral equivalence between the actions of Milosevic and the actions of NATO trying to stop him. One was committing genocide; one was trying to stop it. In the Kosovo case, were the ICC in place, Yugoslavia as a member state could have requested an investigation. An independent prosecutor with the will to do so could have investigated and prosecuted NATO leaders. All that would have stopped him would have been two out of three judges in the pre-trial chamber. The Security Council would have been powerless to prevent it with a Russian veto. As imperfect as the United Nations is, it has lasted 57 years because, through the Security Council, it recognised the reality of the international situation. Don't members think it is strange that no major power is a member state of the ICC? There is no US, there is no Russia, there is no China, there is no India, there is no Japan. Who will enforce the decisions of the court? Who will be the bailiff for this court? A court without the United States is unquestionably a weaker court.We do not talk much about the League of Nations these days but it failed because it did not have the will to defend the existing boundaries of nation states. Critically, the United States did not join. A rules based system governing the behaviour of states is only viable as long as every state obeys the rules. Plainly this is not the case. Take the example of Iraq. In the last 20 years, both Israel and the United States have taken unilateral action against Iraq to prevent Iraq becoming a threshold nuclear weapon state. Such actions are normally condemned by the international community and are supported by only a handful of countries including Australia. Who can say that the US or Israel will receive justice in this court? Why would we want to restrain unilateral action by states friendly to Australia such as the United States and Israel against rogue states such as Iraq?Mr Deputy Speaker Price, as you will remember, just four months ago four members in a dissenting report on the International Criminal Court warned that it was wrong to restrain unilateral action by states friendly to Australia such as the US and Israel against rogue states such as Iraq or against non-state actors such as Osama bin Laden. That was a minority view then. I stand by those comments then and I stand by them now. The member for Forrest made those comments and Mr Andrew Thompson, the former member for Wentworth and then Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, also stood by those comments. What this debate has shown, despite the best hopes of the Labor Party, is the robustness of the Liberal and National parties and that we do not have a monolithic view on these matters. The debate has been essential so that we have now highlighted the potential dangers of this court and framed how we will determine whether this court can be judged in the future to be successful, fair and just.21:32:004359Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Unlike just about every speaker I have heard on the other side in the course of this debate on the International Criminal Court Bill 2002, I actually support the government's legislation. This puts me in a somewhat unusual position, but I find it amazing in these circumstances that this legislation is here at all. This must really be the one that got away. Because this government has sought frequent opportunities to demonise international organisations in a way that suggests that by doing so the government somehow or other stands up for Australian sovereignty. More often, the government has a particular prejudice against the policy or view that is being expressed by that particular organisation at the time. This is the one that got away. There is no doubt about that. Obviously, honourable members opposite are puzzled as to how that happened. But they should not be puzzled because it is not as though this has been done in the darkest corners and recesses of international discussion and deliberation. This has been done in very plain sight. In international affairs this has been a source of considerable controversy for some considerable period of time. It has seen a number of different attitudes taken by different American administrations at different points in time. It has seen an enormous debate going on in individual countries which may be signatory to it. But it seems to have struck the government back bench members, at the latest conceivable hour, that perhaps here there is something that they have to discuss. One of the reasons why they might do that is the attitude of the Prime Minister. Nothing could be more obvious that this is the one that got away from the stand taken by the Prime Minister when he was in the United States. I think we can say with absolute certitude that when the American administration sat him down and went through their objections to this particular proposition, they did not confront counterargument. They would probably have confronted circular hand movements, a pursing of lips, a nodding of a head, a desperation in body language to convey basic agreement and a final shrug of the shoulders which indicated, `When I leave these shores I might need to take a different attitude if I am going to have a foreign minister left.' There is no doubt that if the Prime Minister had taken a different view and decided to uphold the objections that have been forthcoming from the government's so-called supporters of this bill he would have lost his foreign minister, if there was any shred of honour in that foreign minister's body. I think there is just the outside possibility, even though I cannot abide much of his foreign policy, that Alexander Downer might well have resigned over this. However, that was not to be tested, because in the end the views that we have heard from the government backbenchers can be classified, I think, as strong views weakly held—weak enough for them to be able to walk into this place and interpret the quite minor and somewhat confusing statements made by the government attached to this as a fig leaf for them while parading themselves before the areas of their electorate that they wish to make disgruntled about it. There has been an awful lot of talk on the other side of the chamber about the fact that the drum beat of Australian sovereignty will be asserted about the issues that may affect Australian personnel elsewhere who may find themselves vulnerable on charges related to this. The statute anticipates exactly that. One of the many advantages of this statute is that wise countries that are signatory to it will establish a domestic procedure to deal with these problems, because if they do they will find themselves exempt from the operations of the International Criminal Court. There is nothing in the offences identified as subject to the International Criminal Court that anyone in this country could have reasonable objection to in seeing it as part of the statute of this land. Nothing that is in the statute of the International Criminal Court, covering the offences which it seeks to deal with, incorporated within Australian law, could raise the slightest objection on the part of any right thinking or reasonable thinking Australian.Why do we have this before us, apart from the fact that it slipped away on the other side of the House? We have it before us because basically we exited the bloodiest century in human history a year or so ago. It was a century which saw the most massive scientific advances; it was a century which saw the most intense research and development of the capacity to keep human beings alive and comfortable; and it was a century of unparalleled scientific brilliance in the ability of human beings to communicate with each other and to test the intellect to produce goods and services of a capacity unimaginable to previous generations and which featured in the science fiction of the 19th century. Indeed, by the end of this century, a six-year-old entering primary school will exit high school with 90 per cent more knowledge—and different knowledge—than a high school student exiting high school in the same year that the younger student entered. The pace at which knowledge grows in our community this century has been truly extraordinary and has increased exponentially. Yet with all of that, the mark of the last century is not scientific progress but grand-scale murder. It started badly: the Armenian genocide looked as though it might be punished at the conclusion of World War I. There is no doubt that those who sat down to think their way through the consequences of the peace after that bloody conflict believed that they had to address in some way the horror that they had confronted—and the individual parts of that horror. But by 1923, in the Treaty of Lausanne, they decided, `Perhaps it's better for the peace of the show if we forget about all of that; perhaps it's better if we just ignore the murders which have occurred and allow punishment insofar as it is meted out not as punishment for the perpetrators of aggressive war or of mass murder to be brought to justice but as punishment for a whole society in the form of reparations.' So those who were guilty of offences both before and during World War I actually got away while whole societies were punished in a way that made absolutely certain that we would get World War II—but a World War II with a veneer of exemption for those who committed atrocities and sought examples in the past as to what might well happen to them if they were to find themselves subsequently arraigned, or liable to be arraigned, having lost the particular conflict. The Allies tried to get to grips with this under American leadership at Nuremberg and Tokyo—they tried to get it into the public consciousness internationally that if you committed massive atrocities, either as an individual or collectively, you would not go unpunished.But it took another 30 or 40 years of mass murder—we do not need to go through all of the instances of it, but you can cite Pol Pot's regime; you can cite the behaviour, for example, of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s in Iraq; you can cite Idi Amin; and of course you can cite more recently the genocide in Rwanda—and until the very end of the century before the international community decided to start to get to grips with this too, and they got to grips with it in several ways. The first was to establish individual tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia and to attempt to negotiate an International Criminal Court, which is before us here today. It has to be said and clearly understood that, although the powers of those two individual tribunals can be removed from operation by a decision by the United Nations Security Council, they are powers vastly greater than those that are going to be established with the International Criminal Court. It is conceivable under those two tribunals that, if it was determined that servicemen associated with NATO had committed atrocities—and it could be demonstrated that they had—they could be prosecuted by the tribunal. With the law that is being put in place and the fact that complementarity is anticipated to be established by local jurisdictions, it is not assumed that that would be possible here. If there were credible evidence of an atrocity being committed by a person associated with a particular participant of some peacekeeping force, it would be the domestic jurisdiction that dealt with the person, not the international tribunal. That is not the case in regard to the tribunals related to Rwanda and Yugoslavia. In many ways, this court is not a body of strength, as its opponents emphasise, but one of substantial weakness. It is a body founded in the realities of international politics, where it is recognised that a world government is not going to be established at all. The most potent effect of this particular court, along with this statute, is not so much in what it will do itself but in what it will encourage other countries to do with their own laws—in the behaviours that it will encourage in other countries.I have been mightily impressed with the attitudes and actions of the Australian defence forces and in the views that they have expressed in regard to the operation of the statute and of the court. I must say that it is only over the last few months that I have taken an interest in this matter, but I have taken that interest in no small measure due to the fact that I represent very large numbers of service personnel. Because they find themselves frequently participating in international peacekeeping duties, some under the auspices of the United Nations—and some go to war not under the auspices of the United Nations but at the direction of the Australian government—I would want to know if there was a problem associated with this and I would want to see it being dealt with, because I would not see any of my constituents or any other member of the Australian armed services being unjustly served. Therefore, I have taken some time to look at the views that have been expressed by the commander of our Defence Forces and of individual servicemen. For those who think these matters are light matters, I can say this with absolute certainty: the experience of the Australian peacekeepers in Rwanda is burned into the souls of the collective Australian defence forces. There is no doubt in my mind that the relative enthusiasm of the senior commanders of the Australian defence forces in some way relates to the experiences that they had in Rwanda. I was impressed, for example, with Admiral Chris Barrie's statement in an interview, and I think it is worth reading it out here. He said:The most significant thing in my mind was the reaction of our people who went to places like Rwanda. They were simply appalled at having to stand around and watch atrocities being committed and then realising that nothing was ever going to be done about that. Many of them watched these atrocities being committed and they were powerless to do anything about that and psychologically that was very damaging. Just before we went to Timor one of the very strong messages from the young diggers in 2RAR, who were the first to deploy, was: `Sir, we're not going to be held down like they were in Rwanda, are we?' They'd been, I guess, schooled by the senior NCOs who were training them. They had a very strong view that in Rwanda it had been awful and they were anxious to know that they would have the authority to deal with situations that might crop up in East Timor—which of course they did have.The commander of our defence forces knows darn well that this legislation and this statute are not a problem for him. They are a problem for those who would seek to damage our peacekeepers and our service personnel elsewhere. Our service personnel do not commit mass murder; our service personnel do not commit mass rape; our service personnel do not commit genocide; and our Australian governments do not instruct them to do anything about any of these things in any way at all except to resist them. Our service personnel deal with others who try to do these things. Under this statute, if our service personnel are attacked by these people, that will be a crime. This is not a problem for Australian Defence Force personnel; it is a protection for Australian Defence Force personnel. That is the point. It would be so for the United States as well.Various American critics of the court have been quoted. Let me conclude with a couple of statements from the man who signed it. It was authorised by the Secretary of State to sign it, who was in turn authorised by the President of the United States—in this case Clinton—to permit him to do so. I acknowledge fully that they signed it in order to progress it, but Clinton never thought for one minute that he would get this thing through the Senate. Let me refer to a couple of statements by him:In announcing American support for the court, I am proud to join not only with all of our closest NATO allies ... but also with newly democratic governments around the world, such as Nelson Mandela's South Africa, Carlos Menem's Argentina, and Kim Dae Jung's South Korea. These new democracies, having recently escaped from authoritarian rule, understand perhaps even better than we do the importance of international justice to guard against renewed tyranny.He went on to state:By contrast, doing nothing in the face of atrocities imperils our ideals. Sure as the beacon that shines from the Statue of Liberty, the world looks to the United States to uphold democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. America stands strong when we defend these ideals. But unanswered atrocities undermine the values on which our great nation was founded. America needs an International Criminal Court because we depend on the vision of humanity and the values of justice and law that it will defend. The court will uphold our belief that criminals should be held responsible for their actions and that victims should see their attackers brought to account.And so on throughout the course of his speech. I conclude by saying there are weaknesses here. There is a review conference. The weaknesses are substantial. I believe the fact that there is no offence of terrorism included within the statute of the body is a major weakness that needs to be addressed by those who go through the review conference. But this is an important way station in the establishment of the antidote to the atrocities that this century has seen. I have no doubt of it. 21:49:004363Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I rise to speak on the International Criminal Court Bill 2002. The International Criminal Court arose as an idea at a time when the world was embracing opportunities that were certain, it was thought, to flow from the new world order. A feeling was abroad that the world's political landscape had changed. We had a real chance to transform the world. We looked back at difficulties out of the Cold War and vowed that we would use the opportunity to make a real difference. We set about righting some of the wrongs of the past. The ICC, I believe, was such an initiative. At the time, it was seen as an appropriate step forward for the world and for Australia. The foreign minister and the Attorney-General of Australia have played their part in pursuing that goal.That period of sunny optimism came to an end. It ended once and for all on September 11 last year. When that day came, the image of terror was not in a familiar guise. It was altogether new. We had the new world order but the world was not safe. New types of threats and new types of terror emerged. We had passenger jets commandeered by people with Stanley knives. At the same time, there was the anthrax scare. In the most powerful nation on earth we had people infected through the mail by a deadly toxin. Here in Australia white powder was sent through the mail. Nine months down the track we still do not know who was behind that anthrax scare in the US. Years after the end of the Cold War and the threat of mutually assured destruction, people in the US today still do not feel safe. This year, when it came to ratifying the International Criminal Court the US declined. Why? I think basically because today in the US there are more important considerations for the future of the free world than idealistic notions about a global criminal court.I have serious concerns about the proposal to ratify the International Criminal Court. We have heard about the lengthy debate that occurred in the coalition party room. I want to thank the Prime Minister for conducting that debate and acknowledge the changes he made as a result of the concerns that were raised. Even before the ICC found its way into the party room there were proposals to make sure Australia's interests were clearly outlined and protected as the ICC bill went through.The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommended precautions. But in responding to the very real concerns of coalition members, the Prime Minister has gone much further than was proposed by the foreign minister or by JSCOT. Tonight we have legislation that has been amended to recognise those concerns. From time to time, commentators have proposed that a declaration outlining those interests could be sufficient to protect the Australian position. In this bill, we have something much stronger than a declaration; we have our concerns recognised within the legislation. While I am concerned about the court and its ramifications, I thank the Prime Minister of Australia for using this parliament to put the interests of Australians first. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the work of Andrew Thomson, the former member for Wentworth and former head of the treaties committee. Very early in the piece, Andrew recognised flaws within the proposed structure of the International Criminal Court which have since resulted in the withdrawal of the US and the serious reservations expressed by others such as France. Andrew enlivened debate within the coalition on this matter. Many MPs picked up on Andrew's concerns and there was a concerted campaign. As a result, the legislation has been changed.Importantly, under these laws no Australian can be sent from Australia to the international court without the approval of our Attorney-General. A case to overturn this position can be heard only by the High Court of Australia, and then only in closely guarded constitutional circumstances. That is not according to some tricky international law, it is Australian law and it is set down in black and white within the legislation being passed tonight. That is the core issue of concern. The decision to engage the International Criminal Court in relation to an Australian sought from Australia will be made by an Australian Attorney-General and no-one else. Only on Australian soil, through an Australian court—the High Court—can a ruling by the Attorney-General be challenged. For those concerned about the impact of the ICC, that is pretty strong stuff and again I pay recognition to the members who spoke in the party room debate because I believe that they are responsible for producing that result for Australians. However, concerns remain and tonight I want to canvass some of them. Firstly, the treaty that establishes this court is the first I have heard of that asserts sovereignty over all nations on earth whether or not they have signed up. Secondly, it is prospective only. While supporters see that as a virtue, I am concerned about the message we are sending about those international criminals who have murdered, raped and pillaged and who have got away with it. Idi Amin will not be pursued by the ICC. Pol Pot's second in charge was interviewed on television the other night. He will not be pursued by the ICC. When listening to arguments for the International Criminal Court, we are told that the failure of the world community to capture and try Pol Pot is a demonstration of the need for this body. I find it deplorable that we can identify and interview Pol Pot's 2IC, but he will remain immune from the International Criminal Court and its proceedings. Thirdly, there have been ridiculous claims that by signing up to the ICC we protect our soldiers overseas from the danger that they may be falsely accused and tried of war crimes either under the auspices of the International Criminal Court or in some other circumstances. That emotional claim is completely untrue. In order to be subjected to Australian law or to be placed in a position where the Australian Attorney-General might even consider passing a service man or woman over to the International Criminal Court, our soldier would first have to be within the Australian jurisdiction. Any Australian service man or woman apprehended by a foreign country and accused of war crimes will be subject not to Australian law but to the law of the accusing country. The best that could be said for the International Criminal Court in those circumstances is that it would provide a framework within which Australia might ask for an alternative treatment, but that is as far as it goes. Finally, there is the overall question of the International Criminal Court's value as a deterrent to war criminals, brutal dictators and mass murderers. As the lucky inhabitants of a democratic country with a free press and a tradition built on the rule of law, our great hope for people less fortunate than ourselves is that they can find a way to democracy, self-determination and the rule of law. When it comes to facilitating democratic change in countries where people are oppressed and where tyrants rule, there is an established mechanism and that is through the United Nations Security Council. This court undermines the clear role of the United Nations Security Council in that regard. While military intervention and the threat of retribution may play a part in finding a way out for people such as the Kurds or, to take a recent local example, the people of East Timor, the ability of the United Nations to broker a peaceful settlement and a path to democracy has not always resulted in absolute justice. It has not always resulted in the apprehension and trial of every murderer, criminal or miscreant at any level within the unjust regime which, in the end, has been overthrown.You do not have to look further than South Africa for an example of where reconciliation rather than retaliation was the basis for an effective path to democracy and, in the end, equality before the law. When I think about the International Criminal Court and the most recent local example of the struggle for democracy, East Timor, I wonder what the International Criminal Court would have contributed there to a positive outcome. For example, there were various bloody militia leaders and other people with considerable power in the Indonesian military who are now facing what appears to be an excruciatingly slow process of justice in Indonesia. I wonder whether the outcome in Dili, in East Timor, for the people of that new and wonderful nation would have been the same if, at the time those tin-pot war lords and thugs had supreme power on the streets of Dili, they really believed that they could not just fade away across the border. At the end of the day, people in those disastrous circumstances have to live with the outcome. I am not convinced that we serve the long-term advancement of democratic principles if we establish an alternative path to that agreed through the United Nations Security Council and endorsed by it. I want to see war criminals punished. I do not want to see aggression. I do not want to see genocide. Above everything else I want to see people have the chance to experience democracy, self-determination and the rule of law. In Northern Ireland, for example, these days Sinn Fein is completing a slow transfer from being an organisation with a bloody advocacy of the IRA in the past into what is becoming, to all intents and purposes, a workaday political force. That is a process that I hope will go on. On occasions, there will be punishment of killers such as those that we have seen in Northern Ireland, and so there should be. But on other occasions, reconciliation will be more effective. The United Nations Security Council has proven itself effective. I am not talking now in terms of individual war criminals; I am talking in terms of finding a path to democracy in countries often racked by war. I believe that anything that undermines its role in completing that task is a retrograde step, and that is one of the supreme difficulties I have with the International Criminal Court.22:01:004365Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyIND00—I do not wish to take up the time of the House by dividing the House. I understand that I am able to request that my vote be recorded in the negative without dividing the House. I will request that that be done, because I most certainly unequivocally oppose the International Criminal Court Bill 2002 and the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002, and I do so in a fairly public manner.My reason for doing this is not coloured by the fact that I come from Charters Towers, which was the home of Breaker Morant. But Churchill's aphorism that those who do not know history will be doomed to repeat it is, in my opinion, enormously true. In the days of Breaker Morant, we stood side by side with Great Britain in the hope that, at all times, Great Britain would stand beside us. We were a little nation of one million or so people at that stage and we were surrounded by huge giants that could have blasted us away at any time if we had not had the protection of the Union Jack. So we went off to a war in South Africa that we should never have been involved in: the Boer War.To anyone who likes reading books, I strongly recommend that they read Robert Massie's book Dreadnought, which I think gives the best explanation of the causes of the First World War. One of the most important causes of the war was the horrific atrocities that were committed by the British against the Boers in the concentration camps. Some 28,000 women and children perished in those concentration camps. You have to get to the horrific episode in history associated with the name of Adolf Hitler before you find something comparable to the death of those 28,000 people in the concentration camps in South Africa. The world was revolted by what took place in South Africa. World opinion was enormously hostile to Great Britain. The Germans, who had a racial and a religious affinity with the Boers, could not get there, because they did not have a navy. If they had gone overland—this was before the days of motor vehicles—it would have taken two years for an army to march that distance. So they could not help their brothers as 28,000 of them perished in the camps. I am coming to where this is most relevant to these bills. Even though we as Australians were totally innocent of what happened—we had no control over the concentration camps; we had absolutely nothing to do with them—the British had to placate world opinion. World opinion was savagely and almost unanimously opposed to them—and quite rightly. It was a war, to put it at its best, over the gold mines and who would own them, and, at its worst, it was imperialism with the ugliest face possible. World opinion was assuaged and placated by taking a couple of dozen Australians out and shooting them. That was the way world opinion was placated. A senior officer in one of our special combat units, who has seen an awful lot of combat himself, has said: `As servicemen, we would ask you not to put us in a situation where we are controlled by the Americans. I am not hostile to the Americans. On the contrary, I am very pro-American, but it is fraught with very grave dangers, and not just of a strategic nature.' There is no doubt in my mind as to what he was referring to. Anyone of my age will have heard all of the stories that came out of Vietnam during the Vietnam War. I do not condemn any soldiers. I find it very difficult to condemn soldiers. War is, of its very nature, a very savage action and terrible things occur. Warfare is an atrocity in itself. In a conflict, atrocities will occur and they are actually referred to as warfare. Warfare is, by definition, an atrocity. So we have people involved in this terrible happening called warfare. But in the case of Breaker Morant, no-one was game to take on the people that were responsible for the misbehaviour and the appalling, dreadful things that happened in the concentration camps in South Africa. No-one was game to take on the British, who had the mightiest navy on earth—more than twice the size of any other navy on earth—and the biggest empire the world has ever seen, before or after. No-one was going to pick a fight with the British. So the Australians became the sacrificial lambs. I do not hesitate to say in this place that our servicemen will be placed in the gravest of jeopardy by the legislation that is passing through this House at the present moment.For those people who say this will be an institution of great justice—I have seen institutions of great justice. A person who was named Australian of the Year precipitated events in which some my colleagues in the state house in Queensland went to jail because they had used their government car for private purposes. Twenty-five per cent of the cars in Australia are purchased under a government contract of one type or another and every single one of those cars will be used for private purposes today. The bitter well of human experience has brought home to me with a vengeance that the justice system is very much a product of public opinion of the day.Whilst we may be—and I am myself—a very enthusiastic supporter of our relationship with America, we must also act in a responsible and sober manner. If you had read the last Time magazine—or it may have been the one before that—you would have seen an article headed `Anti-Americanism'. The concluding sentence read: `To hate America was to hate human beings.' The article was about the anti-Americanism sweeping Europe. If the Europeans are anti-American—and most of the old Communist states are anti-American—if China is anti-American, if Japan, through the trade battle that they have continuously, is not very sympathetic towards the Americans, and if the Middle East is not very sympathetic to the Americans, we are running short of people who are sympathetic towards America. Yet we are locked into a situation where we will be held responsible for every single thing that is done there.All of that is acceptable to me. I am a very strong supporter of our relationship with the United States. But what is not acceptable to me is that, whilst the Americans are not prepared to put their citizens at risk because they understand the world situation, this country, once again, is prepared to put our citizens at risk. There is a sickness in this place. Until I came into this parliament I never used the term `cultural cringe' and the reason for that was that I did not understand the term. I was brought up in Cloncurry and we did not cringe to anyone and I did not believe that Australians did. It was not until I read the OECD report on agriculture that I understood clearly what `cultural cringe' meant, because here was a document saying that every single advanced country on earth had increased their support levels for agriculture and there were only two dummy countries that had not. The two dummy countries were New Zealand and Australia.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Could the honourable member for Kennedy explain how that has got anything to do with the International Criminal Court?HX4Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTER—Mr Deputy Speaker, it is most relevant to the International Criminal Court Bill 2002 because the reason that we have proceeded here is that we believe in globalisation. Every time a group of countries says, `We should do this for the sake of all of the countries on the planet and for peace and enlightenment in the world,' then we go along with the garbage, whatever it might be and whatever danger it is to this nation. We can see it clearly in the case of agriculture, where it was enormously to the detriment of this nation—where it has been an absolutely, unbelievable destructive force. We are doing exactly the same thing with this legislation tonight. We are placing the real interests of this country, and particularly our servicemen, in danger. I have the very great honour of representing some of those people. Townsville has the greatest concentration of service personnel in Australia and a lot of them live in the northern beaches area that I have the honour of representing. So I stand up here today to speak on behalf of those people who are extremely worried. This place has no hesitation in putting the bodies and the lives of those men on the line. When they ask us to protect them and not to place them in jeopardy through world courts, we do just the opposite. There must have been people in the state parliament during the Boer War saying the same sort of things that I am saying now, particularly about that terrible situation that surrounded the Breaker Morant incident.Let me switch to an entirely different angle involving grave dangers for this bill. Article 6 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court reads:Article 6GenocideFor the purpose of this Statute, 'genocide' means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part—and probably the land laws of Australia some are arguing might qualify for that criterion—(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Let me just concentrate on (d) and (e) because I was threatened with the sack if I had not agreed to put condom vending machines in supermarkets in the Aboriginal communities. Premier Ahern told me that if I did not agree by five o'clock in the afternoon I would be sacked. I agreed and before I implemented it I resigned from the cabinet. In fact, I was one of the three or four people that sacked him some few months later.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Member for Kennedy, I have great problems in seeing how condom vending machines have anything to do with the International Criminal Court.HX4Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTER—Mr Deputy Speaker, the statute states:(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.At the time, the papers were full of outcries from people of Aboriginal descent in the Aboriginal communities that that was what was being done—that this was a plot by the Queensland government to eliminate them as a race. For the record, there were condom vending machines at all the medical aid posts—they were there all the time and they provided condoms for free.The point that I am making is already on the record: charges of genocide were laid on the basis of these sorts of activities. If you think that people are not going to go after officials in this government and in the state governments on the basis of paragraph (d), you probably believe in the tooth fairy. All the great intellectual placebos that we have been given today say, `You are quite safe; you do not have to worry about this because the law says such and such.' My 30 years of public life indicate to me that that means nothing. They are nice sounding words coming from lawyers, some of whom still believe in a system that can be corrupted just like any other system, and corrupted in a very profound sense of the word. Let me come to paragraph (e), which states: Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.I probably have two or three dozen such cases on my books as a state or federal member. The vast bulk of those cases were families of Aboriginal descent. The point that I make to the House is that, as I have said on numerous occasions, the issue of stolen children is taking place right at this very moment. Middle-class values are being imposed upon people. I am not saying that they are perfect parents. They may not be perfect parents, but they are still the parents of these children, and those children are being taken away on a continuous basis right at this very moment.So to all the clever people in this place I say: I actually know and am very friendly with people who believe that there are people in this place who are in flagrant breach of paragraphs (d) and (e). All they have to do is go to the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor takes it to the Pretrial Chamber, and the judges reflect the opinions of the wider public. If there is a rising tide of anti-Americanism through the world—I am referring now to the Defence Force matters—the judges will have a particular attitude in those pretrial hearings. So too, if world opinion is very strongly on the side of the first Australians—the Aboriginal people, as some people call them—the judges will decide in their favour. That has been my experience through all my recent involvement with the legal tribunals. They will follow public opinion. I suppose, to some degree, that is not necessarily a bad thing—in fact, maybe that is the way it should be. But that exposes many public officials in this country to this outside court. You say, `They cannot pluck anyone off the street here.' I have never been overseas and I do not intend to go overseas, so it will not worry me much but, quite frankly, if you set foot outside this country, the protections that are provided in this bill will be worth absolutely zilch.I am totally opposed to this measure. It is a continuing, grovelling sycophancy towards international interests. I have seen similar things in interstate conferences. As a minister, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, you will have seen that everyone at ministerial conferences likes to be agreeable—they do not like to introduce discordant notes. Of course, we get an outcome that might suit the majority of Australians, it might suit parts of Australia very greatly, it might suit the Australian people as a whole, or it might be enormously detrimental to the interests of one state or another, yet they roll over and go along with it, in spite of the fact that it is to the detriment of their state. What applies at interstate meetings is exactly what applies when our officials go to international meetings. Exactly the same forces are at work. I just see the cultural cringe flashing in neon lights with this bill, and I want to put my opposition on record, because some day someone will ask how we could ever have agreed to such a stupid and dangerous proposal as is being put forward here.22:19:004368Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I thank members who have participated in the interesting debate on the International Criminal Court Bill 2002. The government believes that the International Criminal Court can make a valuable contribution to the future punishment of persons who commit acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Even in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the last decade we have seen world attention on the possibility of putting an end to impunity for individuals who commit gross atrocities under the guise of war. It is an inescapable fact that the perpetrators of these crimes in the last century were largely left unpunished. The new century must not follow suit. The establishment of the International Criminal Court is one practical way that Australia can help ensure that this goal is achieved. The International Criminal Court will help bring the perpetrators of these sorts of crimes to justice, and it will preserve and promote the ideals of justice, peace and freedom—ideals that Australians jealously protect.Australia's support of the International Criminal Court is based on the many checks and balances contained in the International Criminal Court statute. Its functions and role have been carefully articulated and its powers circumscribed to protect the sovereignty of the countries which support its establishment. However, these bills before us today provide safeguards additional to those in the International Criminal Court statute to ensure the primacy of Australia's right to exercise its jurisdiction over crimes in the International Criminal Court statute to protect our national interests. The International Criminal Court Bill 2002 will establish procedures in our domestic law to fulfil Australia's obligations under the International Criminal Court statute. The offences inserted into the criminal code by the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 will apply to all conduct, regardless of whether it occurs or its effects occur within or outside Australia. The offences apply to all persons regardless of nationality and apply equally to members of the Australian Defence Force. This proposed legislation is comprehensive, including all the crimes in the International Criminal Court statute, so that we can take full advantage of the protections afforded by the principle of complementarity. The incorporation in the Criminal Code of the offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes under the International Criminal Court statute by the consequential amendments bill ensures that those crimes will be interpreted and applied under Australian law. The International Criminal Court Bill requires that no person can be arrested on a warrant issued by the court or surrendered to the court without the Commonwealth Attorney-General issuing a certificate. The International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 provides that no prosecution is to be commenced without the consent of, and proceedings will be conducted in the name of, the Attorney-General.The member for Griffith referred to the discretion outlined in clauses 22 and 29 of the International Criminal Court Bill 2002 and stated that they appeared to be a substantive veto. The member for Griffith's comments appeared to be based on a misapprehension that the Attorney-General is bound by the international statute rather than the obligations contained in Australia's domestic legislation. This wide discretion in clauses 22 and 29 is designed to ensure that domestic judicial review is limited. The discretion will be exercised in accordance with the International Criminal Court Act 2002, when passed. The act will be the domestic implementation of Australia's obligations under the International Criminal Court statute. Australia's international obligations under the statute become effective domestically only because they are translated into domestic Australian law.It is also instructive to note that under clause 22 the Attorney-General must not issue a notice for arrest, surrender or provisional arrest of a person for a crime unless he or she has signed a certificate that it is appropriate to do so. In effect, a notice of arrest, surrender or provisional arrest is only to be issued if it is appropriate. Similarly, a warrant for the surrender of a person to the court under clause 29 is only to be issued if it is appropriate to do so. Examples of the way the domestic law relates to our international obligations are provided in the explanatory memorandum. The exercise of the Attorney-General's discretion will be done in a way that accords with the domestic legislation.The government believes that the establishment of the International Criminal Court is an important development to ensure that those who commit the most egregious crimes against humanity are brought to justice. It is in Australia's national interest to be part of this important international effort to deter and punish those who commit atrocities. This legislation will give effect to the government's commitment to this principle. I commend the bill to the House.Question agreed to, Mr Katter dissenting.Bill read a second time.4369Mr WILLIAMS (Tangney—Attorney-General) (10.25 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills4370R16074370Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Williams:That this bill be now read a second time.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.4370Mr WILLIAMS (Tangney—Attorney-General) (10.25 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Adjournment437010000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! It being almost 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.437022:26:004370Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Howard government has inflicted great pain upon pensioners throughout Australia. Hardly a day goes by without a pensioner contacting my office to tell me how their cost of living and expenses are increasing and how they are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. First we had the GST; more recently we have had the government trying to inflict pain on them through changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.One person who has contacted me on a number of occasions is most concerned because the government is threatening to take away or review the disability support pension. She is very concerned about the impact that this will have on her life. This person—let us call her Barbara—is one of those people who lives in a residential park. At the time that the GST was introduced she was most concerned, because she felt that the government's legislation allowed her rent to attract a GST. That has not happened at the park she lives in.What she has done for me is prepare a little summary of the increase in her expenses from the period of 7 July 2000 to 1 July 2002. During that period she has had a rental increase of $6 per week and she is now paying $312 a fortnight in rent. Her power charges have had GST added as of 1 July 2001. She had a $19.24 daily availability charge and during that period she has paid $702.26 for that. For her Telstra line she pays $58.80, including GST. The introduction of a handset charge was $33 plus GST, natural gas was $28 and household insurance was $63. She has added all of her figures up and she has come up with the fact that, during this period of time, she has had a $23.02 increase a week—or a $46.04 increase for the fortnight.Apart from the rental figures that have increased, this does not include her usage fees and all those other things that have gone up—all of those little subtle increases that have come in during that period of time. She raises the question of how the government does their sums and whether or not they really understand how the changes and adjustments have affected real people. She raises the question of her handset—it was installed in 1986 and she says it should have been written off in depreciation by 1990, yet she is still being charged rental on that.Barbara has estimated that as of 1 July she would be at least $70 a fortnight worse off. For her to be able to enjoy the same standard of living she argues that the government should be paying her an extra $70 a fortnight. One of the issues that most concerns her is that every time she gets an increase in her pension she also gets a decrease in the amount she receives in rental allowance. She wrote to me:Mr Costello must be right about my income from the pension being great because every time he gives me a rise he deducts some from my rental assistance. My rent hasn't dropped to my knowledge. Increased yes! Dropped no! So if he figures I need less I must be better off than I thought.She has sent me copies of her rental allowance, going back to August 2000 when she got $76.65 and was being paid a pension of $462.63. In August 2001 her rental allowance dropped to $69.45. In January this year it was $68.40. Barbara argues that her cost of living has increased and she is receiving less assistance from the government. (Time expired)437122:31:004371Farmer, Patrick, MPMr FARMER00AMOMacarthurLP10—I rise to speak on a matter of great importance to me and to many people in the electorate of Macarthur: the International Criminal Court. Australia has played an important role in the development of the International Criminal Court and of the Rome statute, which I am proud to say that this parliament tonight has agreed to ratify. On International Human Rights Day in 1996, the Howard government announced that Australia regarded the court's establishment as one of its prime multilateral and human rights objectives. The Prime Minister made this issue part of his election platform during two campaigns and, after debate and discussion, this House has now agreed to ratify it. It horrifies me to hear stories of people who have fled countries where genocide and crimes against humanity are common. My heart goes out to these people. As a father of two who lives in what I believe is the greatest country in the world, I will probably never comprehend the tragedy that they have experienced. But I am sure of one thing: we should do everything in our power to stop these types of crimes in the future.The International Criminal Court will prosecute war criminals, those who commit genocide and those who commit crimes against humanity. For too long the world has sat back and allowed this type of behaviour to go unpunished. By ratifying this statute Australia does not waive its rights to sovereignty, as many have suggested. The declaration will ensure that no Australian can be arrested by the court or have a warrant issued for their arrest without the permission of the Australian Attorney-General. We often disagree and engage in vigorous debate in this House, but when we leave for our electorates at the end of each sitting we all know, despite our fundamental differences, that every one of us has certain rights and civil liberties as a member of the Australian democracy. Unfortunately, many of these rights that we take for granted do not exist in other parts of the world. In fact for many people in the world the ideas of human rights and justice are laughable.After languishing in obscurity for over 40 years, the issue of establishing an international criminal court came to a head in 1993 when the eruption of fighting in the former Yugoslavia into genocide and crimes against humanity made it to the front pages of our newspapers. By ratifying the statute, Australia will join with other countries in the world in saying that these types of acts will not be tolerated at any time or in any place and that those who commit them will be made accountable. From 1 July, the ICC will act as a deterrent to those who consider committing these crimes, no matter where or when. While I was preparing this speech I was reminded of the words of Benjamin Ferencz, aprosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. He said:There can be no peace without justice, no justice without law and no meaningful law without a court to decide what is just and lawful under any given circumstance.If the Australian government had not ratified the Rome statute, we would have sent a message to the world that we were not prepared to hold those who commit war crimes and genocide accountable. By joining the ICC we are sending the message that we are not willing to condone the loss of over two millionlives in Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime, that we are not willing to condone the atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia and, most importantly, that we are not willing to stand by and let the perpetrators of these crimes walk free. I could not sit by and do nothing. That is why I supported the ratification of the Rome statute. Let me remind you that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.437122:36:004371George, Jennie, MPMs GEORGEJH5ThrosbyALP00—The Cole royal commission was set up by this government supposedly to investigate corruption in the building industry. The commission is currently in the process of conducting hearings in my home state of New South Wales. One has to ask why $60 million is being spent on investigating the activities of an industry that in New South Wales delivered the biggest ever public infrastructure development, the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, both on time and on budget. From the public reporting to date, one must ask whether this royal commission is nothing more than an extension of the minister's constant ideological attacks on the union movement. We all know the building industry is a tough and dangerous one. It is in this environment that the CFMEU construction division has to operate. It is an industry where, on average, one worker dies on the job every week. It is an industry where it is estimated that more than $1 billion is evaded in tax through cash-in-hand and sham subcontractor arrangements. It is an industry where employers are often found to be in breach of many employment related laws. I have had experience of this myself in chairing an inquiry into the labour hire industry, where it is common for employers to subvert the law in terms of due award payments, superannuation obligations, WorkCover and payroll tax. I want to take the opportunity this evening to place on record my thanks to the local organisers of the CFMEU for the assistance they provided me and the residents of Lakeline Estate in my electorate of Throsby. These residents—mainly older folk and pensioners—were the victims of a shocking scam perpetrated by a major developer in the area, Mr Bruce Maples. The Lakeline Estate is a residential complex of approximately 150 relocatable homes. I guess you would be aware, Mr Speaker, that people who move into relocatable homes are usually the poor, those on pensions and the less well off in our community. They thought that they were purchasing homes and that their homes were going to be affixed to what, by any standard, are quite small lots.Mr Maples acquired the property—the Lakeline Estate—in 1996. About 12 months later, the residents of Lakeline Estate—my constituents—discovered that many of their homes and lots had been offered by Mr Maples and/or his companies as security to fund several major building projects within the Wollongong CBD. Mr Maples's companies were involved in the construction of large multistorey residential developments in the heart of Wollongong. It is not surprising, I guess, that these sites consistently breached commonly accepted OH&S standards, including on numerous occasions defiance of WorkCover prohibition notices. Not surprisingly, Mr Maples's companies ended up in financial strife. A receiver was appointed and the lending institutions then attempted to enforce security they held in relation to Lakeline—in other words, the properties that, under the nose of the poor residents, had been offered up as security by Mr Maples in extending his financial empire. I am pleased to say that, after much heartache and anxiety, most of the older victims of this estate have had ownership of their homes restored. Regrettably, a few are still waiting for a handful of financial institutions to agree not to pursue them for Mr Maples's bad debts. What an outrage this has been. The CFMEU locally has stood up and assisted all the workers and residents who were victims of the scams and rorts perpetrated by Mr Maples. Mr Maples has left town owing millions of dollars to the banks, to small businesses and to contractors. The CFMEU has worked hard to recover lost entitlements for workers, subcontractors and suppliers. On behalf of the residents of Lakeline Estate, I want to thank the CFMEU for its assistance.The residents at Lakeline Estate in my electorate who almost lost their homes in a rort perpetrated by a developer have a true, tragic and documented story. I bet it beats the best of the courtroom tales and, dare I say, some of the fairytales the Cole royal commission has heard to date. I hope it is not too late for the Cole royal commission to come to Wollongong to answer the call of the labour council to investigate the scams and rorts perpetrated by Bruce Maples.437222:42:004372Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10—Last week, the opposition were good enough to propose to the House for discussion a matter of public importance in which they accused this government of, in my words, not looking after country Australia. There was one issue that they really needed to come to terms with that we did not put forward that day. I assume that we are talking about the same Labor Party that currently holds sway in the state of New South Wales and in the state of Queensland. We are talking about a government in New South Wales that, in some instances, has totally decimated the ability of farmers to earn their living, to retain their asset and to develop country Australia and rural aspects in the way in which it needs to be done. Over the past six years in New South Wales, the Carr government has taken away the rights of farmers to mange their own land, without any recourse to compensation. It has taken away the rights of farmers in New South Wales to develop their land without going through a complicated process. At the end of the day, nine times out of 10 they are denied that right. There is no form of compensation. The Carr government in New South Wales recently passed its budget. Despite the fact that it is currently in the business of taking enormous amounts of water away from irrigations in the Namoi Valley, for example, it did not put aside one red cent to compensate people who are going to lose up to 85 per cent of their entitlement.Why do I bring this up? It is not only because of the situation with water but also because of normal farming practices and development. There is federal legislation, and in most states there is just terms legislation, which allows compensation if—I stress `if'—the land title of a farmer or anybody else is taken away from them. What is so absolutely unfair and iniquitous, especially in New South Wales and Queensland, is not that the government is taking away their title—it leaves that alone—but that it is taking away their right to mange and their right to develop. That means that the equity that these people depend on and the jobs that the whole of country New South Wales depends on are being totally taken away. It is all very well to have just terms legislation which protects your title, but it does not protect those things which have been taken by the state government in New South Wales.The New South Wales state government is catering to the Green vote in Sydney, Wollongong and Newcastle and totally ignoring what it is doing to the people who are producing one-twelfth of all the exports of Australia—that is, country New South Wales. One-twelfth of Australia's exports are produced by those people, and their equity has been ignored. I call this conservation by confiscation. Instead of having the courage to stand up and take away their title, the state government is getting a free political ride on the backs of the farmers.I took the Premier of New South Wales and most of his senior advisers, one at a time, out to western New South Wales. They were totally surprised to find out just how much natural vegetation is out there. Some of them had never been west of the Blue Mountains, and they confessed that they had to do something about it. But nothing has been done in this latest budget. Whether it be for land development or for water entitlements, not one red cent has been made available for those people who depend upon a free— (Time expired)437322:46:004373Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00— Recently many Australians were surprised that the Prime Minister shoved aside the Governor-General and attended the funeral of the Queen Mother at considerable public expense and considerable time out of his busy schedule. It has come to my attention how badly the Prime Minister was treated at the Queen Mother's funeral. In yesterday's New Statesman magazine, there was an article on the Queen Mother's funeral by the widely respected journalist John Lloyd. It said:Two of the prime ministers, Helen Clark of New Zealand and John Howard of Australia, came to the funeral directly from their own countries—nearly a day of continuous flying. They were informed when they arrived that they would be taken by bus to Westminster Abbey from a pick-up point in Chelsea. Only the most strenuous objections by their high commissioners secured them permission to travel in their commissioners' cars.Once in the abbey, they were seated some rows from the front, with an incomplete view of the proceedings, nearly two hours before the ceremony started. Some time later, Laura Bush, representing the US president, and Bernadette Chirac, representing the French president, arrived—entitled, as representatives of heads of state rather than mere heads of government to later entry and a grander place. Finally came the monarchs and their consorts—not just, for example, King Harald of Norway, King Juan Carlos of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg, but also the likes of King Constantine of the Hellenes, King Michael of Romania and Prince Ernst-August of Hanover, who have long been redundant. But the point being made was that blood—royal blood—precedes election. So there was our Prime Minister, seated for two hours—they wanted to bus him in—sitting behind Prince Ernst-August of Hanover with a faulty view of the ceremony. John Lloyd continues:At the end of the ceremony, all were asked to stand while the monarchs took their leave, followed by representatives of the heads of state. The congregation was told to remain standing not just until the European royalty and their consorts had left the cathedral, but until their cars had cleared the area. Why? Nobody knew or was told.When finally allowed to leave, the prime ministers Clark and Howard were taken to a reception at the Foreign Office, where Blair gave a rather apologetic speech. Well might he be apologetic, though responsibility for the slight was not his. The prime ministers had flown halfway across the world to show respect for the mother of their head of state. With the minimum of courtesy, they had been consigned to walk-on roles. Not one of them had a conversation, a word or even eye contact with any member of the royal family.As an expression of raw privilege, this is hard to beat. All were outraged; at least one vowed never to return to the UK.I think we can safely say it was Prime Minister Clark rather than Prime Minister Howard who vowed never to return to the United Kingdom. Perhaps our Prime Minister is happy to be treated like dirt by the royal family. Perhaps he is prepared to get this sort of treatment—to fly from the other side of the world at considerable public expense and taking extensive time out of his own schedule and to be seated, behind Prince Ernst-August of Hanover, for two hours before the ceremony started. The Prime Minister did not even make eye contact, let alone have a single word, with any member of the royal family.You will never get a better argument for the republic than this. The royal family treats this country and its Prime Minister like dirt. This is an absolute outrage, and it is unAustralian for our Prime Minister to take it. Why hasn't he reported to the parliament about this shocking treatment in London? Why hasn't he reported to the parliament about the way in which he was treated like dirt by the royal family? This is just unacceptable.It reminds me of an account that Gough Whitlam once made of a conversation he had visiting London with the State Agents General. They complained that they did not have diplomatic status. In his book The Whitlam government, he says:The final humiliation had come at a royal occasion in Westminster Abbey, when they had to sit behind the Dame of Sark. I could scarcely simulate sufficient indignation to placate them.So there was a time when our State Agents General had to sit behind the Dame of Sark in the order of royal protocol. Our Prime Minister has barely improved. He sat behind Prince Ernst-August of Hanover in the new list of royal protocol. The Prime Minister is unAustralian to cop this sort of treatment. No dignified decent Australian would cop this sort of rubbish. Brownnosing to the royal family is no substitute for Australian values, Australian standards and ultimately an Australian republic. (Time expired)CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr Hardgrave—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: I apologise to you that I do not have the standing order directly in front of me, but I have a feeling there was some reflection on the Crown, which I believe is a breach of the standing orders.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister is taking a point of order under standing order 74. I have had standing order 74 in front of me. The obligation on the member for Werriwa was to not reflect disrespectfully on Her Majesty or her representative. I do not consider what the member for Werriwa did was particularly helpful, but it did not breach that standing order.437422:52:004374Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—It is a great honour to rise on the day that Australia has offered legislative support for ratification of the statute of the International Criminal Court. It is an honour to be part of a government which has taken this step and it is also a personal honour for me because, if in some small way I have been able to contribute, that is something which I can take with me. We stand at the end of a century of violence and brutality without parallel in history. From the Boer War to World War I to Armenia, the Holocaust, the Soviet Union during the 1930s, Biafra, the Cultural Revolution in China, Uganda, Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Timor—all of these represent a dark stain on that to which we aspire. Almost all of these atrocities have gone unpunished. That is a condition which, at a point in our history when we regard ourselves to be civilised and of civilisation, is fundamentally unacceptable. In that situation, the creation of an international criminal court is an important incremental step towards ensuring that these things do not occur again. It will not solve it overnight, it will not bring justice on every occasion, it will not bring to the dock all those who commit the major crimes, but it is an important incremental step towards those goals.For me, there is great personal importance in this step. In 1993 I worked for the UN Special Rapporteur for the former Yugoslavia, based in Geneva, and collated reports from Bosnia, Croatia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia which included stories of how villagers were taken out and systematically murdered, one by one, in front of their family members. In December 1995 I spent time with Medecins sans Frontieres in Rwanda and Zaire in the aftermath of the genocide there. In 1998 I had the honour and the responsibility of being Australia's chief electoral observer in Cambodia. In all those places, I witnessed both directly and at a societal level the legacy of violence, the likes of which we have never experienced, and which I pray we will never experience, in this country.As a consequence of those experiences, in 1996 I was fortunate enough to work with the foreign minister at a time when Australia made its commitment to endorse and lead the fight for an international criminal court. In 1998 I had the honour of participating at the Rome conference which gave rise to the Rome statute, and this year I have the opportunity and the honour of being part of a party which has agreed to ratification of that statute. Its purpose is very simple: firstly, it is to help create a system of justice by taking the principles of Nuremberg and Tokyo and applying them worldwide; secondly, it is about prevention. We have to be realistic about what can be done, but prevention is about stripping the legitimacy away from the people who would carry out these crimes, in the same way that President Milosovic had his legitimacy stripped away once he was indicted by the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. That contributed to the society of which he was part and which he had helped ravage being able to throw him out, export their problem and have it dealt with by an international body. In so doing, that leads to the third purpose of this tribunal: the notion of helping to create stability. From a hard-edged, realist perspective, it is about helping to create the stability which comes about from knowing that there is a means of addressing the problems by stripping legitimacy and by bringing to justice those who cause these problems.There is an important protection for Australian sovereignty and that has been set down—that no Australian will ever be prosecuted without a certificate from the Attorney-General. That is a fundamental defence of Australia's rights, and that is how it should be. We should never shy away from being proud of what we are as a liberal democracy because that notion is what creates for individuals the greatest prevention of these types of abuses. (Time expired)437522:57:004375Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Tonight I want to congratulate Penrith City Council, which the Remuneration Tribunal has elevated to category 1A, the same as Blacktown City Council. I would also like to thank their senior officers who always show me unfailing courtesy and assistance whenever I bring a problem to them. Blacktown City Council, of course, is somewhat disappointed not to have been elevated to the same status as Wollongong and Newcastle councils. I might say that that is disappointing, given that Blacktown City Council is the third largest local government area in Australia.In speaking about these matters of councils and their status, Councillor Kelly—whom, some might be surprised, I agree with—said it was absurd that Blacktown City Council did not have a full-time mayor. I would actually support both Penrith City Council and Blacktown City Council having a full-time mayor. However, I would urge both councils to consider that there should be a direct election of the mayor by the ratepayers. I am a democrat. Mr Speaker, when people in your electorate go to vote for a federal member or a state member, they know exactly who they are getting, but with local councils who becomes mayor is often the subject of backroom deals. I think that having a mayor that is directly elected by the people is what is required in this new century. If local government is to go forward and earn some of the credibility that it yearns, I think it must practise democratic principles in full measure. So I urge Penrith City Council and Blacktown City Council now, whilst they have the opportunity, to enfranchise the people of their council areas and let them directly vote for whoever should have the privilege of being mayor. In the short time available to me, I want to thank the Child Support Agency for holding a seminar in my electorate. I was very pleased that Superintendent Bruce Newling from the Mount Druitt Police was there and, I understand, for the first time, Federal Magistrate Judy Ryan. Her participation was an outstanding feature of the night. If I could conclude on this point: I was shocked when the superintendent spoke about how much police resourcing is taken up in dealing with domestic violence cases. I do not argue that the police should not be involved in some of those cases, but in so many others they are the wrong agency.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:004376House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices4376The following notices were given:00AMTVamvakinou, Maria, MPMs Vamvakinou to move:That this House:(1) notes the recommendation of the February 1995 report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs to amend the Medicare rebate schedule to include the provision of mammary prostheses;(2) recognises that estimates of women undergoing breast cancer surgery in Australia approach 1,000 per month with more than one-third requiring a mastectomy;(3) recognises the ongoing cost (financial, physical and emotional) of wearing required prostheses and shell/breast forms and acknowledges the strain on muscles and posture following the loss of a breast or a significant part of the breast;(4) recognises the ongoing cost of prostheses and acknowledges that there is no Commonwealth Government scheme to lessen the financial burden faced by women following breast surgery for those in need of prosthetics;(5) notes The Canberra Times article “Dead Women's Breast Prostheses Resold” appearing on 3 June 2002 detailing the reuse of mammary prostheses amongst breast cancer patients facing financial hardship;(6) calls on the government to provide mammary prostheses through the Medicare rebate schedule; and(7) condemns the Government over budget measures where the sickest and poorest Australians and families will be hit with an increase of almost 30% in the cost of their essential medicines.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996, and for related purposes.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996, and for related purposes.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott to present a bill for an act to amend laws relating to workplace relations, and for other purposes.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott to present a bill for an act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991, and for related purposes.EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr Stone to present a bill for an act to amend the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994, and for related purposes.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss to present a bill for an act to direct funds to Plant Health Australia Limited, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act about binding Commonwealth obligations to provide financial assistance under indemnity agreements relating to Australasian Medical Insurance Limited and United Medical Protection Limited, and for related purposes. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend certain laws relating to the financial sector, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act about Life Gold Passes, and for other purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Perimeter Security Fence, RAAF Base Tindal, Katherine, NT.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Stage 1 Redevelopment and facilities for the Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft, RAAF Base Williamtown, Newcastle, NSW.Answers to Questions in Writing4378The following answers to questions were circulated:4378(Question No. 315)3154378Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Ageing, upon notice, on 14 May 2002:What is the current waiting list for aged care beds in the (a) northern and (b) eastern region of Melbourne and how do these figures compare with the figures (i) 12 months ago, (ii) 2 years ago and (iii) 5 years ago.4378Andrews, Kevin, MPMr AndrewsHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Commonwealth does not have information on the number of people who have applied to aged care homes.4378(Question No. 355)3554378Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 15 May 2002:When will the next round of submissions be called for further MRI licences.4378Andrews, Kevin, MPMr AndrewsHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—The Minister for Health and Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:There is no formal commitment to a future tender process. An independent advisory body, the MRI Monitoring and Evaluation Group (MEG), has been set up to monitor access to Medicare funded MRI services and provide advice to the Government on the need for more MRI services in Australia. It will make recommendations to the Federal Government later this year. If a need for additional MRI units is identified, it is envisaged that a tender process will be undertaken targeting specific areas.4378(Question No. 407)4074378Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 May 2002:Has a State Governor's dormant commission ever been activated in the event of the incapacity or removal of a Governor-General.4378Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No. I draw the honourable member's attention to pages 551-553 of the Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia (28th edn, 1999) and to the Department of the Parliamentary Library's web site for details of Governors-General and persons appointed to administer the Government of the Commonwealth since its establishment.