2002-08-224013REPS543702002-08-22—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills5437R16155437Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.543709:30:005437Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme (ACIS) Administration Amendment Bill 2002 is to make a number of minor amendments to the ACIS Administration Act 1999. These amendments are intended to allow eligible motor vehicle producers to claim ACIS uncapped production credits for the production of derivatives of passenger motor vehicles such as utilities, panel vans and pick-ups with effect from the commencement date of ACIS.ACIS commenced on 1 January 2001 and is scheduled to end on 31 December 2005. The scheme encourages the development of internationally competitive firms in the Australian automotive industry by rewarding eligible production, strategic investment, and research and development. ACIS participants earn incentives in the form of duty credits which can be used to offset customs duty on eligible automotive imports, or can be sold for use by another party.Prior to the introduction of ACIS, the automotive industry received uncapped benefits for the production of passenger motor vehicles, utilities and panel vans through the duty-free allowance (DFA). In June 1997, when announcing future assistance arrangements for the automotive industry, the government stated that the DFA would continue and that a new transitional assistance program would be introduced.ACIS was announced as the new transitional assistance program in April 1998. ACIS was subsequently modified to embody two elements—an uncapped element and a capped element. The uncapped element was meant to be equivalent to the DFA, and is equal to 15 per cent of the value of production of passenger motor vehicles (PMVs) sold in Australia and New Zealand, multiplied by the current PMV tariff rate.The current ACIS definition of passenger motor vehicles unintentionally excludes utilities, panel vans and pick-ups. As a result, motor vehicle producers are only eligible to claim capped payments for the production of these vehicles. Modulation means that the production of these derivative vehicles receives a lower rate of payment than if they were paid from the uncapped element. This is clearly inconsistent with the government's 1997 stated intention to continue the DFA.This bill corrects an oversight in the original legislation and makes specific provision in the ACIS Act for the production of utilities, panel vans and pick-ups to attract uncapped incentives from the scheme commencement date, in line with the government's original intention. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Bills5437R16145437Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.543709:35:005437Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 contains amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921.Some of the amendments contained in the bill have been previously tabled as Excise Tariff Proposals Nos 1, 2 and 3 of 2002. The proposals now require incorporation in the Excise Tariff Act. A further amendment to remove product stewardship oil products from the application of the indexation provisions of the Excise Tariff Act has also been included. Complementary changes to customs legislation are being addressed through Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002.This bill contains various government initiatives. The special provisions for emulsified diesel-water blends are an environmental initiative designed to encourage clean fuel technology. Amendments in the bill allow the water component of emulsified diesel-water fuel blends produced by licensed excise manufacturers to be free of excise duty. The changes commenced on 25 October last year.The exemptions from the product stewardship oil levy support the original intention of the levy to reduce the impact of waste oil on the environment. The changes exempt from the levy those products which have been identified to be solely used for the manufacture of other products and do not result in waste oil. The amendments commenced on 15 April 2002.The change to beer excise rates is a measure agreed with the states and territories which replaces various state subsidies for low alcohol beer, with national assistance now delivered through the mechanism of lower excise rates. Amendments in the bill introduce new rates of excise duty for certain beer which commenced on 1 July 2002.The removal of the indexation provisions from oils provides for consistency of treatment between petroleum fuels and certain oils for non-fuel use, and reduces costs to business. The amendments in the bill give effect to the government's decision by altering the indexation provisions of the Excise Tariff Act to exclude all oil products from the application of the provisions for the first indexation period following royal assent—that is, commencing on 1 February 2003 and any subsequent indexation period.The then government introduced the automatic six-monthly indexation of excise in 1983. On 30 June 2001, legislation took effect that abolished the half-yearly indexation of fuel excise. An inconsistency arose as a result of this legislation, which covered petroleum products but not oils and lubricants dutiable under the product stewardship oil arrangements. Abolition of indexation in respect of oil products will restore consistency between the treatment of fuels and oils for non-fuel use, and further reduce costs to business.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.Bills5438R16135438Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.543809:40:005438Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995.In brief, the changes in this bill:· give effect to the government's decision to exempt certain goods from the product stewardship oil levy;· amend customs rates of duty for certain beer to give effect to the government's decision to introduce a national scheme for low alcohol beer;· amend section 19 of the Customs Tariff as a consequence of the removal of indexation provisions for those goods subject to the product stewardship oil levy; and· implement other minor related amendments to the Customs Tariff.These amendments are equivalent to amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 contained in Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002.I commend the bill to the chamber and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Business543909:42:005439Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPLeader of the House10—I move:That the following changes to the standing orders be made with effect from 16 September 2002: (1) That standing orders 81, 274, 274A and 275 be amended to read as follows: Debate confined to present question—Exceptions81 No Member may digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion: Provided that— (a) on the question for the adjournment of the House or the Main Committee to terminate the sitting, matters irrelevant thereto may be debated, and (b) on the motion for the second reading of an Appropriation or Supply Bill, except an Appropriation or Supply Bill for expenditure that is not expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government, matters relating to public affairs may be debated.Sittings and adjournment274 The Main Committee may meet at any time during a sitting of the House and the following provisions shall apply: (a) the Committee need not adjourn between items of business; (b) proceedings in the Committee shall be suspended by the Chair to enable Members to attend any division in the House; (c) a sitting of the Committee may be adjourned on motion moved by any Member without notice; (d) upon the adjournment of the House the Chair shall interrupt the business before the Committee and forthwith adjourn the Committee; and (e) upon the completion of consideration of all matters referred to the Committee by the House the Chair shall propose the question—That the Committee do now adjourn. Adjournment debates274A The question—That the Committee do now adjourn—shall be open to debate but no amendment may be moved to the question: Provided that if, on the question—That the Committee do now adjourn—being proposed, a Member requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Chair shall forthwith put the question. Provided further that, at the conclusion of the debate on the question—That the Committee do now adjourn—a Minister may require that the debate be extended for 10 minutes to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; on the expiry of 10 minutes, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Chair shall forthwith adjourn the Committee. Committee to consider only matters referred275 The Main Committee shall consider only such matters as have been referred to it by the House or as specified in the standing orders. (2) That standing order 282 be amended to read as follows: Chair to suspend sitting when disorder arises282 If any sudden disorder arises in the Main Committee the Chair may, or on motion without notice by any Member shall, forthwith suspend or adjourn the sitting and shall report the disorder to the House. If the sitting is adjourned, any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting. (3) Omit “(on a Thursday)” from the item concerning Question for the adjournment of House or Main Committee in standing order 91.Essentially what this motion proposes to do is respond to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, The second chamber: enhancing the Main Committee. This report was brought down some time ago. As the House may recall, in June, during the last sitting period, I tabled the government's response to that report. There was much in that report that was valuable and there was much that the government really do appreciate. In particular, the government are determined to try to ensure that we do have fuller debate, that we do have a more realistic exchange of views and ideas between members of this parliament. I think it is important that we try to promote those very desirable objectives through some innovation in the Main Committee.What we are proposing to do is to provide more opportunity for adjournment debates in the Main Committee. I suppose the most significant change is the provision allowing for interventions during second reading speeches in the Main Committee. This is something which has happened in the House of Commons traditionally. It is something which I understand has never previously been permitted in this parliament, but I understand that those who have studied the House of Commons believe that it works well there. Certainly I think it is worth having a go at this procedure in the Main Committee. So in recognition of the report of the Procedure Committee, which was a bipartisan report, the government are prepared to see how this works.I suppose that the Manager of Opposition Business is going to remind me in a few moments that there are other proposals for parliamentary reform, and I certainly accept that the opposition has put forward some proposals for more sweeping parliamentary reform. As the Manager of Opposition Business knows, the government also has some thoughts of its own on this. At this point in time, it would be premature for me to make commitments to further progressing parliamentary reform. Nevertheless, I think this is a down payment on the important work of trying to ensure that the parliament operates as well as it humanly can.09:45:005440Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I can support this measure but I could not in any way describe it as a down payment on parliamentary reform. It may be some embroidery at the fringe but it does not go to the substance of parliamentary reform. It most certainly does not go to the substance of the proposals that we put to the government in good faith well over eight months ago. It is quite inaccurate to describe this in any way as a down payment on parliamentary reform. It is certainly not that and it certainly goes no way towards addressing the substantial problems that we have in this parliament which are the lack of accountability of the executive to the parliament and therefore to the people and the flawed standing orders that allow the government, day after day, to abuse parliamentary procedure in a way which is alienating not only members of this House but also the people of Australia.When the government come to this House with some substantive measures that relate to the independence of the Speaker and substantial changes to question time, we may then be able to congratulate them on a movement towards substantial parliamentary reform. But in changing a couple of minor standing orders relating to the Main Committee affecting what may or may not be able to be done after 1.30 p.m. on a Thursday or providing for minor interventions in the Main Committee, the government are in no way redressing the very substantial problem that this parliament faces.In doing this at this time, I cannot help but think that the minister is desperately searching for a figleaf to cover up his own inaction over the last eight months. The thing that really demonstrates that this is an attempt to provide that figleaf is the fact that the government has taken two years to respond to this quality report on the second chamber from the Procedure Committee—one of many reports in fact from members of this House. There was the hard work, for example, of the member for Chifley—who is behind me—and others. In fact, I could have brought into the House today a stack of reports which have many worthwhile initiatives in them. So for the government to respond today to a couple in one report on the second chamber two years after it came down demonstrates that the government is not sincere. I accept that the minister opposite, the Leader of the House, may well in fact be the victim of powers above or beside him in the government's failure to respond to our genuine proposals for parliamentary reform but I could not let his comments pass about this being a down payment. It is not a down payment at all; it is simply pathetic tokenism.09:49:005440May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I would like the opportunity to respond today. I remind members opposite that for 13 years while they were in government there were no changes to the standing orders. I was not a member of the Procedure Committee during the inquiry which recommended the changes to the standing orders being introduced today; however, as the current chair, I would like to respond on behalf of the Procedure Committee.In our report, The second chamber: enhancing the Main Committee, we reviewed the operation of the Main Committee since it commenced in 1994. Although greeted with reservation by some members, the Main Committee has proved to be very successful—so successful in fact that it has been copied in the United Kingdom's House of Commons. It is known there as Westminster Hall, named after the place where it meets. I understand the name `Main Committee' was rejected as being too Australian.I must confess that the Procedure Committee also tried to reject the name `Main Committee'. This was mainly because the name is misleading in this building where we also have the main committee room, which is definitely not committee room 2R3—as new members find to their absolute amazement. One of our recommendations was to change the name `Main Committee' to `Second Chamber'. The government has pointed out that the name `Second Chamber' could also lead to confusion as it could be taken as a reference to the Senate so we are still looking for names. I ask anyone in the House if they have a good name to please pass it on to the committee for consideration.I understand that the name Main Committee was first adopted because it was originally envisaged that it would in fact meet in the main committee room. However it was perhaps quite naive of us to imagine that the Senate would allow this shared facility to be appropriated by the House of Representatives. Maybe we should change the name of the room, perhaps to the great committee room, and leave the name of the Main Committee alone now that the Main Committee has become so well established and acquired worldwide acclaim.The changes to the standing orders proposed today are in response to the Procedure Committee's proposal for more flexible adjournment debates and members' statements. The committee thought that the timing of these periods could better be left to convention and agreement rather than be prescribed so rigidly by the standing orders. While no changes to members' statements have eventuated, the changes relating to the adjournment debates are welcome. If other business permits we will now be able to have longer adjournment debates and adjournment debates on days other than Thursdays.There have been very few occasions when the Main Committee has been suspended because of disorder. The committee had no expectation that such occurrences would increase. The change today to standing order 282, allowing the chair to adjourn the Main Committee instead of suspending it, is just administrative. It avoids the need for the Main Committee to reassemble after a suspension, merely in order to be able to properly adjourn for the day.I now come to what is perhaps the most controversial of this Procedure Committee's proposals—the new intervention procedure. This is a trial, and there is no guarantee that the sessional order will be renewed or made permanent. The trial is until the end of the year, a period of around eight sitting weeks.Interventions are intended to further improve the quality of debate in the Main Committee, to make it more interactive and spontaneous. Of course all interjections are against the standing orders, but as members in this House have noted, me included, the chairs do overlook some polite interjections and members speaking often respond. Interchange in this way enlivens proceedings and does improve debate. This is basically what the intervention procedure is designed to do—to encourage us to depart from set speeches and to be more spontaneous. The new procedure does not force members speaking to give way or to respond to questions from other members, but it does give us the option of doing so, if we want to and if we feel comfortable doing so.I repeat: this is a trial. We will be feeling our way, both those of us intervening and those being intervened upon. If the opportunity is not used, the sessional order may be dropped without really seeing whether it facilitates debate. If it is misused to interrupt speeches and waste time, it is certainly likely to be dropped. I very much hope that the intervention procedure will be used and will be successful. I think it could lead to more enjoyable debate in the Main Committee. We will wait and see. But I do encourage everyone to experiment and just see how they go. This trial will be followed with great interest by members of the Procedure Committee. Intervention should encourage a much more interactive atmosphere in the Main Committee. We will be watching with interest the extent to which we all take advantage of the opportunity. However, we hope it can be made to work in the spirit in which it is recommended.The standing and sessional orders being debated today were only some of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee's report on the Main Committee. We also recommended a change of venue to a purpose-built room next to the chamber of the House. Unfortunately, building a new chamber has proved too costly for the present time. We also recommended some minor improvements to the current Main Committee room, which I understand are being considered now. These involve the clocks, the camera angles and glass panels to the doors.Our other proposal was that the convention that government and opposition members sit on opposite sides of the Main Committee chamber should be relaxed. The committee thought that this might help encourage a more informal atmosphere. The government has agreed to this, with the proviso that the chair should watch to see that ministers in charge of business are not inadvertently impeded. I am not sure how many of us will feel comfortable sitting on the other side, but we can now feel free to do so if we choose to do so.In conclusion, the Procedure Committee welcomes these changes. The committee will be following the implementation of the changes with great interest and hopes to be involved in any evaluation of the new procedures.09:56:005442Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I would also like to make a few remarks about the proposed changes.849Sidebottom, Sid, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Braddon clearly reckons that the opportunity for intervention exists in this chamber, but I tell him that he is actually ahead of the game and the member for Chifley has the call.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—If I could be forgiven, I will perhaps offend my good friend the honourable member for Lilley in being quite effusive about the changes, because I remember the government's response to It's your House.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—You're weak, Roger!QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—Absolutely. Mr Speaker, you may recall that you generously accepted every remit of the Procedure Committee that fell under your purview, whereas the government rejected all of it. So this change by the government, I must say, is most welcome. I guess for anyone listening, debating some proposed changes to the standing orders or listening to a report of the Procedure Committee must sound most arcane but, to return to the subject matter of the honourable member for Lilley, what is fundamental about these changes to the standing orders is that the House is adapting this institution to modern times and reflecting not only our needs but, more importantly, the needs of the people of Australia.The record of the Procedure Committee in getting changes through has not been very good, but, as the Chief Opposition Whip reminds me, the second chamber was in fact a recommendation of the Procedure Committee, and I am happy to say that I served on it at the time. There were very sincere reservations held about the implementation of the Main Committee, but I think it has proved its worth.It is interesting that in the UK, in adopting their model, only private business, as I understand it, is debated in that chamber. I stand by what we have done here in Australia: you need to have a mind's eye to assisting the executive getting its legislation through, but I have always been very keen about increasing the opportunities for private members. So the rejection of committee recommendation 8, which would have facilitated members of this House talking about the committee reports and inquiries into which they put a lot of effort—getting adequate time to actually make a contribution about the report and the work that went into it, their feelings about the recommendations and, at a later date, the response by the government—is disappointing. I think it is sad when people of this House devote a great deal of time and energy to the report and then are denied an opportunity to comment in any way in this chamber or the Main Committee about that report—it happens all too often.On timeliness, from the opposition perspective we are always encouraging the government to reply in a timely manner to all the reports of the committees of this House. I guess that is made even more difficult when the leader of government business responds two years down the track about the business of this House. I am not trying to particularly berate the leader of government business over it. Let me say on a more positive note that this is a much more fulsome response to the committee's recommendations compared to It's your House, where every recommendation was rejected. I think the government's picking up of the recommendations is appreciated. We would have liked to see a name change, but I do not think that is an essential matter. I encourage the Leader of the House to further adopt changes to the sessional and standing orders that will make this House operate more effectively—not so much in the eyes of the government or even, for that matter, in the eyes of the opposition, but in the eyes of the people of Australia.10:01:005443Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPLeader of the House10—I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but I rise again to say that I welcome the comments from the member for McPherson and the member for Chifley. I also take in a good spirit the comments made by the Manager of Opposition Business. I neglected in my opening comments to thank the then Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the member for Sturt, for his good work in producing this particular report.As members of this House know only too well, there is a degree of tension at times between the desires of the executive government and those of this parliament. We have to manage that tension. We should do our best to try to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, members of the parliament have every opportunity to express a view, have every opportunity to engage in meaningful debate with each other and have every opportunity to subject the actions of the executive government to appropriate scrutiny. I do not say that that tension is ever going to be satisfactorily resolved; I do not say that there is ever going to be any executive government which is entirely happy with the procedures of the House. I suspect that the House will always in some of its corners be unhappy with the procedures which the executive government is prepared to contemplate. But I do think this was a good report and we have substantially adopted its recommendations. I accept that it was brought down two years ago. But, Mr Speaker, as you know, if something is worth doing, it is worth doing in part; if something is worth doing, it is better late than never. I commend these changes to the House. I say it is a down payment on reform. It is a significant step in the right direction.Question agreed to.10:03:005443Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPLeader of the House10—I move:That the following sessional order be adopted for the remainder of the sittings in 2002 with effect from 16 September 2002: Interventions in the Main Committee84A During consideration of any order of the day in the Main Committee a Member may rise and, if given the call, ask the Chair whether the Member speaking is willing to give way. The Member speaking will either indicate his or her: (a) refusal and continue speaking, or (b) acceptance and allow the other Member to ask a short question immediately relevant to the Member's speech— Provided that, if, in the opinion of the Chair, it is an abuse of the orders or forms of the House, the intervention may be denied or curtailed.Question agreed to.Bills5444R14745444Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting.Bills5444R16085444Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Howard:That this bill be now read a second time.10:04:005444Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence10—The overriding reason that I am prepared to support the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is that it holds out hope for so many people: hope for all those who suffer from degenerative diseases; hope for all those who daily have to deal with pain and suffering and who lack any real quality of life; hope for children to have the opportunity to grow and mature into adults; hope for parents to be able to see their children lead a normal life; and hope for families to be free of the stress and trauma that are the constant companions of disease and pain. In this debate I wear two hats, one being that of a legislator in this place and the other being that of the mother of a daughter who was born with a disease that could be helped by stem cell research. However, I do not speak just on behalf of my daughter. I well remember the first seven years of my daughter's life, spent mainly in the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne. I remember as a young mother asking doctors, `Isn't there something more that can be done for my child?' I also remember the other parents and grandparents who maintained brave exteriors but who also wanted answers and ways to help their children. I stand here today not just on their behalf but on behalf of all parents who right now are having to face the difficulties of caring for children who are suffering and who cannot lead a normal life unless medical research develops a new way of treating their disease. Embryonic stem cell research offers them hope.We have reached this debate today after a parliamentary committee investigated the value of embryonic stem cell research and tabled a majority all-party recommendation to proceed with that research. We have a united COAG agreement between the Prime Minister and the premiers and chief ministers of all states and territories. So we have come to this point of introducing this legislation after very careful and thoughtful consideration of all the issues. The versatility of embryonic stem cells to differentiate into specialised tissue cells is possibly the greatest medical scientific discovery of the last half century. When taken from a five-day-old embryo, these unique master cells can differentiate into the 300 or so cell types that make up the human body. Unlike conventional medicine, stem cell treatments have the potential to provide a lifelong cure, promising new hope for those with degenerative disease.Today embryonic stem cell research is an emerging field of regenerative medicine just as exciting and full of promise as medical discoveries of the past two centuries. The development of preventative inoculation in the mid-1800s by Louis Pasteur and the invention of antibiotics some 80 years later by Fleming have increased our life expectancy by a couple of decades. But, while we take these incredible advances for granted as part of our everyday lives, they too were only achieved through tenacity and a willingness to push ahead in the face of criticism, because Pasteur and Fleming were determined to provide relief for suffering and hope for the future.As for tomorrow, embryonic stem cell research promises a future where diseased bodies—from nerve cells to pancreatic tissue to heart muscle—can be treated and cured of degenerative disease. Embryonic stem cell research will build on our ability to treat bacteria and kill germs with drug based medicines by eventually also enabling us to repair human tissue. However, opponents of embryonic stem cell research believe the derivation of master cells from a five-day-old embryo is an unconscionable violation of human life; although few would argue the potential of this research to the human condition, it is the process that riles opponents of this research as the embryo is necessarily destroyed. We must remember, however, that the legislation we are here to debate today proposes only the use of spare embryos created through IVF—those that otherwise would only be destroyed. The legislation limits research to embryos created before 5 April 2002 and requires the informed and considered consent of donors. Opponents mistakenly claim supporters of this research have no respect for the status of the few-day-old embryo. Nothing could be further from the truth. Imagine a tiny cluster of 100 or so cells with the potential to restore movement to a paraplegic or muscle control to somebody battling muscular dystrophy. These unprogrammed cells promise a new beginning for somebody who has lived a life in a wheelchair or spent years periodically confined to a hospital bed. I believe it cannot therefore be rationally argued that an embryo earmarked for thawing and disposal, which is what happens with discarded embryos, should be afforded the same rights as a person who has grown and developed in their communities. The intrinsic rights of an existing human must surely be worth more than a tiny huddle of cells destined to be destroyed.Supporters of embryonic stem cell research share this presumption with one of the most traditional and perhaps most conservative parliaments in the world. The United Kingdom House of Lords Stem Cell Research Committee accepted an embryo only takes on pre-human structure 14 days after fertilisation. Until this time, the embryo remains a minuscule mass of unprogrammed cells that only after many weeks will form the basis of a central nervous system. The embryo, at this early stage of its development, is insentient—it is without feeling—and that is perhaps the thing that most distinguishes it from the living.Make no mistake: our respect for human life has never been greater, nor has our responsibility to preserve the quality of life and to reduce human suffering. We have never before turned our backs on the possibility of developing effective new treatments that promise to improve the human condition and nor should we now. Our grandchildren, their children and their children's children have every right to expect the same degree of commitment to advancing medical treatments provided to us by the efforts of our great-grandparents. With this in mind, we must make every effort to remain at the forefront of biotechnology, just as we must strive for ethical consistency in the business of this House. It is hard to argue against the use of primitive-stage insentient embryos to help the living, given the legal availability of tissue from aborted human foetuses that scientists have been using for research purposes for the past two decades. The needs of living and breathing people and the possible benefits of this embryonic stem cell research surely outweigh the rights of a microscopic cluster of undifferentiated cells.Opponents to this embryonic stem cell research argue that adult stem cells have proven more versatile than previously thought and we should be encouraging scientists to reconcentrate their efforts on the less contentious adult stem cell. This would certainly diminish the controversy surrounding the use of their embryonic counterpart, but it is far too early in the game to cap research on prospective players. Certainly adult stem cells have revealed some versatility and, according to scientists, if these cells could differentiate on command that would likely reduce the possibility of the immune rejection that comes with implanting foreign tissue into humans. The problem with adult stem cells remains their tendency to lose plasticity with age, in addition to the fact that they exist in very small numbers throughout the body and are extremely difficult to locate. This is not, however, to discount the potential of adult stem cells in future cell based treatments. Adult stem cells should remain an important and parallel field of biotechnology research. But they are not the prize candidates for this work. As well as losing their plasticity, they can be exposed to genetic disorders or damage through disease suffered by the host body.The significance of this new era of cell based research should not be underestimated. Stem cells are already an important source of several established treatments. Bone marrow transplants have become almost commonplace and the stem cells in umbilical cord blood can now be used to restore an immune system, although the tissue type must match. The national media is already providing a snapshot of the swiftness with which new cell based treatments are being embraced by people right across our country. For example, more and more women are choosing to have the stem cells from the umbilical cord blood of their newborn babies harvested and frozen as a unique insurance policy for their family. And adult stem cells were recently harvested from the nose of a paraplegic man and injected into his spinal cord as part of a clinical trial which, it is hoped, will provide a cure for paralysis. However, this radical form of treatment is seized on by those who have no hope. Surely it is safer and more reliable to develop future treatments by first researching the effects on animals of using embryonic stem cells and then developing proven treatments. Cell replacement therapy has also renewed hope for sufferers of brain disease such as Parkinson's, where certain stem cells have proven an ability to differentiate into corrective neurones. And our own researchers have discovered special stem cells which they hope will be able to rebuild the immune systems of people ravaged by chemotherapy and AIDS.What is clear is that we need to learn much more about both embryonic and adult stem cells: how they differentiate and what we can do to manipulate them. But this is not an either/or proposition. It is too early to know which stem cell holds the most promise, and that is why parallel studies are required to determine which variety will prove the most useful in the development of cell based treatments for clinical trial. It might eventually be that we can direct stem cells already in our bodies to points of tissue damage, but we will not know this until more research is undertaken.The ethical concerns raised by opponents are certainly not unique to embryonic stem cell research; any innovative research will at some stage become the subject of ethical and policy concerns. But to prohibit the use of embryonic stem cells in research, without exceptional reason, would put us at the back of biotechnology research and do irrevocable damage to our international standing. At the moment, we are in the enviable position of being at the forefront of this emerging science, thanks in large part to the efforts of people such as Professor Alan Trounson, who has managed to attract increasing numbers of eminent overseas scientists to work here in Australia.Only through controlled scientific research will we unlock the true potential of cell based treatments. By supporting this research and committing funding to the development of research centres, we are also providing a basis for public review, approval and monitoring. This is not to say that, as research advances, issues will not emerge that challenge acceptable ethical practices, but that is why we must begin by putting in place a series of tight controls. Biotechnology will happen, with or without us, and I am much more confident of a future for my great-grandchildren if we are driving this process of discovery. It is a fact that if this legislation were to be voted down we would lose many of our scientists currently at the forefront of this research. Those who remain would be at the mercy of overseas institutions' supplies of stem cells and would face losing their intellectual property. We have also, of course, a moral imperative to support this groundbreaking research on behalf of those people who are not living but just surviving with terrible illness and disease. With all my heart, I do not believe we have the right to prevent our scientists from developing treatment and cures for these diseases by not allowing them access to embryonic stem cells. Ready or not, biotechnology is delivering a new generation of medical treatments, and embryonic stem cells will play an integral role in the development of the cell based treatments which promise a healthier humanity.I take my role as a legislator seriously. I made the decision to become a legislator so that I could make a difference. I have a simple and straightforward philosophy, and it is this: I will conscientiously do all in my power—and I will do it to the best of my ability—to make life better. Today, as one of the members of this national parliament, I have the opportunity to do just that. I do not intend to waste that opportunity. I therefore support and commend this bill to the House.10:20:005447Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—May I congratulate the member for McEwen on her very considered and well-thought out response to this important issue. The member for McEwen's comments are very significant, particularly where she spoke about consideration of legislation, why we represent the people that we do, and what we can bring to that representation. I think this is the first time in my four years of having the privilege to be in this parliament that I have participated in what I would regard as a genuine debate. It is ironic that this place is regarded as the great debating chamber in Australia, when, in fact, very little debate takes place at all. This debate is fundamental, because it is about humanity and what it means to be human. It is about issues of life and death, meaning and purpose, struggle, suffering, pain and the alleviation of pain. Those are the fundamental questions that we deal with as human beings.It is great that the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, as presented in the House, comes at the end of long-term consideration of the important ethical and scientific developments in relation to human reproduction, the cloning of human beings and the use of excess human embryos created by the IVF program. This consideration has been put to a conscience vote because it is a moral issue as well as a legislative issue. It is not a religious issue. It is about what we deem to be right or wrong, and the ethics of the situation is our justification of that. Religion plays an important part in people's ethical response to this moral issue of what we deem to be right and wrong. Most of our laws deal with the issue of what is right and what is wrong, but this is not fundamentally a religious issue, though people bring religious beliefs to it.The fact that we are able to debate this and have a conscience vote on it is very important. The interesting thing is that it is one of the few pieces of legislation—and, certainly, an issue—that is discussed amongst politicians of all political persuasions. Even socially, people ask their colleagues—and discuss with them—where they stand on this issue, why they do and the implications of it. I think that is very healthy because it clearly indicates that democracy is at work in this country.Make no mistake, the legislation before us today is about doing good. I know that members in this place have been subjected to letter-writing campaigns by people who regard this legislation, and I quote, as `evil'. In the main the rationale behind these comments is religious. There is no doubt about that. There is an absolutism about it. It is a deontological response to this question. It is interesting, in terms of their logic, that very few of those who oppose this—and I respect their right to oppose it—ever publicly oppose IVF. We have not heard anyone here opposing IVF. Yet today we are not talking about legislation to create embryos and destroy them; we are talking about legislation based on a law that says there are excess embryos that will be destroyed. This legislation is talking about legitimately and legally using these excess embryos from the IVF process—and that alone—for research for proper purposes, with the permission of the donors. That is what this legislation is about: doing what is right.This does not come at short notice. There has been long consideration about these issues, both within the states and at the Commonwealth level. In some states there is a variety of laws, regulations, legislation and so forth related to this issue. There are also some Commonwealth laws and regulations with regard to this. We have the unusual situation where all governments—state, territory and Commonwealth—have agreed to adopt a cooperative approach in order to regulate and legislate on these important issues. This bill is the result of that cooperative consideration. Likewise, in this House there has been exhaustive investigation and inquiry, and a report—Human cloning: scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning and stem cell research—which was handed down in August 2001. A similar exercise took place in the United Kingdom, resulting in their 1990 Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAct and its extension in December 2000. Likewise, there has been long consideration in the United States.So this bill deals with those matters after long consideration. In effect, it says that we do not support cloning to create human beings. It also says that we believe embryos excess to IVF may be used—with the donor's consent, and under tight regulation and licensing—for proper research purposes which are to be clearly monitored and reviewed. It establishes a national health and medical research licensing committee to oversee and monitor the regulations that exist. It also sets out a number of offences in relation to human cloning and other practices. It is exhaustive and comprehensive, and it is reviewable. That is the result of long consideration of this important issue.What is the intention of the bill? The intention of the bill is that there be hope; that hopefully, through this research, there is the potential for cures that will assist human beings. That is the purpose of legislation: to bring benefit and good, and also to protect the most vulnerable. We have heard arguments about when life begins, whether all life is sacred, when a human being emerges and so forth. I believe there is general consensus that, particularly at this stage of development, there is no individualisation or differentiation with these excess embryos. So the purpose of this bill is to allow these excess embryos and embryo stem cells to be used for proper research in order to alleviate the suffering of human beings. That is good; that is right.What I find interesting in this debate is how the finger is quickly pointed at people who support this legislation and the dirty word in philosophy, `utilitarianism', is used—unashamed, unbridled utilitarianism. Isn't it interesting that, in the main, our legislation and our philosophy behind our legislation in this place and in all parties, utilitarianism is the basis of legislation—to bring good in the most instances to the most people? But it is not good in terms of `the end justifies the means'; it is good in the sense that there are universal values behind utilitarianism. There is a hierarchy of values within utilitarianism. But all of a sudden utilitarianism is deemed to be the monster, to be the vehicle of evil, by those people, those deontologists, those absolutists, who bring their absolute values to this issue.I am reminded of many of the illnesses and diseases that exist in our community and I am also reminded that we must be very careful that we do not offer false hope to those who suffer. But we do have a moral obligation to assist in the cure and relief of the suffering of our fellow human beings—not just in instances at home and in medical research but also throughout the world. This legislation is about doing that good and trying to realise that potential, but not with the false promise that it will do that. I am reminded of the many thousands of fellow Australians and people throughout the world who suffer with motor neurone disease, spinal cord injuries and type 1 diabetes. The member for Blair spoke yesterday of his personal dealings with this unfortunate disease that affects him personally. It was a most moving speech. Basically, his response was: `I don't know what all the hype is about.' He said, `Why shouldn't we do something to try to help people like me and the thousands of others who suffer with this by using excess embryonic stem cells from the IVF program, which is a legally accepted program?' I am also reminded of the people who suffer with Rett syndrome, a debilitating neuro-developmental disease. I believe one in 10,000 baby girls will have Rett syndrome. They are just some of the examples. This bill sets out to offer some hope to curing some of these diseases in the future.But what we hear now from some of those who oppose this legislation is that adult stem cell research is the way to go. In actual fact, adult stem cell research is very, very important. I notice that those opposed seized on the Nature publication of 20 June, which published the findings of a Minnesota research team, to say that adult stem cells are the way to go and that we do not need to look at embryonic stem cell research at all. But in actual fact, the very people involved with that adult stem cell research and, I suggest to you, a great percentage of those in the scientific community would say, `Indeed, there is great hope in adult stem cell research, as there is great hope too in embryonic stem cell research, and they should complement each other, not be mutually exclusive.' Even Catherine Verfaillie, who was involved in the research, said that they have to be complementary and that we need to be working together. Of course, if adult stem cell research is the answer, that is great—that is terrific; so be it—but we also need the potential from embryonic stem cell research with the very tight controls envisaged in this legislation. And under this legislation that is open to review.I would like to finish my comments on this by thanking all those people who contacted me about their views on this issue. Many of those people oppose the legislation and asked me to consider it, and I did and I thank them. Some said, `Did you have many people tell you they supported the legislation?' I think in many instances, that has not been the case—the reason being that it is quite plain, it is self-explanatory, that of course you would support this research which may lead to a potential cure. I will quote some of the literature that I received from some organisations opposed to the legislation. We talk about the hype that goes with this issue, particularly it is claimed, from those on the supportive side of the legislation, but some of this is downright offensive to people who are supporting this legislation. Some of the arguments are:Society is not an end in itself. It only exists for the sake of fostering and protecting the lives of each of its members.That is true; that is why I am standing here today supporting this legislation. They go on to say:These 70,000 embryos have been manufactured without regard to their rights to normal development.They have been manufactured in order to bring life to those people who, unfortunately, are unable to have children. There are excess embryos because of that process. They were designed to bring life, and this legislation sets out to help life thereafter. They go on to say:There is no prospect of their growing to maturity.Indeed, they are going to be destroyed. They continue:They cannot licitly be used for the benefit of Australian society for to do so would be to subject the end (the person) to the means (society).In actual fact, that is exactly what we are going to do: we are going to try to bring about good for individuals and therefore good for society. They then go on to say:No person of good conscience will be able to take advantage of the benefits which allegedly will flow from such experimentation because to do so would involve them in cooperation with the evil committed. It would mean that they would be benefiting from the killing of others.This is the type of argument thrust at people who are trying to support what is good legislation. They finally state:No person of good conscience will be able to vote for any politician who has supported this evil.This bill is not evil; this bill is about trying to bring about good and that is the purpose of our society. If you believe in God then the technologies that man has are as a result of God's creation and they should be used for the good of mankind as a whole. Indeed, that is what this legislation is about. If you do not believe in God, you can be very moral without being religious. This bill is about doing what is right, doing what is moral. I am pleased to support this bill. If this can do good, so be it. It is tightly regulated and is open to review and subject to change. If there are unintended consequences of this legislation then that will be dealt with in the true democratic process, the one that we are proudly part of.10:38:005449Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I am very happy to participate in this debate with a conscience vote and I support the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 wholeheartedly. As previous speakers have said, this legislation is about hope. It is about providing, through science, research that will assist in helping overcome the suffering of many diseases that we have now that cannot be cured. The legislation—and we all agree, and I do not have a philosophical problem whether the bill is split or not—will ban human cloning and other unacceptable practices associated with reproductive technology and regulate research involving human embryos. It will put a legal framework around research which I think needed to be started yesterday. It has come about through a consensus decision with the Council of Australian Governments; all Australian governments have come on board.As I give my speech in the House of Representatives today, I do not stand here to be a judge on this issue but I certainly am part of the jury, being a legislator engaging public opinion. I believe that the legislation being put in place with the strict regulatory framework placed around it is entirely appropriate. To me, this issue is as clear as night follows day. I hope over the next few minutes that I will counter some of the arguments used by opponents of this bill. It should be remembered that it is, I acknowledge, a very difficult moral and ethical decision for members in this House. I appreciate their views, although I have to say I disagree with some of them. The bill makes it an offence if you were to operate outside the boundaries, with a maximum term of 15 years. I think our Prime Minister has got it right. For a very conservative individual to come to the conclusion that he has makes me feel as though we are in good hands. Also, there is considerable difference of opinion even within the churches.Ultimately, this scientific research on embryonic cells is to advance the cause of medicine, to alleviate pain and suffering of those suffering from debilitating diseases—whether it is Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, multiple sclerosis or spinal injuries, just to mention a few. I have listened widely, particularly to people in my own electorate, but ultimately it is up to my conscience. I quote Edmund Burke, as Tony Abbott did when he spoke on this legislation: `I owe you my judgment, not my obedience'—not my obedience to some in my party and not my obedience to some of those within the religious circles who believe this is a most unpalatable piece of legislation. I have listened and I have made my own conscious decision.The debate really begins with where life begins. The assumption here is that we are actually terminating or killing human life, which I reject. It is a complex issue. I notice, going back in history, that this debate has been around for quite some time. In recent years this has been argued in the House of Lords. Certainly within the Catholic faith they believe life begins at the time of conception. But if you go further back and look at Aristotle and the views attributed to him, you will see that he believed that first there was a vegetable soul, then there was an animal soul and finally an intellectual soul. It is only at the last point that there is, properly speaking, a human being. In the Aristotelian view, this animation—from the Latin word `anima', meaning soul—occurs 40 days after conception in the case of a male and up to 90 days after conception for a female. I grant you, that was a long time ago.At that time, the church acknowledged a similar process. Later on, we see an interpretation from Exodus 21:22 where Septuagint refers to a fight between two men as a result of which a pregnant woman loses her child. If the child is in the early stages of embryonic development then the penalty is a financial one. If it is in the later stages of pregnancy then the penalty is death. The Greek word there literally means `not yet so formed as to be a copy or a portrayal of human life'. The Septuagint version was most commonly used by the early fathers as well as by the New Testament writers. On it goes with St Gregory of Nyssa where he stated:So long as it is in this unformed state it is something other than a human being.Similarly, St Augustine wrote:If what is brought forth is unformed at this stage some sort of living, shapeless thing, then the law of homicide would not apply, for it could not be said that there was a living soul in that body, for it lacks all sense, if it be such as is not yet formed and therefore not yet endowed with its senses.The argument I am advancing here is that, even within the church when we go back in history, there was considerable debate of when life actually began. I note there is even debate currently. I would like to quote the Primate of the Anglican Church. I am an Anglican and I agree that we should not be trying to cast moral judgments on either because neither of us are without sin. The Primate of the Anglican Church said:The pressing question is when exactly is the embryo to be accorded the status of an individual human person or potential human person for whom basic rights of care, protection and indeed, life may be claimed ... but conception is not known to be nor a moment but a process that takes 14 days. Only at the end of that process, it is possible to say that a human individual has been conceived.During this 14-day process of great cellular movement which ends with the implantation and segmentation, twinning may occur. Alternatively, divided cells may recombine. It is only at the end of the 14 day process, once the implantation has occurred, there is no further possibility of twinning, that we can logically say that a human individual has been conceived. In terms of simple logic, it is not possible to make that assertion until the process of conception is complete.If we were to insist today that the embryo is endowed with a soul from the moment of fertilisation, we could then in the case of twinning be in the embarrassing position of having to say that one soul has become two souls. This should alert us to exercise extreme caution in soul talk.Once we come to terms with the psychological facts and are in a position to distinguish between fertilisation of an ovum and the conception of a human individual, a number of troublesome difficulties fall away. For me, those troublesome difficulties do fall away. I do not believe at this stage, particularly using IVF, that human life has begun. In many ways, I believe we have already passed the critical threshold test in this piece of legislation that we are debating today of whether to use embryos for further research—that is, the IVF debate. This debate has, through science, given parents the opportunity of having children—God's most precious gift—an opportunity that would never have come about if we had not pursued science. When I look back at the last half century, I see that there have been many medical breakthroughs, whether they were blood transfusion, antibiotics, and of course other groundbreaking medical advances which have helped millions of people.It was through the pursuit of science in a rational way—and I acknowledge that there are those who may use it in unintended ways—that IVF was able to be created. It is due to that IVF breakthrough that we are having this argument: surplus embryos. These embryos, I would suggest, are taken through a very unpleasant procedure where more eggs need to be extracted. These young embryos, as many speakers have articulated, will succumb, once they are taken out of the freezer, and will have a natural death. I have tried to demonstrate that I do not believe that at this stage life has begun. We are talking about a five-day-old ball of about 150 cells and, from my understanding, researchers want to use about 30 of those cells. Senator Amanda Vanstone said:It is human tissue but it is not human. Without further intervention, this ball of cells has no hope whatsoever of becoming a human being. We should not confuse the existence of a chance of becoming human with being human. The tissue can be likened to an organ taken from a recently deceased person. Neither the organ nor the tissue are dead; it is a human tissue but not a human being.To my mind, if we can use the cells from these embryos to advance the cause of saving people's lives, isn't that a worthy cause? I reiterate, in my conscience, I do not believe that life has begun. I think many are splitting hairs. This view—again in the House of Lords—which says that one is moral and the other is immoral is really an argument about angels dancing on the head of a pin with these 150 cells. The consequences of using this science to advance the causes, as I mentioned before, of incurable diseases are enormous.There have been arguments in this parliament that we are about to begin down the slippery slope, that if we were to pursue this in a very strict regulatory framework, all of a sudden it would open Pandora's box and, potentially, would further the case of human cloning. This legislation outlaws human cloning and all Australians would agree with this—I hope. This argument is trotted out frequently. You could use this argument in many different contexts. Anyone who is opposed, let us say, to any type of relaxation of criminal law, could be said to be on the slippery slope. There is an argument as well that, even if we legislate for this or if we ban it, it is going to happen anyway. Again, I say that if people are going to use this research for unintended consequences, in many ways no matter what we do now, villainy will always be in society. But by passing this legislation, it will put a framework around it, a framework which we can all feel comfortable with and which will be reviewed, of course, in three years time.There are arguments that we should concentrate all our efforts on adult stem cell research, and they have merit. But again, after looking at the evidence, I do not believe that 100 per cent focus on adult stem cell research has the capacity to produce the advances in science for which it is necessary to use undifferentiated cells in the embryonic stage, which are very different to adult stem cells. Looking at some of the recent papers, particularly from Minnesota, I agree that the jury is still out on whether some of those very small adult stem cells that have characteristics of the undifferentiated cells, coming from bone marrow, actually have that potential. I note that even the leading research scientist on that team perhaps also has some scepticism on whether adult stem cell technology would produce the benefits that embryonic cells would.I remember something that Kay Patterson said when this debate first started. She said:The test I had to ask myself was if there was a therapeutic outcome from this for me or other members of my family and I opposed this legislation, would I reject the therapeutic treatment. I would find that very difficult.I indeed find that very difficult. This issue to me is extremely clear: this is about hope. It is about giving a chance to those people who have incurable diseases, even if those time lines are some way in the distance. Again I say that the breakthroughs of science have allowed blood transfusions, antibiotics, anaesthetics and organ transplants—which never would have been envisaged 20 or 30 years ago. Of course, all that is about alleviating suffering and advancing the cause of humanity for those people who have illnesses.I conclude with the Prime Minister's comments. I know my leader, the member for Gwydir, has very strong views, and I respect those views. I certainly do not stand here as an advocate for the scientific community and I certainly do not stand here as an advocate for those with very strong religious views that life has begun, but I think it is important to put it into context and not use too much unnecessary alarming language, when ultimately this is all about saving people's lives through an embryo that is going to die anyway. The Prime Minister said:This bill ... successfully balances respect for human dignity, ensures that community standards and ethical values are upheld and enables the enormous potential of embryonic stem cell research to be explored ... within legislated parameters and subject to close scrutiny.I am a minister of the Crown, not a minister of the faith. I believe that the bill that is being proposed should be passed wholeheartedly, and the sooner we get on with this, the better.10:56:005452O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—In the parliamentary lives of those fortunate enough to be elected to this House, there are bills that come before us that in their ethical and legislative complexity weigh very heavily on the emotions, the experience and the intellectual capacity of individual members. The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is one such piece of legislation. Let me say from the outset that I do appreciate the gesture of my party and our parliamentary opposition leader in allowing members of the Labor caucus a conscience vote on key elements of this particular legislation.I joined the Labor Party and later Labor's parliamentary caucus in full understanding that I was joining an amorphous political organisation with a divergence of views on many important political and ethical issues. I did not join to get 100 per cent of my personal or political agenda up every time, either in the Labor Party or on the floor of this parliament. I joined with a considered understanding of the need for parliamentary discipline and the importance of maintaining that discipline for Labor to succeed federally. However, there are occasions of great moment and there is legislation of such importance that individual members value the freedom to exercise their intellect around a particular issue, unfettered by the strictures that may be imposed by that rigid adherence to party discipline. This is one such occasion, and I am grateful for the sensitivity displayed by my party and indeed the parliament in considering this legislation.I have listened with great interest to the contributions that have been made in this debate up to this point, and I congratulate members for the honest manner in which they have considered and articulated their positions on this bill. It is in dealing with bills of such complexity and moment that the parliament is able to assert itself as the pre-eminent forum for debate and consideration of issues of such national importance. None of us here debating this legislation is under any illusions about the complexities of this bill as we come to terms with the ethical, scientific, legal, economic and social dimensions and implications of what it contains.I acknowledge in this debate those constituents who have written to me on the matter, both opposing and supporting elements of this legislation. Those contributions have been made in generous spirit and in good faith, and I have considered them in the same spirit in which they have been offered. I also acknowledge the enormous effort made by many professionals in crafting this piece of legislation, and their attempts to balance the interests involved and to develop a legislative framework that reflects at least many of the concerns that have been expressed about the use of embryos in stem cell research. As the Leader of the Opposition has stated, this legislation is the outcome of delicate negotiations at the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, where chief ministers and premiers committed to a national legislative framework governing embryonic stem cell research. That in itself is no mean feat.In my own approach to this issue, I have attempted to distil the more emotive aspects of the debate in order to achieve a clearer understanding of the key issues and to assess the various arguments that have been advanced. I have also attempted to avoid the more dogmatic approach to argument which seems to imply the adoption of a triumphal view on either side of this discussion. Those who seek to walk down this path do a grave disservice to themselves, their constituents and indeed the community.The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in opening this debate, have both expressed their support for the use of excess embryos for research and a ban on human cloning. I am in the position of wholeheartedly supporting the proposed ban on human cloning; however, at this time I am not able to support the use of excess human embryos for research. Like some other members, I find myself in the invidious position of supporting a key thrust of the bill and opposing a key element, and it would appear that the only way the spirit of the conscience vote can be effectively implemented in this place is for the bill to be split for final consideration.I have listened intently to the debate and the arguments that have been advanced in support of the use of excess embryos for research. The least persuasive argument is the economic one—that unless we permit this type of medical research Australia will be left behind in our brave new biotech world. I do not accept, as some seem to easily assert, that medical research in this field will automatically dry up in Australia and that the only beneficiaries will be other countries which are prepared to undertake this research. Listening to some arguments, one could conclude that, unless this research is permitted, all worthwhile medical stem cell research will dry up, and an unprecedented brain drain from Australia will occur as a result. That is simply not the case, and I think it is a fallacious argument. Medical research, in all its dimensions, will continue. Australian scientists will make new discoveries. New therapeutic drugs will be developed from research, and they will be commercialised. Mankind will benefit from the fruits of Australia's intellect and labour.However, we cannot ignore the powerful scientific and commercial interests that from their perspective see benefit in research on surplus embryos. Too often in public policy making, their views predominate, and their influence guides the legislative process to their own commercial advantage—not necessarily that of the public interest. I have examined the scientific evidence as best as any layperson can, and at the heart of this aspect of the debate seem to be the relative claims by the proponents of this research and the supporters of the greater use of adult stem cell research. I have assessed them carefully and I am not prepared at this time, given the ethical dimensions of the debate, to endorse a mode of research that deals more with promise and potential over an alternative mode that is generally more accepted ethically by the community, which appears to me to offer a more promising source of stem cells for regenerative medicine and which is already being used to treat many diseases—I refer here to the use of adult stem cell research.It would appear from the available science that medical problems of immune rejection, tumour creation and other substantial issues are evident—at this point at least—in embryonic stem cell research. Those problems would not appear to be as evident in adult stem cell research and medical treatments. Given the successful clinical application of adult stem cell research, it would seem to offer greater potential to develop successful therapies. Logic dictates to me that, as a society with limited research resources, we ought to be directing those resources towards that research which would appear to deliver the maximum medical benefit to the greatest number over the shortest period. I support stem cell therapies and research, but my preference is for resources to be directed towards adult stem cell research, on the following basis: its potential to deliver meaningful medical results and therapies would appear, at this time, to be greater; its potential to gain widespread ethical acceptance is greater; and it avoids the medical problems that continue to remain unresolved with the use of embryonic stem cell research.In addition to these scientific and economic considerations, the bill before the House does raise profound ethical considerations. At the heart of the conscience vote on this bill is the ethical question of whether research on human embryos is an appropriate direction for stem cell research into degenerative diseases. I debate this issue last, not because I downplay its significance but because it is the most difficult question to consider. Reflecting on the contributions already made by other members of this debate, I realise that I am not alone in this regard.In the bill there is an explicit acknowledgment of what we are dealing with here, and the seriousness of the ethical issues is evident in the legislation itself. In the bill's definitional clauses there is an attempt to set discrete parameters of permissible conduct, and explicit references to the `humanness' of the embryo, a point perhaps not acknowledged by some members in their reference to the embryo as a mere collection of cells. A particularly difficult area of this debate, and an argument that I think resonates quite powerfully with all members, is the possibility that embryonic stem cell research may deliver a significant medical advance that will change the lives of many people, especially children, currently stricken with debilitating disease.Given that surplus embryos exist and will be, in due course, permitted to succumb naturally, then a greater good may be served by allowing research now. That, I concede, is a powerful argument. But in a sense it loses some of its potency given the existence of alternative adult stem cell research that would appear currently to be producing significant medical advances in a less challenging ethical environment. The bill itself I think acknowledges the critical ethical questions in the limitations it seeks to place on the conduct of all associated in the research—the donors, the scientists, the doctors et cetera—and in the strict time lines it puts in place for the use of surplus embryos. In the very nature of this research there would appear to be an inbuilt pressure for the generation of surplus embryos and the eventual use of cloning techniques that the bill, at this point in time at least, seeks to prohibit. This is the inherent tension in this legislation and the research practices that, in the bill's own honest way, it seeks to contain.In conclusion, let me say that it has been an extremely difficult process personally in coming to this position, given the complexities of the issue. I understand that in my electorate there will be many who agree and many who will disagree with the position I have taken on this legislation. But I assure all electors that I have assessed the various dimensions of this issue, without misguided passion and without the extremes of language, in a considered and rational way to the best of my ability. I take this position on the legislation respecting the integrity of the positions that have been advanced in this debate by those who would support embryonic stem cell research.This is one of the more difficult pieces of legislation that members have been confronted with in the life of recent parliaments. But I am heartened by the quality and standard of the debates and the consideration that has been given by those members who have taken positions that may, in many respects, surprise many of their contemporaries in this chamber. At the heart of this debate is the very essence of democratic practice, and that is the ability of members to consider and reflect on difficult and complex legislation, to work their way through the issues, to reach a position and have it respected on the floor of this House and in the wider community. I caution those who would seek to engage in emotive language and those with their misplaced passion and—some would say—compassion who make it very difficult for all of us to articulate in a reasoned and rational way the views we have on these matters.I urge the parliament to give serious consideration to splitting this legislation to enable the spirit of the conscience vote, which I mentioned before, to be played out in considering these issues. Almost to a member, there is unanimous agreement in this place on one particular aspect of this legislation. We all seem to have some very serious and grave reservations about cloning technologies. And I think implicit in this bill is a very deep concern by those involved in the drafting about the direction that research might head in if we were to permit those cloning technologies to be used in the ways that are currently outlawed in this legislation. I would say that in the other area of the legislation there are members who can see that there are very difficult ethical, scientific and other considerations that have to be worked through, and that the positions they have taken on that aspect of the legislation have been very difficult for them to take. At least in this debate we have seen all members conceding the rights of others to hold a different view, and that has cut across the party lines that traditionally divide debate in this place. So I make that plea to the House because I think it is very important that this legislation is split and that a real opportunity is given to members to articulate that conscience vote in a most precise way, according to the dictates of their conscience and their deep consideration of the issues.11:15:005455Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I support the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. Put simply, I support a prohibition on human cloning and other such unacceptable practices as outlined in the bill and I support the regulated use for research of excess human embryos created by assisted reproductive technology. I have arrived at this position after a great deal of consideration over a number of years.I speak today on this issue of considerable complexity not as a scientist nor as an ethicist but as an elected representative—a legislator. As such, I bring to this debate on the regulation of stem cell research what I know from my own life experience and what I have learned about this issue in my capacity as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during its extensive 18-month inquiry, which resulted in a detailed report entitled Human cloning: the scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning and stem cell research. That report was tabled in this parliament some 12 months ago. I also bring to this debate what I have gleaned from the subsequent inquiries I have undertaken.This bill has presented us all with a challenge. It forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life. Is a cluster of cells a human being? It forces us to analyse the ends of science. Is there a line that should not be crossed, even for scientific or other gain, and if so, where is it? There is no doubt in my mind that we stand today at the precipice of a new era where science holds the promise of curing the most devastating of diseases. The explosion of medical and scientific innovations are producing new treatments and providing hope for people suffering from a wide range of debilitating disease.There is nothing easy about the issue of human embryonic stem cell research. It is a complex issue with great ethical and moral implications. It is an issue that speaks not only to our greatest hopes as a society but also to who we are as a society. The ever increasing pace of scientific progress brings new challenges posed by a wide variety of ethical dilemmas that have at times outpaced the ability of public policy to respond. This is not the first time that the discoveries of modern science have laid before us vast ethical minefields and it will not be the last. But today we face a particularly potent interplay of potentially powerful scientific research and the moral considerations of life, of health, of healing. This interplay demands comprehensive public understanding and we as legislators have an obligation to respond.There are those who say that politics should not impinge on the scientific process. I do not agree. The progress and ethics of science should not be left only to be determined by the researchers and bioethicists. Science must not be practised in a vacuum. Legislators have a role—an obligation to play a role—in deciding not only which research is scientifically promising but also that which is societally acceptable. Politics and policy play a crucial role in guiding and ensuring the ethical pursuit of science, as well as restraining the inclination of science, if left unchecked, to move beyond ethically acceptable boundaries.This is an emotional debate. It is a debate that spawns a good deal of speculation and feeds many misunderstandings. The most controversial aspect of the bill is not the issue of human cloning. There seems to be unanimity for the proposed prohibition on research that would yield a human clone. The core of this debate is about stem cells; more particularly, the source of particular stem cells. Scientists have known for a long time that a stem cell is a special kind of cell. It has a unique capacity to renew itself and to give rise to specialised cell types. Whereas most cells of the body such as heart or skin cells are committed to conduct a particular function, a stem cell is uncommitted and remains uncommitted until it receives a signal to develop into a specialised cell. With their proliferative capacity and their ability to become specialised, stem cells are unique.Researchers have for years looked for ways to use stem cells to replace cells and tissues that are damaged or diseased. Science has progressed. Researchers interested in human development have been studying animal development for many years and this research yielded our first glimpses at a class of cells that can develop into any cell type in the body. This class of stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they have the potential to develop almost all of the more than 200 or 300 different known cell types.But the controversial aspect of this discovery is that stem cells with this unique property come from embryos and foetal tissue. Researchers are able to isolate this class of pluripotent stem cells from embryos. These cells are capable of becoming almost all the specialised cells in the body and thus may have the potential to generate replacement cells for a broad array of tissues and organs—the heart, the pancreas, the nervous system. It is this class of human stem cells that holds the promise of being able to repair or replace cells and tissues that are damaged or destroyed by many of our most devastating diseases and disabilities. Scientists have also developed pluripotent stem cell lines which are capable of renewing themselves for long periods and giving rise to many types of human cells and tissues.There have also been great advances in our understanding of a class of stem cells that have actually been in clinical use for many years: so-called adult stem cells. It is an undifferentiated cell found in a differentiated or specialised tissue—such as in blood—in the adult. It can yield the specialised cell types of tissue from which it originated. In the body, it too can renew itself. Scientists discovered adult stem cells in tissues not previously thought to contain them, such as the brain. More recently, they reported that adult stem cells from one tissue appear to be capable of developing into cell types that are characteristic of other tissues. So we have stem cells derived from three sources: embryos in early stage of development, some foetal tissue and some adult organs.Are adult and embryonic stem cells equivalent in their potential for generating replacement cells and tissues? The answer is that, although both cell types hold enormous promise, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in important ways. What does not seem to be known is the extent to which these different cell types will be useful for the development of cell based therapies to treat disease. By definition, they have in common the ability to self-replicate and to give rise to specialised cells and tissues that have specific functions, and they have other characteristics in common. But perhaps, self-evidently, the most distinguishing feature of embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells is the source. Scientists agree that adult stem cells exist in many tissues of the human body. In contrast, it is less certain that embryonic stem cells exist as such in the embryo. Instead, embryonic stem cells develop in tissue culture after they are derived from the inner cell mass of the early embryo. Depending upon the culture conditions, embryonic stem cells may form clumps of cells that can differentiate spontaneously to generate many cell types—and I understand that this property is not observed in cultures of adult stem cells. Without going into more detail on the differences, it seems agreed that embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells are different. As the research goes forward, undoubtedly more similarities and differences will emerge and it will be important to compare adult and embryonic stem cells in terms of their ability to proliferate, differentiate, survive and function after transplant and avoid immune rejection.There are many practical questions that cannot yet be answered. How long will it take to develop therapies for diabetes or Parkinson's disease? Can the full range of new therapeutic approaches be developed using only adult stem cells? How many different sources of stem cells will be needed to generate the best treatments in the shortest period of time? Presently, it cannot be predicted which stem cells—those derived from the embryo, the foetus or the adult—or which methods for manipulating the cells will best meet the needs of basic research and clinical applications. That means more research must be conducted on all sources of stem cells. One cannot exclude from research one source of stem cells for, at this very early stage of stem cell biology, research on human embryonic stem cells is so important in order to understand the genetic and molecular basis by which these cells make copies of themselves over long periods.Specifically, embryonic stem cells will be the key research tool for understanding fundamental events in embryonic development—what causes birth defects. Although stem cell research is on the cutting edge of biological science, it is still in its infancy and an enormous amount of basic research remains to be done before it can result in medical treatments. This bill sets us on the wise and deliberate course of enabling research on embryonic stem cells to continue. It does balance our nation's deepest respect for life with our highest hopes for alleviating human suffering.The main concern over embryonic stem cell research involves the use and destruction of embryos in the process of extracting the stem cells. So, although the embryo is at a very early stage of development, the argument is that it has the equivalent legal moral status of a human being. The response is that these cells are microscopic; they may form a baby, but they may likewise form the supporting tissues, such as the placenta. More importantly, for me at least, is the fact that the cells to be extracted for research will come from embryos that have been created for assisted reproductive technology or IVF purposes and are surplus to that purpose. In other words, these embryos will be discarded, destroyed, in any event. The donors of the embryos have consented in any event to the destruction of surplus embryos. If those donors are asked, `Instead of consenting to the destruction of these surplus embryos, will you consent to their use in stem cell research?' should we deny them that choice? I cannot, as much as I have considered this issue, find justification to allow excess embryos to be thrown away rather than be used for research in the pursuit of the higher purpose of alleviating suffering. If the research is not conducted, these embryos will still be discarded. How many will be saved if the research does not take place? None.I have heard the calls from those who have urged me to treat a test tube of cells with the dignity and respect of a human being. This is a collection of cells that will be discarded—unused embryos stored frozen in test tubes and eventually thrown away. I take these calls seriously, but how do I compare the importance of a group of cells smaller than the end of this pencil with the poor quality of life and decreased life expectancy of young children with insulin-dependent diabetes or adults with devastating spinal cord injuries?I ask myself this question and I ask it of those who have called upon me to treat these cells so. Suppose I was passing a house that was on fire and there was a child inside fighting to get out. Would I risk my life to save that child? My answer is yes, I would—I certainly hope I would—and I would expect others would as well. If I were passing an IVF clinic that was on fire and I was told, `There is a test tube in there; there are cells in it, but they are going to be discarded anyway,' would I risk my life to save this test tube? My answer is no; nor would I expect anyone else to so risk their life.As a member of the House of Representatives committee I heard the views of so many people. I was convinced at that time by the arguments against cloning for reproductive purposes that there ought to be a prohibition against human cloning. That was the unanimous view of the committee. Most of the evidence before the committee concentrated on the issues raised by this concept of research involving the use of stem cells and cloning techniques involving embryos and the possible application of such techniques to treat illness and disease. I was convinced that the use of adult stem cells in research ought to be endorsed, encouraged and pursued. That was the unanimous view of the committee. After much detailed consideration, I was convinced by the arguments in favour of non-reproductive cloning research involving embryonic stem cells. I was convinced that the use of existing embryonic stem cell lines to conduct research or to develop banks of cell lines for future therapeutic use should be permitted. That was not the unanimous view of the committee, but it was a majority view. I was also convinced by the arguments that it ought to be permissible to derive additional embryonic stem cell lines from embryos that are surplus to assisted reproductive technology requirements, but only within clear and stringent guidelines. Again this was not a unanimous view, but it was a majority view.Consistent with my position in respect of the evidence before that committee, I support this bill. I have learned a great deal from discussions with a wide range of people—from those with some considerable expertise in this scientific field to those who have contacted me to let me know their views. I thank everyone who has taken the time to write to me or call me. Their views are as diverse as the views that were proffered to the House of Representatives committee and those we have heard expressed during this debate. I am faced with what we call a `conscience vote'. I would like to think that every vote I take in this place accords with my conscience. So far I am able to live with my conscience on all votes that I have cast. So too I expect that I, and I hope all my colleagues, will be able to live with our consciences as we cast our votes in this debate.11:31:005458George, Jennie, MPMs GEORGEJH5ThrosbyALP00—Those of us in this House who are privileged to speak and ultimately vote on this bill come to decide our position on the basis of what for each of us is considered a morally defensible position. It is very much a personal and an individual decision, and I think it brings with it considered responsibility. In that regard, I think it is totally appropriate for this issue to be decided on the basis of a conscience vote.I respect the contribution made by those who oppose the bill and recognise that they are guided by their belief that life begins at conception. From this position, any research on embryonic stem cells is indefensible. I accept also that it is a deeply held view, usually based on deeply held religious conviction. However, taking the view, as I do, that life begins at the point of implantation of a fertilised egg does not lead one to devalue life or hold it to be any less sacred. In my judgment, it is problematic to maintain the argument that research on a cluster of cells allowed to develop for a week devalues life. It is even harder to assert that this leads to a general disregard for life. Indeed, those who support this bill as I do are generally making the argument almost exclusively on our desire to reduce avoidable suffering and to save lives. This, in my judgment, is not a bad rule of thumb for guiding decisions of government.The community and those who use IVF technologies are aware and accept that inevitably there will be excess and surplus embryos that currently are destroyed at some point of time. The bill before us will not force couples to provide embryos for research and it will not allow research without consent. Rather, it protects the rights of those who have had embryos created for them through assisted reproductive technology to choose. Each person who has provided an egg or sperm from which an embryo is created would ultimately have the decision as to whether it will be used for research purposes or allowed to succumb by removal from storage. We are discussing cells from an accepted procedure that would otherwise be destroyed by current law. As some have already explained during this debate, there is little difference morally—in my judgment also—between allowing an embryo to succumb as a result of exposure to room temperature and allowing it to be used for research purposes. We are talking about a creative rather than destructive process, the ultimate goal being the creation of therapies to ensure the survival of people who would otherwise live with chronic pain and debilitating illness or die as a result of these diseases and illnesses.I feel that embryonic stem cell research is analogous to organ transplantation. If we leave organs in a human who is clinically dead, they will, without medical interference, be destroyed. However, as a society we have come to a point where science and our humanity will not permit their destruction if it is possible that another life may be saved through their use. We allow transplants so that a person can live a full life; it is right that we should do this. Likewise, if we withdraw medical interference and expose excess and surplus embryos to room temperature, inevitably they will die. As is currently the case with organ and tissue transplantation, in my judgment, we should not waste biological matter that may one day have the potential to save lives in the same way that today a transplanted heart or lungs can do. For me, the position whereby we would outlaw potentially groundbreaking research is untenable—and morally it is indefensible. If I am personally unable to offer a defence for such a position to a person suffering from a serious injury or illness—and I cannot—then it seems to me that the only option is to allow embryonic stem cell research under strict regulation, in the hope that we can assist those who can potentially be saved through the efforts of such research.I am not a scientist but, on the basis of what I have read, I believe that strictly controlled research should continue on both embryonic and adult stem cells to maximise the chances of successful therapeutic outcomes. Adult stem cells offer potential in much the same way as embryonic stem cells do at this point of time; however, we have to leave our research options open. Many scientists involved in stem cell research believe that embryonic cells still provide the best short-term possibilities for the development of treatments. Although they qualify this by cautioning us not to expect immediate miracles, we must accept their counsel as experts in the field. With the possibility of developing regenerative therapies for spinal cord injury, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, motor neurone disease, diabetes and blood disorders—and the list goes on—this is too great an opportunity, in my view, to let slip away. It is true that embryonic stem cells are yet to be proven in these areas; however, cutting off research prematurely will not enable us to discover their true potential.It is too early to know whether adult stem cells will outperform embryonic stem cells or vice versa. Therefore, we must pursue both options. Should embryonic cells be less capable than their adult counterparts, we would then have to seriously consider whether or not to continue with the kind of research proposed in the bill—but that time is yet to come.The bill before us is a very thorough bill which comes after extensive consultation and input from a range of people with considerable expertise in the area. I am happy that it provides restrictions and regulation to ensure that embryos will not be commodified now or in the future, either by those who might create excess embryos for the sole purpose of providing material for research for commercial gain or by those who might trade on human misery by promising to provide childless couples with an opportunity to be parents through cloning technologies. This bill rightly bans cloning embryos for research purposes and also rightly prevents what I find to be totally repugnant, the cloning of human beings. Further, I am very pleased that this bill will enable a regulatory watchdog, the National Health and Medical Research Council, to ensure observance of the act.Medical expertise and technology in this country are second to none. We have many people who require our empathy and our best efforts as legislators to relieve their suffering. This bill has the potential to advance the interests of mankind while strictly controlling those who would pervert the system for financial gain or even merely through scientific curiosity. I believe that in the research proposed, which will be under strict regulation, the bill offers me the kind of restrictions and regulation that I think are appropriate. I have come to the conclusion that I can in all conscience defend the position of supporting the bill and, accordingly, I will be casting my vote in support of the bill before the House.11:40:005460Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—I rise today to support the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. This legislation has two parts. The first involves the outlawing of human reproductive cloning, and I absolutely support the outlawing of cloning. The second part of the legislation deals with the use of excess IVF-produced embryonic stem cells for scientific research under tightly defined conditions. I do not intend today to go into the details of the bill, as others before me have done that in great detail and have more than adequately described what the bill says and how it will operate. This is indeed a complex community debate. I think it involves four major issues. Firstly, it involves ethics; secondly, it involves the practicalities surrounding the research; thirdly, the debate deals with technical issues—the science of perhaps using cells to help repair body tissue; and, lastly, it deals with the kind of economy we expect to have in the future.Before I address each of these issues in turn, I feel compelled to advise the House that, firstly, I have a university degree in science; and, secondly, my mother died of Alzheimer's disease and a favourite uncle died of multiple sclerosis after some 30 years of agony in living with that horrible condition. It is my understanding that both Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis fall within the range of human conditions that might be alleviated or, indeed, cured by stem cell research. In saying that, I am not just talking about embryonic stem cell research but adult stem cell research as well. Before dealing with the four issues in the debate that I want to discuss today, let me say to the House and the community that I believe exceedingly strongly in the sanctity of life. I always have and I always will.The first issue is ethics. The ethical debate deals with this issue of the sanctity of life and whether or not the few cells that we call an embryo are life itself or the precursor to life. I have searched the literature and I have searched my heart and it seems to me that, until a foetus is formed in the womb, a grouping of cells that we call an embryo at four or five days, which is when they are proposed to be divided, is not life but is a precursor to life—as a single egg and a single sperm are before joining to form an embryo.I think it is important that we consider in this debate that we do no harm. It seems to me that the do no harm debate centres around the argument, which has been made in this place by many, that the embryonic stem cells that are to be separated come from embryos which have been stored for the IVF program, which are not to be used and for which the parents, who donated the egg and the sperm, have agreed that they should be used for research to try and help to improve the human condition.I note, as part of the ethical debate, that the government has recently authorised the Not-2-Late emergency contraceptive. In searching the literature on this contraceptive, I asked myself whether the use of the emergency contraceptive causes an abortion. I am advised that it does not. The literature that I read states:No, use of emergency contraception does not cause an abortion. In fact, emergency contraceptives prevent pregnancy and thereby reduces the need for induced abortion. Medical science defines the beginning of pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman's uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after fertilization (and is completed several days later). Emergency contraceptives work before implantation and not after a woman is already pregnant. When a woman is already pregnant, emergency contraception does not work. It is also harmless to the fetus and to the mother.I simply note that approval of the emergency contraceptive should be considered in this debate when we talk about killing embryos. `Use of embryos' is perhaps an unfortunate term. If science had decided to call embryonic stem cells something else—to give that grouping of cells another term—we might not be having this debate today. In discussing ethics, it is my view that it is certainly ethical to save life and reduce misery, but we also have to agree that we do not want to do that at any cost. In this debate, there are those who believe strongly that the embryo is the beginning of life, and they believe that using excess embryos, even though they will be destroyed if they are not used, is a violation of the sanctity of life. I believe that that is not the case. I do acknowledge that the debate that we have been having in the House has generally been free of rancour and hyperbole and it has been well-ordered. People on both sides of the issue have strongly held views and are able to express them without resorting to name-calling or going over the top in terms of their arguments. Most have modulated their language—there have been a few who have not been quite so helpful—and I trust that the remainder of the debate will remain that way.As an issue surrounding this debate, I am advised that as many as 3,000 to 5,000 excess IVF embryos that have been stored are destroyed per year in Australia alone. It just seems to me, as one who has a great belief in science, in the future of humanity, and in the ability of science to contribute to the future prosperity of humanity, that to not allow some small portion of those embryos to be used for research which might help improve the human condition would be negligent. The second major issue that I want to address today is the practicalities. One of the first practicalities is the rights of the embryo. The chairman of Melbourne IVF, Dr John McBain, and his colleague, Dr Gordon Baker, recently reported:The majority of people do not believe the fertilised egg [embryo] has the same rights as a person and that embryo research for increasing knowledge and improving human health is justifiable. As indicated above few (<20%) embryos produced by clinical IVF will become babies and we need to know why. IVF would not exist without embryo research. Most advances are met by opposition from some groups. The antiscience and antiprogress stand of the opponents of embryo research is similar to that in the past opposing dissection to understand human anatomy as a morally unacceptable interference with the dead. Embryo research will proceed in some countries [for example the United Kingdom] and the findings will be applied generally to improve human health even in those places which forbid the research.The second of the practicalities that I wish to discuss is the argument that the proposed $44 million of funding to a research consortium established in Melbourne will deal only with embryonic stem cell research and not with adult stem cells. An article in the Courier-Mail in late May said:A research consortium promoting stem cell research has won $44 million in Federal Government funding to establish a national biotechnology centre of excellence.The Centre for Stem Cells and Tissue Repair would conduct research on both embryos and adult stem cells, consortium chief executive Professor Alan Trounson said.The third issue is the debate regarding embryonic versus adult stem cells. I have a view that we should give science the opportunity to examine both of these potentialities at the same time. Some argue—I think quite illogically—that because there have been no great breakthroughs yet, at this very early stage in embryonic stem cell research, it should not proceed anymore. That is like saying that, because we have not yet landed a man on Mars, we should make no further efforts to land man on Mars. I quote from a Department of the Parliamentary Library research paper produced by Rod Panter. It states:As long as adult stem cells remain difficult to isolate and grow, research with embryo stem cells is likely to continue to be at the leading edge of discoveries and developments. The full capability of adult stem cells to evolve to specialised tissue is presently unknown. In an apparent contradiction, more human embryo research may be needed so that scientists can learn to avoid using embryos.The fourth issue of practicality is the view of ACCESS Australia's National Infertility Network. In a letter to the Prime Minister on 31 March, they said:Infertile people have no vested interest. We care about the fate of the embryos that once had the potential to be our children, to see that their existence has had some meaning. We do not believe that to use them for research would be disrespectful, quite the contrary. For many couples, allowing them to expire on a laboratory bench without ever having had any added value would be less respectful. An embryo is not a child who would suffer in the process. It is a cluster of cells with an extraordinary potential. If that potential is not going to see it develop into a child, let it be that it may help to find ways to fight or cure diseases.The third major issue I want to debate today is the science and technology surrounding this debate. In a paper, Daniella Goldberg wrote:Stem cells are a type of cell that can be transformed into virtually any of the 200 kinds of cell in the human body. This means that in theory at least, that they can be `grown to order' to help people suffering from degenerative diseases. In practical terms, there are two big challenges: persuading the stem cells to develop into exactly the kind of cell you want, and persuading the body to accept them. It's not easy, but progress has been rapid since the first human stem cell line was created just three years ago.So the science needs to continue. That, in essence, is what we are debating today: whether we will tell science in Australia to not participate in this worldwide research activity or whether we will be a very major player in it. Professor Trounson has said to me that we need four legs to the table. The first leg is adult stem cells; the second is embryonic stem cells; the third is research into the pancreas; and the fourth is the structure of the research and of how we move forward with the use of the cell lines which will be developed.Finally, I ask simply: what kind of an economy do we want in Australia? Do we want to continue with our great efforts in biomedical research or do we want to stymie our scientists and cause them to not progress as far as they might? We are very good at taking minerals out of the ground, and we have got better at radically transforming manufacturers in recent years—despite some predicting the complete demise of the manufacturing industry, we have got better. Education, tourism and so forth offer huge benefits to Australia as export markets. But that notwithstanding, we need to continue our efforts and our research into basic science, and then we need to transform that science into useful drugs which, as I have said before, will help improve the human condition.Professor Bob Williamson, in a conversation on the 7.30 Report, has said:Forcing Australian groups to run a one-legged race against two-legged competition in other countries would cripple advances in this country and might send many of our scientists overseas.I want to see our scientists come back. We have gone through the stage where scientists, engineers and highly qualified technical people have gone to other countries and used their expertise for the benefit of those countries. I want to see us progress. I think the potential of this stem cell research offers us a huge opportunity.Finally, Professor Peter R. Schofield, President of the Australian Society for Medical Research, has said:We again draw attention to the fact that failure to support the Bill would seriously undermine or reverse existing government policy and expenditure as outlined in Backing Australia's Ability, the ARC Designated Priority Areas of Research, the Major National Facilities Research Program and most recently via the $46 million award of the Biotechnology Centre of Excellence to the Centre for Stem Cells and Tissue Repair.With this Bill now before the house, we commend its support as an integrated piece of legislation.I hope that colleagues will join with me in supporting this bill, that it passes and that the Senate will approve our action. I thank the House.11:59:005463Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—This is the moral and ethical debate that should have been had more than 20 years ago when in-vitro fertilisation was first proposed. At that time the Australian community, including many deeply religious Australians, agreed that it was morally and ethically acceptable to create human embryos, most of which ultimately would be destroyed. The basis of that moral and ethical judgment was that IVF created life where otherwise there would be no life. For that reason, many religious Australians supported IVF and still support IVF. I too support the IVF program.The proposal contained in the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is to use in stem cell research surplus embryos created for IVF purposes. Regardless of whether or not the surplus IVF embryos are used in stem cell research, it is certain that they will be destroyed. If it had not been proposed to use surplus IVF embryos for stem cell research, as in this legislation, the community would have continued to have allowed them to be destroyed by washing them down a sink. The question raised in this bill is whether surplus IVF embryos should be washed down a sink or used for scientific purposes. Either way, they will be destroyed.The issue is this: should society be able to use surplus IVF embryos to give life to those suffering life-shortening diseases? Should surplus IVF embryos be used in the search to find cures for debilitating and life-shortening diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and motor neurone disease? Just as IVF gives life where otherwise there would be no life, so embryonic stem cell research offers the prospect of life where otherwise there would be no life. As shadow innovation minister, I cannot agree with the argument that, since the success of stem cell research in curing diseases is not assured, we should not try. We must try.This bill prohibits cloning. I support the prohibition on cloning. This bill prohibits creating human embryos for stem cell research, and I strongly support that prohibition as well. I indicate that, in the unlikely event in the future of a bill coming into this parliament allowing the creation of human embryos for stem cell research, I would strongly oppose that. But the community is not opposed to IVF. I am not opposed to IVF. IVF creates surplus embryos that ultimately will be destroyed. So let us use those surplus IVF embryos to offer the possibility, however remote or however likely, to give new life to sufferers of life-shortening and debilitating diseases. For these reasons I support the bill. (Quorum formed)12:05:005463Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—I rise to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. Whilst I recognise that this is a somewhat controversial bill which brings great emotion and hyperbole at times, I do not think that some of the exaggerations by proponents of both sides of this argument have helped the debate. It has disturbed me that some of those who wish to see this bill pass have made greatly exaggerated claims about what experimentation on embryonic stem cells will do, because as yet we simply do not know what can be achieved by this sort of research.I think it is unfair and cruel to raise false hopes about curing juvenile diabetes, making paraplegics walk again or curing Parkinson's disease—which, from all reports that I have read, is more likely to be cured from the use of adult stem cells anyway. Let me make it plain that I have no ethical problems with adult stem cell research, and I doubt that anyone in this chamber has. They are in fact very small rays of light, if at all, to paraphrase at least one previous speaker. To suggest that experimentation with embryo stem cells could cure Alzheimer's disease is an even longer bow, when we do not even know what the causes of this disease are. These exaggerated potential benefits are not in the best interests of this argument, if we as law-makers are to take them seriously.It also concerns me that there will be no prohibition on the use of embryo stem cells for the testing of chemicals and cosmetics, which will probably be the major type of experimentation taking place. I doubt that the vast majority of Australians realise that this will be the case. It would be interesting to ask those people who opposed vivisections so vehemently two decades ago, or experimentation on animals with that vivisection, whether they would also oppose the experimentation on human embryos.Likewise, there have been some exaggerations on the anti side with suggestions that only adult stem cell research is needed. How can this be if we do not know what can be achieved by embryo stem cell research. Also, to suggest that this is the thin end of the wedge or is some slippery slope is a reflection that all of us as legislators do not or cannot know where to draw the line in future. That is one argument on which I very strongly agree with the member for Sydney.Whilst I, and all of us, cannot know what could be achieved by stem cell research, I have to use my conscience—as does every other member of this chamber—to decide whether to take the utilitarian approach or what may be termed a more moral approach to making a decision. I prefer to call it an ethical approach more than a moral approach, but that is probably splitting hairs. I do this because, although I had a strong Catholic upbringing, I do not think my decision is based on some directive of the church but more because of a logical and ethical reasoning. It always seems to me that Catholics get the blame, or the credit, when issues of a moral nature are raised. But I know people of many different religions are opposed to this measure and, more importantly, I know lots of people who are opposed to it who have never been to a church or practised religion in their life. So it is not just a Catholic thing or a religious thing, it is more an ethical thing.I am reminded of a thesis that I did at university over 10 years ago on the abortion issue, and this is where I probably get most of my philosophical backing for the argument that I am producing. In that thesis I really tried to challenge my philosophies and beliefs, and back them up with a logical position based on the simple premise of the sanctity of human life and where it starts. There was an argument that a foetus was not a human because it could not survive without the womb. A child under five or even older could not survive without an adult to feed them and guide them against the dangers of everyday life, so this argument was not logical. There was the argument that somehow the foetus was under the control of the woman and, therefore, it was her choice, but a baby is under the control of the parents and that right is not given in that case.I could find no logical reason why birth or whether it was a six-month old foetus or a one-month old foetus should make any difference to whether it was a human or any less consideration be given to it. Whilst this may seem old ground and a different proposition to this bill, I have used the same reasoning, the same philosophy, to conclude that I cannot support the destruction of human life for commercial gain or possible cures for humankind. Whether the life is 90 years old or 90 months old or is a 90-day-old foetus or a 90-hour-old embryo, it is worth the protection of our legislators. In fact the younger the human, the more protection is needed because the embryo or the foetus cannot protect themselves. All our laws reflect this premise, that minors have more protection and restrictions than adults, who have a greater ability to defend themselves.The utilitarian approach of the common good for the greatest number has some merit in many cases but we have a duty as legislators to draw a line somewhere on what we believe in, and I believe that the sanctity of life overrules just about every other philosophy. I do not think any less of those people who argue in favour of this legislation, because I have heard many genuine reasons why they favour this legislation. It is just that I cannot bring myself to sanction what I believe to be a form of murder. Just as the murder of a child is often considered worse than the murder of an older criminal, I would agree that the murder of a foetus or an embryo, who is even more defenceless than a child, could even be argued to be worse. These may seem harsh words to some, but that is how I feel.Let me come to what is probably the most powerful argument for the pro-embryo stem cell research side, which says that the excess embryos are going to be flushed down the toilet anyway so let us use them for good deeds. I do not agree with this process because I know there are shortages of semen and eggs in IVF programs where these embryos could be used, which refutes this argument totally. If there are still excess embryos then I believe they should be allowed to die naturally. Notwithstanding my belief, I accept that our present laws state that after a certain time the embryos are destroyed. The proponents of embryo stem cell research say, `We might as well use them for the common good so that they aren't wasted.' I wonder if that argument, using the premise that the embryo is going to die anyway, would be supported if the question was asked: if an aborted foetus is going to die anyway then shouldn't we harvest the foetus for the common good? For the life of me I cannot see any difference in the philosophy or ethics in harvesting embryo stem cells or harvesting aborted foetuses `because they are going to die anyway', so goes the saying.What about the criminal on death row—something I do not support either? Should we be able to harvest his organs because he is going to die anyway? Dr Mengele experimented on Jewish people. He said, `They were going to die anyway,' when he was asked why he did it. I think it is because people cannot see an embryo stem cell or visualise its worth that they can treat them as nonentities. I ask: if they are nonentities then why do we have to destroy them to stop them being part of the human life form? In conclusion, I believe that this parliament should protect the most vulnerable human life forms and reject the part of this bill that will allow the destruction of human embryo stem cells and support the part of this bill which properly forbids human cloning.12:15:005465Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—In conscience, I declare publicly that I oppose the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. To the people in my electorate of Lowe who want embryonic stem cell research to be legalised, I say that my conscience tells me that this research is wrong. I respect every member's right to be guided by their conscience. For this reason, I would expect the Prime Minister to allow all members participating in this debate to be able to do so in this chamber and not in the Main Committee. I stress this debate is fundamentally an ethical debate; it is not a religious one. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that conducted the human cloning inquiry in the last parliament, I listened to and read, over two years, the arguments of both sides to the debate. I want to say something about the provisions of the bill that concern the issue of experimentation of embryonic stem cells. The Bills Digest notes that the purpose of this bill is to:... regulate the use of excess human embryos created by assisted reproductive technology (ART). The Bill is designed to be a part of a national scheme which will include complementary State and Territory laws.In my view, the stated purpose is flawed. In my view, it is not possible to distinguish between the so-called `excess' human embryos and `non-excess' human embryos. This terminology is a euphemism much like the term `therapeutic' cloning. There is nothing therapeutic about cloning. What is not said in the bill's description of purpose is what uses are to be made of the human embryo as a scientific resource, uses which the bill does not regulate but makes licit, namely, as indicated in the explanatory guide to this bill, embryos may be used for the following: (1) in assisted reproductive technology development, that is, for technicians to practice on human embryos, `to train clinicians in microsurgical techniques' or `for improving ART techniques'; (2) in destructive genetic research previously limited to animal models for `better understanding embryonic development and fertilisation' and to examine gene expression patterns of developing embryos; (3) `for the derivation of stem cells' which are privately owned and sold worldwide for commercial profit as outlined in the business plan of Professor Trounson's company, ES Cell International.I want to say something about what is perhaps the most critical question in this debate: if the excess ART human embryos are to be destroyed or allowed to succumb, why not put those excess human embryos to some good use, such as medical research with a view to treating many human diseases or curing human suffering? The bill infers the following: first, that treatment and cures of human diseases and suffering can only come from experimentation on excess ART human embryos for extraction of human stem cells; and, second, that excess ART human embryos can, with confidence, be distinguished from embryos that might be deliberately created for research.Let us be clear. The treatment and cure of human diseases and suffering are being achieved through the experimentation on adult human stem cells. The use of adult human stem cells has a demonstrated track record of achievement. In particular, there is a large body of evidence of scientific achievement in adult stem cell research programs, for example, in the treatment of regeneration of tissue from heart attack sufferers, paraplegia from damaged spinal cords, sickle cell anaemia, insulin dependent diabetics, regeneration of immunity systems, eye damage and brain cell reimplantation in the partial treatment of symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Adult stem cell research is equal to or superior to human embryonic stem cell research for many reasons. Adult stem cells are able to generate virtually all adult tissues. Adult stem cells can multiply almost indefinitely, providing numbers sufficient for clinical treatments. Adult stem cell research has a proven success in laboratory culture, in animal models of disease and in human clinical treatments. Adult stem cell treatment avoids problems with tumour formation and transplant rejection.By comparison, it seems there is not a single human therapy derived from human embryonic stem cells, and animal therapies are both inferior in their effect and, worse, marred by tumour production. There are major, perhaps insuperable, technical problems using embryonic stem cells related to their tumour potential. In one study, 20 per cent of treated animals were killed by stem cell cancers. Another problem is that of immune rejection. Unless the human is first cloned, this problem may occur and contribute to widespread genetic defects as found in all cloned animals. Also, there is likely to be diminishing scientific and commercial momentum for the daunting technique of cloning for tissue-matched embryonic stem cells as it becomes established that the same regenerative stem cells can be obtained easily from the patient's own body. There is no feasible way to distinguish between excess ART human embryos and embryos created with the intent to procreate. As Dr Robert Jansen notes in his submission to the Senate committee inquiry into human embryo experimentation of 1986:It is a fallacy to distinguish between surplus embryos and specially created embryos in terms of embryo research—any intelligent administrator of an IVF program can, by minor changes in his ordinary clinical way of going about things, change the number of embryos that are fertilised. So in practice there would be no purpose at all in enshrining in legislation a difference between surplus and specially created embryos.... ... ...The 1986 (Senate) Committee (into Human Embryo Experimentation) finds any supposed distinction between so called `spare' embryos and those created specifically for experimental purposes to be ethically unsound, and practically most unlikely to be maintained. It therefore recommends that no destructive experimentation be permitted based on any such distinction.I want to say something about the argument that the ends justify the means. The ideology that the ends justify the means can never be justified. Moreover, this bill violates the four rules of the principle of double effect. First, the act of killing a human embryo is itself bad, neither is the act morally indifferent. Second, the bill intentionally wills the destroying of the embryo for experimentation. Third, the good does not flow from the action of destroying the human embryo. It is established that there is no scientifically certain benefit flowing from the bad act. Credible promises of cures from human embryonic stem cell research within 15 years are all but non-existent. Fourthly, the promise of cures, whilst desirable, can never compensate for destroying a human being. In prudence, the bad act of destroying a human being is grossly disproportionate to the nebulous benefits of cures being promised. In my view, the penultimate bad effect sure to occur—the death of a person—deserves greater consideration than the purported benefit of long-term cures that are at best only probable.I now wish to say something about whether a human embryo is a human being. The term `human embryo' is defined in the bill at clause 7. However, the bill does not define the term `human being'. The Senate report Human embryo experimentation in Australia of 1986 states at paragraph 2.4:The Committee answers the question accepted by all as the correct query: What is the respect due to the human embryo?Paragraph 3.4 says the human embryo is:... a genetically new human life organised as a distinct entity oriented towards further development.Brookes and Zietman say that medical embryo definitions of a new human life include:Individual life begins with conception by the union of gametes or sex cells. Growth and development continue thereafter.Alberts's Molecular Biology of the Cell says:An egg is programmed to form a new individual organism when activated by a sperm ...Carlson in Patten's Foundations of Embryology from 1996 says:The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.Moreover, I quote from the Senate committee report:The Committee concludes that the respect due to the embryo from the process of fertilisation onwards requires its protection from destructive experimentation.And at paragraph 3.42:The Committee recommends that the concept of guardianship be adopted as the most appropriate model to indicate the respect due to the embryo in this context.I now want to say something about the third argument, namely, that there are good ends on the horizon, thus justifying the decision to experiment with human embryos with the intent of finding cures. The following are statements made on the question of whether there are good ends on the horizon. Professor Michael Good, Director of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, states:The scientific arguments in favour of embryonic cell research do not stack up. Stem cells can be derived from adult tissues and this research does not involve the destruction of human life.Doctor John Martin, Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne, states:It is the repeated publication of these false claims [of embryo stem cell therapies] that is largely responsible for the misinformation provided to our community. No case has been made for the urgency of human embryonic stem cell research, before there is even a single `proof of concept' achieved in animal research, and before the many safety issues are resolved.In a letter to the editor in the Australian of 14 August 2002, Associate Professor Joanne Shaw, Brisbane endocrinologist and diabetes researcher, states: Adult stem cells show promise in diabetes, however funding is being diverted into the medically doubtful and ethically disturbing field of embryo research.Doctor Peter Silburn, Adjunct Professor of Molecular Neurobiology at Griffith University, who is involved in the current adult stem cell trial for spinal injury, writes:Adult neural stem cell work has the clear advantage of being able to use the patient's own cells to repair any deficits, and avoids issues of rejection and cancer formation.Professor Peter Rowe of the Children's Medical Research Institute at Westmead says in the June 2002 newsletter of CMRI:Scientists at the Children's Medical Research Institute are not pursuing human embryonic research. Instead they feel that there is much still to be learned from studies of animal embryos, and that these hold the key to finding less controversial ways to treat human disease.Sir Gustav Nossal notes in the Canberra Times of 7 March this year that there is a `huge amount of learning to be done' before embryonic stem cells can be applied to medical treatment. He said in relation to not using IVF embryos:It's quite appropriate to be so prudent ... A tremendous amount of the work can be done in the mouse.I want to say something about what I believe are other false arguments advanced by the supporters of this bill. First, the instrumental argument says it is licit to use a human embryo for purely experimental purposes. So where do we draw the line? Use of human embryos after eight weeks? Human foetuses? Fully grown babies? What is the morality that says an eight-week human embryo has no rights whereas a human being nine weeks into development does? A human embryo is not dissimilar to the patient on life support who is never likely to actualise full adulthood. Like a patient on life support, the palliative decision to turn off life support is not an intention to kill, but the end result will in all likelihood lead to the lessening of the duration of that person's life. What is to be remembered is that the wrongful act began with being placed in the invidious position of holding large numbers of IVF human embryos that have remained suspended for many years. The question is now whether it is licit to exploit them for commercial purposes. I believe that the true agenda in the bill is to permit the IVF industry and pharmaceutical and other companies to use human embryos for pharmaceutical experimentation. The use of human embryos will be market driven, not determined by ethical decisions. The article entitled `Fickle fortunes of biotech biz' in the Inquirer section of the Weekend Australian of 17-18 August 2002 by Michael Cook notes:... it is not cures for dread diseases that provide these companies with revenue. Instead, it is the more mundane business of developing research reagents, licensing their discoveries, drug testing for multinational pharmaceutical firms and providing stem cell lines for research teams around the world.... ... ...From a business point of view, cures are the holy grail, says Brigitte Smith of the Melbourne-based venture capital firm Rothschild Bioscience. But no one is sure cures will eventuate.... ... ...Also in the article, Ross Dobinson, Managing Director of TSL Group Ltd in Melbourne, says:`It's more attractive to use stem cell technology now for screening of potential drugs ...' And:`Most people in the investment community don't think in terms of 15 years.'Michael Cook also writes:Stem Cell Sciences [Melbourne] has become a world leader in supplying purified mouse embryonic stem cells to big pharmaceutical firms such as Aventis, Glaxo Wellcome, Genentech and Smithkline Beecham. ES Cell says it is negotiating for `a number of drug discovery licensing deals' ... probably including toxicity testing.The next argument is called the humanity argument. It is irrefutable that the moment the human embryo comes into being, it has an independent destiny. It is an independent human being.The next argument is known as the democracy argument against human embryonic stem cell experimentation. The erasure of the human rights of the human embryo is another infraction of democratic rights, in my view. It is a violation of the person. Where do legislators draw the line on what constitutes a minimum standard of human rights? Who is eligible for those rights? By what authority are those rights derived? Is it solely by virtue of positive law by the legislator? Is the legislator thereby the sole arbiter of what constitutes human rights, or is there a higher law? If so, what is that higher law founded upon?In my view, the bill is in need of amendment. First, a new subparagraph 3(c) needs to be inserted into the statutory objects clause to include objects going to the preservation of the sanctity of human life in all its forms. Second, clause 7 should be amended to include a definition of the term `human being'. Third, in part 3, division 2, new clauses ought to be introduced which prohibit outright the use of any ART human embryos. Finally, clauses 60 and 61 are in need of amendment. Subclause 61(1) makes the NHMRC the authority empowered to conduct an independent review of the operation of the act, to be undertaken as soon as possible after the second-round anniversary of the day on which the act receives royal assent. How could the NHMRC possibly be seen as being able to conduct an independent review? It cannot. Members of this parliament should be accountable for the independent review of this legislation. I call upon the members of this House to oppose the bill.12:34:005469Smith, Anthony, MPMr ANTHONY SMITH00APGCaseyLP10—The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, this debate and this vote are the very essence of what our parliament is about. Irrespective of our differing views and despite the strengths of those views, none of us should ever lose sight of that. When there is a level of public cynicism about the role of parliament, the debate on this bill at this time illustrates that our representative democracy is well and truly alive.It is inevitable—and unavoidable—that, when the time for talking stops and the time for voting starts, all of us will fail to please all of our constituents. However, while some Australians will disagree with the decision that their members make in this chamber, no Australian should be disappointed by how their member votes. They may not have the same view as their elected representative but they will know that on this issue each member has weighed the arguments and decided, not according to a party edict but rather an individual conscience decision. No member can say they had to vote a certain way. Every member can say their vote was their own. That is why all of us must make sure that our vote is wholly our own. The greatest regret any member or senator could have in the future would be that on a free vote, on a matter of conscience, their vote did not fully match their view. I say this because one of the ironies of this debate has been that some participants who have so vigorously defended their own right to a conscience vote sometimes seek to impose their conscience on others.This bill challenges every member in this House to balance two critical issues: the need to maintain medical research within ethical boundaries and the innate and worthy desire of mankind to improve, to conquer diseases and to progress to new frontiers of medical science. Throughout the course of the debate, many members mentioned diseases that may be cured and people suffering who might face a better future. I had one grandmother die of cancer, another of Parkinson's, and a grandfather succumb to Alzheimer's disease. I mention this not because it is atypical but, rather, because it is common—and it is common to members on each side of the debate. As such, it is a reminder of why we should respect each other's differing views.Like all members, I have considered how this bill balances what are conflicting objectives. Pushing the frontiers of medical and scientific research has been a hallmark of our civilisation; it has been the reason mankind has continuously progressed. All of the inventions, the discoveries, the breakthroughs that have moved society forward have been the result of constant human endeavour and the desire to overcome obstacles, to stretch the boundaries, to push the limits. The engine of human progress has been driven by a desire to continually improve, to never reach a point where we say we have done all we want to do. Inevitably, the great advances in science which offer the prospect of better health and longer life and cures for once incurable diseases also offer the dilemma of whether those worthy goals can be achieved and attained without crossing the ethical divide, without breaching the fundamental ethical boundary of mankind.At the cusp of every new frontier of discovery, each generation must pause and consider the ethical arguments inherent in moving into a new area of human endeavour. This was the case with heart and organ transplants, as it was with the introduction of IVF. And it is the case today in this debate, as we consider research that offers future hope and future progress. In recent years medical science has brought forth the capacity to clone human beings. Such a practice crosses that divide, and that is why this bill seeks to prevent it.Medical science has also made great strides in research involving stem cells which potentially offers for the first time a massive breakthrough in the treatment and control of many human diseases. And of course, and obviously, it is this particular issue that has aroused so much debate over recent months, both here in our parliament and also right across our community. There is no discernible difference of opinion on the use of adult stem cells for research purposes. Many experts have rightly pointed out that research in this area offers real prospects for advance. There is, of course, a great deal of difference of opinion on the use of embryonic stem cells.Those opposed to embryonic stem cell research have put forward a number of arguments against its use. Over recent weeks I have considered these arguments before making a final decision on this bill. The primary argument advanced is that the use of these embryos destroys a life that has been created. If this bill allowed for the creation of embryos for the purpose of research—that is, if this bill allowed embryos to be created and then harvested for research—that would hold great weight in my mind. If it did allow it, I would oppose it. But, again, this bill rightly seeks to prevent it.What this bill allows and provides for is the use of those embryos that are surplus to the IVF program, embryos that are destined for destruction. So the crux of the decision is what happens to these embryos that already exist that no-one disagrees will be destroyed in any event. I have weighed this argument carefully, as I have the other arguments. And, having done so, it is clear that the choice is not between the life and death of an embryo; the choice is really between whether excess embryos are destroyed in one manner or another—whether they are destroyed through expiration or through research. Given that, the choice is really then between allowing embryos to be destroyed for no purpose or for providing research for the betterment of our fellow human beings. I choose the latter.If one wanted to mount a consistent argument on the basis of life and death, my view is that one would really need to mount it on the basis of opposition to the creation of the excess embryos in the first place—that is, against the IVF program. That argument was had a very long time ago, and decided according to the merits. These conscience issues are never easy, and many speakers in this debate over the past 24 hours have made that point. The most recent example in this parliament was a number of years ago. The Andrews bill, as it was known, successfully sought to prevent the legalisation of euthanasia in the Northern Territory. I was not a member of parliament at that time but, like many Australians, I followed the debate closely. If I had had the opportunity then, I would have voted for the Andrews bill, and I would still do so today, because I thought the proposition from the Northern Territory did cross the ethical divide.I would like to briefly consider some of the other arguments that have been advanced by those opposed to stem cell research on excess embryos. One argument has been that research with the use of adult stem cells is showing promising signs and, in the fullness of time, this may prove more fruitful than research using stem cells derived from embryos. It is true, as many speakers on both sides of the debate have pointed out, there have been some great advances in this area. But I cannot accept this as a genuine argument against embryonic stem cell research. In my view, it falls down on a number of levels. Firstly, on the question of consistency, it is at odds with the primary argument of those opposed to embryonic stem cell research. If their immovable primary position is that of a complete red light to embryonic stem cell research, then arguments about the prospects for adult stem cell research do not really come into their consideration. It is not as if they are holding out the prospect of altering their position if adult stem cell research does not fulfil expectations. Those who advance this argument should concede that in their hearts their position would not change, even if there was no alternative to embryonic stem cell research.The other area in which I believe this argument falls down is in its simplistic basis. The one thing we have all agreed in this debate is that it is complex and that, because we are in the early stages of it, it is hard to predict its future course. What that should tell everyone is two clear things: we do not yet know, and we are not yet in a position to choose one over the other. To argue that you can be certain enough to advocate one form of stem cell research over another, while at the same time arguing that scientists promoting cures are offering false hope because of future uncertainty, is contradictory and, in my view, quite disingenuous. Because the science is so complex and because the capacity for advancement is so broad, it is quite likely both forms of stem cells will be better suited to different diseases and treatments. To consider them interchangeable alternatives—like a choice between a Holden and a Ford—is just too simplistic.Another argument against research into embryonic stem cells that are destined for destruction is that somehow such a move would constitute a step onto a slippery slide, a crossing of the line or a move into an era of irresistible wanton research. At an emotional level, this argument is quite persuasive. However, having considered it, I do not think in all conscience that it can be sustained by a factual examination.Decisions on these matters are not decided by gravity or momentum. They are decided by legislators, and they are decided by legislators here in this House and in the Senate. If you wanted to move an inch beyond the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, it would not happen by spontaneous momentum or by emotion but by detailed legislation, debate and consideration by this parliament. If some wanted to move an inch beyond the bill, they would have to make their case, and those who opposed moving further—which would include me—would argue and vote against such a move. Just as we are debating changes today, we would debate any proposed changes tomorrow. Just as our parliament of today will vote on the changes that are proposed today, a parliament of tomorrow would vote on any proposed changes tomorrow. What is more, any changes contemplated tomorrow would arouse and enliven the same strength of feeling, the same rigour, the same debate, the same application to detail.For all these reasons, I will be supporting this bill in its entirety. I will do so having considered the arguments and having weighed the issues involved. I believe the bill strikes the right balance between advancement and research on the one hand and ethical constraints on the other. Equally importantly, it provides a national framework and a national response and that is also of critical importance to my decision. Without relevant Commonwealth legislation and complementary state and territory legislation, Australia could potentially have many different, separate sets of rules in this important area. Three states have laws which attempt to ban human reproductive cloning. However, they were developed a long time ago. The laws do not quite address all the issues or quite keep pace with the fast moving science. It is my view that it is this national parliament that should be deciding these issues. Should we fail to do so, we may well face a circumstance in which we do not have the same balance between research and ethics that is being proposed in this bill.The bill also puts into place comprehensive licensing and monitoring arrangements regarding the use of excess IVF embryos. The Prime Minister, in his speech introducing the legislation, outlined these in some detail. The reason I mention these is because I am not entirely sure that they have been fully considered in the wider community. There has certainly been very little mention of these proposed safeguards in letters or representations I have received over recent weeks and months. I mention this in order to reassure those concerned that this bill does little more than merely allow for experimentation.In summary, the regulatory regime will cover all uses of excess IVF embryos except for specified IVF clinical practice. The bill implements the decision of COAG and, in doing so, ensures that research will only be allowed on excess IVF embryos in existence on 5 April 2002. So there will be no possibility of embryos being created just for research purposes. A national licensing body within the National Health and Medical Research Council will be established. It will have the task of examining applications for the use of excess IVF embryos on a case by case basis. Importantly, embryo donors will be able to specify restrictions on research involving their embryos. Another aspect of this bill that is not appreciated by some is that the licensing committee must consider matters such as the number of excess embryos likely to be used and whether their use will advance knowledge or treatment in a way that could not reasonably be achieved by other means.Over the last day or so I have listened to the arguments of many participants in this debate. The debate has involved some passion but we should not be concerned by that. The issues are not straightforward. Divergence of opinion should be respected and debate encouraged. Just as importantly, over recent weeks and months I have listened to the views of residents in my electorate of Casey. Some views I agree with and some I obviously do not, but all I respect because I cannot think of a single letter, conversation or approach in the street that was offered without conviction and honesty. I have had many letters and emails on the subject, as has every member in this chamber. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to express their point of view. I cannot say how many were for or against, not because I did not want to tally them but because I did not think it was right. After all, this is a conscience vote and, as I said at the start of my speech, a decision for me to make based on my views and consideration. I also said at the beginning of my remarks that we should all respect each other's views, despite our differences. As a consequence I will be supporting my colleague the member for Dunkley in his plans to seek the suspension of standing orders to at least allow for a motion to be put to split the bill. In a debate on a matter of conscience, we would in my view be preventing some members from fully exercising their views if we did not to allow at least such a debate.12:51:005472Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 deals principally with two matters: firstly, it seeks to ban human cloning and, secondly, it regulates research using stem cells—in particular, embryonic stem cells. As with I think all members who are in the chamber, I have listened to a good deal of the debate over the course of the last day and a half. There have been some very fine contributions from members on government and opposition benches and it is an indication of the serious consideration that all members have given to this matter. Like all other members, I have received my fair share of correspondence and comments from constituents and interested groups about these matters.I want to state at the outset my intentions with respect to this bill. I will be supporting the bill. I will vote in favour of both provisions, whether or not the bill is split. I say that for a number of reasons. A number of my colleagues in the chamber and some of the debate outside have referred to various medical research and views of eminent doctors and researchers in the field. Having looked through some of these, it seems to me that one thing, and one thing only, is clear—and that is that the medical research community itself is quite divided on this issue, as well as on the extent to which adult stem cell research alone will deliver the hoped-for cures and remedies that it promises.I should say that there appears to be no disagreement about the value of adult stem cell research and the desire for that to continue, with the hope that it may well provide remedies and cures for presently incurable conditions. However, given the divided views of the research professionals, clearly it is too early to place all our hopes in adult stem cell research, much less to conclude now that such research will deliver all the medical advances anticipated from it.I understand that for some people the use of embryonic stem cell research represents the death or murder of a living being, an unborn child. I do not share that view, but I appreciate that it is genuinely and deeply held by some in our community. Governments around the world have sought to balance these concerns with the potential medical advances that stem cell research provides, including embryonic stem cell research. The bill before us at the moment allows embryonic stem cell research on existing surplus IVF embryos but not, curiously, embryos created after 5 April 2002. I have to say that makes no sense to me at all.If you conclude that embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong—and I accept that many for good reasons have come to that conclusion—surely it follows that it is morally wrong irrespective of the date on which the embryo was created. Effectively, the bill says that it is morally acceptable to use stem cell research on embryos before a set date but not after it. I contemplated the possibility of an amendment to the bill but decided not to proceed with one because of the provisions of part 6, clause 60, which provides a sunset clause in relation to the operation of that matter. That clause gives effect to the decision of the Council of Australian Governments that the regulation restricting the use of excess assisted reproductive technology embryos created after 5 April 2002 will cease to have effect on 5 April 2005, unless an earlier time is agreed by the Council of Australian Governments. So what I view as an illogical inconsistency in the process will be removed by the passage of time and probably will be of no effect.Some comment during the debate has exaggerated what it is that the bill does and does not allow. I have heard people refer to embryos and foetuses of some months development being used as part of this research. I think it is important to put on the record the bill's provisions that relate to this. Clause 15 of the bill makes it an offence to develop a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days. I want to read quickly from the explanatory memorandum in relation to that matter. It states:This clause requires that a human embryo created outside the body of a woman must not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days.Some people have been talking in this debate about foetuses that are 14 weeks old. The bill in fact restricts it to 14 days. The explanatory memorandum continues:This does not include any time that the embryo's development is suspended whilst in storage (for example while the embryo is frozen).In practice, this means that human embryos created by assisted reproductive technology must be implanted, stored or allowed to die (if unsuitable for implantation or excess to the needs of the couple for whom the embryo was created) before the 14th day of their development. It is standard ART clinical practice for embryos to be implanted when they have reached between three and seven days of development.So the restrictions in the bill on that point are quite clear. But, as with so many issues of this kind, there are subsequent issues that flow from any initial decision that we might take here. Whatever decision Australia takes on embryonic stem cell research, one thing is certain: embryonic stem cell research is and will continue to be undertaken in other parts of the world. That in itself is not a justification for us to do anything, but I do make the following point. If Australia were to adopt a ban on embryonic stem cell research, as advocated by opponents of the bill based on those moral considerations of destruction of life, surely the same moral considerations would require us to ban the use of any remedies that may become available from the embryonic stem cell research being conducted elsewhere in the world. To do otherwise would strike me as being very hypocritical. Indeed, if embryonic stem cell research were to be undertaken in Australia and were it to provide the promised cures for currently incurable diseases, would those who have opposed the research then avail themselves of those cures for themselves or their loved ones?There is an important question of moral consistency here. For those who argue—and I think legitimately, although I disagree with their view—that stem cell research involves the destruction of life, surely it would be wrong to benefit from the cures out of that destruction of life. One thing we know for certain: that research will occur elsewhere in the world. I do not support this bill because such research will happen somewhere else in the world, but I do pose the question to those who oppose this bill: would you see yourself or your loved ones taking advantage of cures developed by stem cell research in other parts of the world? That seems to me to strike a moral inconsistency in the way in which that issue is approached. It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. If embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong, then surely the use of remedies from that research is equally wrong; otherwise we would be saying that it is morally wrong and a sin to use embryonic stem cell research here in Australia, but it is fine to avail ourselves of the proceeds of that morally offensive activity somewhere else in the world. I cannot rationalise that as a fair and consistent position.Going to the very heart of the concerns raised by those opposed to the bill is the question: at what point is a new life created? This is a complex question both in science and morality. At the end of the day we all have to arrive at our own view in answering that important question. At what point does a cell become more than simply a living cell or a collection of cells? At what point does it become an entity in its own right—a human life, a human being to be protected by the community through laws such as the ones we are now debating?For some in this debate clearly that is the point of fertilisation, even if that fertilisation is outside the human body. For others it is the point at which an embryo is implanted in a womb, whether that be as a result of assisted reproductive technologies or through the normal, natural fertilisation process. For others it is the point where that embryo has developed into a more mature foetus. I take the view that it is the third—that is, life, independent life is created at that later point. I know that is not a view that is shared by many of my constituents, many people in this chamber. It is a view, however, that is shared by many other of my constituents and some in this chamber. Given that I think this is the core issue of this debate, it is incumbent on me as a member of the parliament to make clear my view and where my conscience leads me in relation to this matter.This then brings into question: what then for the IVF program? If indeed the objection to embryonic stem cell research is that we are destroying embryos that are life, not just living cells but independent life, a human being that needs to be nurtured and protected, then those same people must surely object to the existence of the IVF program at all. I know that some of them do, and that is a thoroughly consistent and commendable position with which I have no argument.But I have confronted, among the people who have spoken to me about this issue over the last couple of months, those who say that they support the IVF program but they just do not support the proposal for embryonic stem cell research. I have great difficulty in reconciling those two positions. It has been stated here on many occasions that during the process of the IVF program many more embryos are created than are ever used. It is a fact that in the normal operations of the IVF program those that are referred to as `excess embryos' are destroyed. If indeed it is life, for those who hold that view, it is a rather moot point whether or not that life in their view is destroyed by being poured down the sink in a laboratory or by being used in research such as the stem cell research. Some people have put that argument to me. I do not accept that argument. I think it is internally inconsistent.There is a consistent view, which I have had put to me, and I know some of our colleagues in the parliament hold, that it is the destruction of life and they do oppose the operation of the IVF program. I respect that view. I think there is a clear logic and a clear moral standing behind that position. But I have not heard too many people in this debate who oppose stem cell research say they want to close down the IVF program. Again, I do not think you can have it both ways. I think an overwhelming majority of Australians support the IVF program. Indeed, I think it has become an accepted means by which would-be parents are able to have children where they otherwise would not have been able to, and it is now, I think, a commonplace part of our life and our lifestyle.So I say to those who oppose the bill: consider your view about the IVF scheme and whether or not you think it should continue to operate. For those who believe the IVF program should be closed, that is at least a consistent position with saying stem cell research should not be undertaken. To those who oppose stem cell research, I say: search your conscience and consider whether or not we should not then also ban the use in Australia of any of the remedies and benefits derived from this research conducted elsewhere. I can see no alternative but to do that. If it is the will of the parliament to ban stem cell research here, for the reasons advanced, then surely we must, by the same moral creed, prevent its use in technologies and advances in medical science elsewhere in the world.Finally, I would say to those people: search your conscience and ask yourself whether, if against your best wishes this bill passes and embryonic stem cell research in Australia provides cures and advances for those currently suffering incurable diseases, you will deny yourself and your loved ones access to those benefits? I cannot see how you can answer inconsistently along that train of thought. They are, without doubt, the consequences of the decisions we take in relation to this bill.There have been a number of impassioned statements from members on both sides of this debate and I have been moved by some of the examples that have been given of individual constituents, personal friends of some of the members of this parliament—and, indeed, family members. I listened this morning to the member for McEwen who I thought gave a very thoughtful and important contribution to the debate. They are all compelling. I have also heard people, I think correctly, say that they do not believe they have the right to deny opportunities and hopes to those who are seriously ill. I share that view but I go further. I think it is not simply a case that we do not have the right to deny them; I think we actually have an obligation to fulfil them. I think, as far as is possible, we in this parliament have an obligation, a duty, to the people of Australia to ensure that the hopes and dreams that stem cell research, both embryonic and adult, provides are realised.This is a difficult issue for all of us to grapple with—none of us takes it lightly—but I do think the debate has been a constructive one. I also think it is important that as many members as possible participate in the debate so that the record is clear for our constituents to make up their minds about our positions, and that is a fair and proper thing to occur in a democracy. I do hope that this debate is carried out completely in this chamber. It is an important issue; the public of Australia are interested in it. I encourage the government to ensure that the debate on this bill remains here in the parliament rather than being sent off to the Main Committee.Finally, although I support both major aspects of the bill, I do understand that some of our colleagues have serious objections to those provisions in relation to the regulation of stem cell research but wish to support those provisions in relation to human cloning. I can see no reason why they should not have the opportunity to exercise their consciences in that way, so I hope that consideration will be given on both sides of the chamber to enabling the bill to be split so that people are not placed in what I think would be an untenable position for some. As it happens it will not affect my voting, but I do appreciate that it will affect the voting of others. I commend the bill to the parliament and hope that it is carried.13:08:005475Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs10—I acknowledge the excellent contribution of the member for Brisbane who has said many of the things I would like to say, and for that reason I shall probably keep my speech shorter than it would have been. As everybody knows, we are here today looking at the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 which has two parts to it: firstly, in relation to cloning and, secondly, and probably more importantly, in relation to what happens to the embryos that are created as part of the IVF process. As has been discussed in this debate, the bill allows those embryos to be used in embryonic stem cell research under certain conditions.First of all, I would like to look at what currently happens in IVF in the creation—and, I must say, the eventual destruction—of embryos. It starts with couples who are unable to have children. The woman is stimulated by hormone treatment to produce a relatively large number of eggs. That is done because the process itself is not without some harm to the woman so it is considered better for her to produce a large number of eggs at that one time. The eggs are placed together in a glass container with sperm from a male donor. Some, all or none of the eggs are fertilised according to chance by the sperm within the next few hours. The number that is fertilised could be any number up to about 10, give or take one or two. The fertilised egg is then left to double, quadruple and so on until about day three when the embryo has eight cells. At this stage the embryo is usually implanted into the female. Because of the undesirability of multiple births, only one or two embryos are implanted into the womb of the female. There is a difference in that with older women, where it is less likely to work, sometimes three eggs are placed into the womb of the female. The remaining embryos are then frozen in liquid nitrogen. These frozen embryos can be kept for between five and 15 years, depending on state legislation. States vary in their legislation. I understand the NHMRC regulation says that they believe that 10 years is the desirable limit, but I also understand that this is a theoretical limit and in actual fact the limitation on the life of the frozen embryo has never been fully determined. For all intents and purposes in this country it is now five to 15 years, depending on state legislation.After this time period, as many of my colleagues have pointed out in this debate, the embryos are destroyed. They are literally dumped into a rubbish tin. That is one of the concerns I have with the debate put forward by those people opposed to it who have said in this chamber that they are opposed because they want the embryos to be treated with respect. At the moment they are not treated with respect: they are destroyed by being dumped into a rubbish tin.What will happen once this legislation is passed? Some of these frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded into a rubbish tin will have cells taken from them. These cells will be used in research to develop treatment for people who at the moment have untreatable diseases. I find it extremely difficult to see where the ethical objection to this bill lies. It would seem to me that the moral imperative is on the other side; that it is morally wrong to have a chance to use embryonic cells that would otherwise be discarded to help people—to help prolong life, to help save life or to help mitigate the effects of debilitating diseases—and not do it. How could you prefer to just discard the cells? I shall not expand that argument because I believe it has been gone into by many people in the House and, as I said, by the member before me, the member for Brisbane. I think it is a concern of all of us that we in fact see that the moral imperative is indeed to pass this bill.As I will use this speech to reply to many of my constituents who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research, I want to address some of the questions they have raised with me to perhaps calm some of the concerns that they have. The first question is: can the cells taken from the embryo be grown into a baby? The answer is no, they cannot. The embryo cannot develop outside the uterus, and the cells certainly cannot be grown into a baby.Another question that I have frequently been asked is: can the cells taken from the embryo be used to change the inherited genetic make-up of another person? Again, the answer is no. They can make sick tissue better, but they cannot change the inherited genetic make-up of a person. Indeed, if you had an inherited genetic disease whereby those genes, if they were dominant, would be passed on to your children, they would still be passed on. But then, of course, your children would also have the option to be treated in the same way to make those sick tissues better.Another issue is that of so-called embryonic farming. I think it was stated by one of my colleagues that they believe that, if this bill were passed, it would lead to an explosion in demand for embryos and therefore to the creation of embryos specifically for research. First of all, this legislation in itself restricts the use of embryos created before April 2000. But probably more pertinent, because I think those who have put this argument have argued, `Well, yes, that's in the bill now, but there'll be pressure to change that,' there is no need for that pressure because we have an enormous number of excess IVF embryos. I believe the number is something like 70,000 to be destroyed and, of those, only about 50 or 60 are needed because these cells have the characteristic that, once harvested, they can create their own line almost into infinity.Another issue is that an embryo grown in the laboratory is allowed to be grown for six or, at the most, seven days. The question that has come up is: will there not be pressure to increase this time period to allow for a much larger embryo? Here I think we are getting into the fear of moving from a group of cells to something that almost has a foetus-like characteristic. The answer again is no, because, as I said before, without the uterus, the embryo is unable to develop normally beyond six days. Simply put, beyond six days, it cannot grow and retain its characteristics. It develops abnormally outside the uterus. So that concern is also not justified.We move on to what appears to have become one of the key issues in this debate: adult stem cells. The first question is: what are adult stem cells? I believe there was some misunderstanding that adult stem cells were actually stem cells that were taken from adult human beings. Indeed, what it means is that the cells themselves are adult. Adult stem cells are ones that have already differentiated into specific types of cells: for example, liver cells, skin cells, nerve cells. They can be taken from adults, children or even foetuses. The next question is: do adult stem cells have the potential to do everything that could possibly be done by using embryonic stem cells? There have been claims that this is so. But the answer is, definitively, no. People like Professor Bob Williamson who are engaged in adult stem cell research admit that. They said, `No, they can't, because they do different things—although one of the hopes is that, by using embryonic stem cell research, we may learn more about the process so we can use adult stem cells in better ways.' This was a very strong point made by Professor Williamson; that we need the embryonic stem cell research to go ahead to enable those people working with adult stem cells to develop the full potential of adult stem cells.Adult stem cells are currently restricted because, as I said, they are already a specific type of cell. To use them as we use embryonic stem cells, we have to take them back to an undifferentiated stage—move them back from being liver cells or whatever into a more amorphous stage—and then drive them forward into being the type of cell we want. Clearly, this is quite problematic and much more difficult than starting with the embryonic stem cells which are in themselves—it is their key characteristic—amorphous. They can and have the potential to develop into any kind of cell possible in the human body. They are at the beginning of the process; the adult cells are at the end. But this is not, as I said earlier, to dismiss adult stem cell research. Both of these kinds of research are needed, as both Professor Williamson and Professor Alan Trounson have said over and over again. They are not opposed to each other; they are complementary.The final question is: what is the current potential for embryonic stem cell research as opposed to adult stem cell research? It is to treat such diseases as diabetes, Parkinson's disease and motor neurone disease, to name just a few. When it is developed, this research will allow insulin producing cells to be injected into diabetics, it will enable us to push new dopamine nerve cells into people with Parkinson's and it will allow us to drive healthy motor neurone cells into those people with motor neurone disease. The potential there is absolutely incredible. It is a new generation of medicine, directed towards the improvement of health and averting some of the huge tragedies that occur when people get these debilitating diseases. Of course, it is not the total answer, and it will not solve everything, but it is a first step. It is a step with fantastic possibilities, and I believe to turn our back on such a step would be both immoral and indeed criminal.In conclusion, I thank my constituents who have contacted me—and, indeed, people from all over Australia who have contacted me by email. I apologise to those outside my electorate to whom, simply because of their sheer number, I have not replied. I thank my colleagues who, I think, have conducted an extremely good and well-disciplined debate. Finally, let me thank very much Professor Bob Williamson, who came up to talk today to my colleagues. I especially thank Professor Alan Trounson, who has given all of this week to being available to parliamentarians to answer, in the most direct and honest way possible, any concerns that they have. I thank both of those gentlemen for their time and honesty in giving us that information.13:23:005477Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I congratulate the previous member on her very good speech. This debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 has been very difficult because it has been a mixture of emotion and facts. Of course, some of the facts have been manipulated a bit so that it is not always clear what is being said. Many of the previous speakers have known or heard of people who would benefit from stem cell research. It is true that there are many ethical and religious views expressed in this country that we should not interfere with nature and that it is against the medical Hippocratic oath to use embryos in such a way. But we are perhaps missing the point in all this.First of all, I would like to agree with the member for Bonython who believes the debate should be about the question of science. Is the use of embryonic stem cells or the use of any other technology so reprehensible that we should not use it? Is it so morally indefensible that it should be proscribed no matter what the potential benefits are for the community in the long term? He pointed out that parliament should not be debating the relevant merits of the conduct of one type of scientific debate or another. This debate is not about whether adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells will ultimately produce the correct scientific advancement. We cannot do that in parliament—few of us are scientists and, even if we were, it will be some years before the results are known as to whether one sort of stem cell research achieves more than another. The science really is in its infancy. We need to debate whether we are prepared to judge whether we should ban stem cell research no matter what the outcome because one sort of cell comes from a very new set of dividing cells or from embryonic cells. Going back to my biology days, embryos of any living thing are very similar until they are triggered to follow the patterns embedded in the DNA. So what are we talking about? Embryonic stem cells are cells that can be activated by a chemical to become any one of the 210 types of tissue that they have been told to become. I do not see this as being an individual, whether it is human, animal or plant.If the use of some of this material could one day find a cure for one of the serious illnesses, particularly those of our children, I believe it is immoral not to make use of that opportunity. Over my lifetime, there have been many new drugs and many new treatments. Even organ transplants have now become commonplace and sought after by our community when people are desperately trying to save a loved one. Who am I to deny them, or indeed any of my family, a chance to live a full and healthy life? Would you prevent a friend or a relative from picking up the research results because you felt that the research may have been done from embryonic stem cells?Some of the discussion has related to cloning and the cloning of a human. I do not accept that this is part of the argument. That discussion is very fanciful. I think some people are not totally honest in that debate, and it is not related to what we need to deal with here. Maybe some of the offshoots of the research may lead to some type of cloning, but banning the whole lot will lead to underground work being carried out. Like any prohibition, it will not stop things; it will lead to black markets and make things difficult to control. And, of course, overseas research would carry on.This leads me to another part of the argument which I believe is valid when dealing with research science. I believe that research should be funded publicly. I believe that we should re-establish the ability of our universities, the CSIRO and other science bodies to undertake this pure research with public money. As long as there is a price tag pasted on research, the ethics and the motives will be questioned. Science of this nature should not be done for the rich. There should be equal access to all sorts of assistance for all Australians.The worry with this type of science these days is: who owns the patents? Who owns the information? I believe it should be publicly owned and publicly disclosed so that we can keep an eye on what is going on and prevent some of the nonsense that goes on in the private sector. We have seen some of the failures of those leading the private sector in recent times. Ownership of natural things, even when they are altered, seems to me to be difficult. We will face the same discussion on issues like water and air. When we move to find solutions, it should be possible to have the information available for all. Denying Australian scientists the right to research these issues means the research will go on elsewhere. It will be very much harder to know what is going on and it will cost Australians dearly to access the science, because not only will they have to travel overseas to find it but the processes will probably be owned by those who paid for the research.Many of my colleagues, including our leader, have put together some very compelling arguments as to why we should support this legislation. This is one of those issues that goes beyond parties and beyond groups. It is a great relief that a conscience vote has been provided. It has meant that the Australian parliament, the representatives of the people, have been able to debate this openly and honestly. I believe that we should pass this legislation. I respect other members of my own party, and those in other parties, who have religious and ethical beliefs on this matter. I congratulate our parliament on the level of debate and on the respect for the views of the people who have taken part in this debate. It is a credit to the parliament.It is important that we keep the research going in Australia. Apart from anything else, our scientists are some of the best in the world and we want to keep them working in Australia. We do not want them to be lured away because they cannot work on their scientific projects here at home. Although I put in a plea for public funding to be increased or to go back to our national institutions for scientific research in this sort of area, I support the bill and wish it good fortune through both houses of parliament.13:31:005479Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. Stem cells are specialised cells that can grow into brain, nerves, blood or other parts of the body. None of us would deny those who want a cure for injuries such as spinal injury and diseases such as Parkinson's disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis or other terrible afflictions, the right to a cure or a potential cure. However, the question remains: which of the opportunities offered through stem cells is the one to pursue? Embryonic stem cells, as other speakers have outlined, come from the interior cell mass of a human embryo no more than 14 days old. Adult stem cells, which could well be called `self cells', generally come from adults—they can come from children and foetuses—and they also differentiate into specialised body organs or parts. Some can grow into diverse tissues from the same adult stem cell. So what are the merits of these differing opportunities—embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells?Looking first at embryonic stem cells, it is not unreasonable for the parliament to ask how many diseases have been cured by embryonic stem cells. Not one. Not one person has walked as a result of embryonic stem cell work with a spinal injury. Not one heart has been repaired. Not one Parkinson's patient has recovered from their disease. Not one stroke victim has been made whole. How many patients have been successfully assisted? Not one patient. How many current successful clinical treatments are there? Not one. How many successful animal treatments have there been? Not one. How many proofs of concept have been achieved through animal experiments? Not one. How many scientific articles substantiate successful embryonic stem cell therapies? None. One reason for this—and there are many—is that differentiation in embryonic stem cells is difficult. The plasticity of embryonic stem cells is the very reason that they lead to unsuccessful outcomes. They tend to form a variety of cells rather than the specific cells required. As an example, rats suffering from Parkinson's disease which were injected with embryonic stem cells showed a modest benefit in 50 per cent of the cases, but 20 per cent of the rats died from tumours formed in the brain by the embryonic stem cells. We are being asked to debate and to make a decision on a scientific theory that has very little successful research behind it to persuade the parliament.On the other hand, adult stem cells have some significant claims to success. Adult stem cells have been used in the regrowth of neurones and in the remyelination—that is, sheathing—of neurones for those with motor axon difficulties. Scientists have retrained immune cells to reverse diabetes in mice. More than that, liver and pancreatic adult stem cells grown in a culture have formed insulin-secreting islets, again in mice. The injection of growth protein into the brains of rats with Parkinson's disease caused their neural stem cells to grow, migrate to damage and replace nerve cells. Eighty per cent of the rats showed significant benefit with no tumour formation. I could read out page after page of adult stem cell work to do with bone marrow: to reform blood vessels, to regenerate dystrophic muscle, bone marrow used to create functional lung cells, bone marrow cells forming functional liver and kidney cells and so on, all through adult stem cells.One of the most significant examples is recorded in Britain. A young Welsh boy suffered from what is commonly called `bubble child' syndrome: not having an immune system and being constrained to live inside a plastic bubble. Little Rhys Evans had an adult gene removed, reworked and placed in his body. He was given a normal copy of his defective gene, and his system is now functioning well. He has left the bubble; he is a happy, normal, functioning child. The healthy gene from his own stem cells contained in his bone marrow has enabled him to have a complete cure. May many other children in a similar situation have a full cure as a result of their adult stem cells. So the argument is very much weighted towards adult stem cells if the scientific progress to date is taken into account.In the time that is left to me, I would like to talk a little about the human genome. The human genome is four billion years old. We have come a long way from the first protozoa in the primordial soup four billion years ago. The human genome now is made up of 23 separate pairs of chromosomes. In fact, they are small three-letter words using a four-letter alphabet: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. The genome alphabet, which makes words, also translates into recipes for the proteins that make us what we are. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if I read out one word per second of the human genome for eight hours a day, I would be standing here for a century. You will be relieved to know that I am not going to attempt that.Those who have a religious view see God's plan in the genome. Those who have purely a scientific approach see the genome as the most subtle, masterful code for life. Many, like me, probably see both. They see God's plan in one of nature's most awe-inspiring, evolving and clever mechanisms: the human genome. The genome gives us our eye colour, our physical make-up and also, regrettably, our genetic flaws. Occasionally the code makes a typographical error, if I could put it that way. On chromosome 4, for instance, the gene has a single word which, if repeated more than 39 times, results in Huntington's disease, ensuring a painful and early death for those who are unfortunate enough to have that flaw in their genetic make-up.However, there are other significant aspects to the genome. The genome responds to pathology and mutates. There are genes that confer a level of immunity to serious infectious diseases. The AB blood genotype gives a high resistance to cholera. Another gene on chromosome 7 gives a high resistance to typhoid. There are, in fact, clever genes that even respond to cultural change. Seventy per cent of humans now have a mutation on chromosome 1, the gene for lactose. This allows adults to drink milk. Genetic tracing shows that this originated from peoples who depended on a pastoral existence. Up until then, of course, nomads or those who depended on their herds of animals did not have the opportunity to consume milk in times of drought or famine. So the genome responded to cultural change.Likewise, there is a set of genes on chromosome 4 that gives a tolerance to alcohol. This adaptation occurred in regions where people fermented liquids to make them clean and sterile. This was in response to the dysentery that devastated the first millennia of agricultural living. It was absolutely necessary, particularly for the young, to have a tolerance to alcohol and to fermented beverages and foods. So, again, the genome, infinitely clever and subtle, adapted to include a tolerance to alcohol on chromosome 4.The genome can be far more subtle than that. In fact, in the growing foetus it is the father's genes that make the placenta rather than a mix of the mother's and father's genes. Why would that be? The clever genome has determined that, were the placenta made from maternal genetic material, in a time of famine or nutritional crisis the placenta might favour the mother and not favour the foetus. Therefore, it is the father's genes that have selfishly taken over the placenta to favour the foetus and ensure the continuation of the species. How subtle and masterful can the genome be to determine that the future of the species depends on whether it is maternal or paternal genes that make the placenta?The genome is even more clever than that. It is able to instruct cancer cells to self-destruct. It has now been discovered that TP53, a gene on chromosome 17, is activated by chemotherapy and other therapeutic approaches to cancer. If TP53 can be stimulated, it will cause the tumour cells to self-destruct, to commit suicide. So how clever can the genome be to look after every aspect of our human make-up, whether it be responding to cultural change, responding to pathology, adapting to ensure the continuation of the species and the foetus or defending the body from cancer?The question, I guess, is: what would the genome's reaction be to a species that decided to consume its own young? Plainly, in evolutionary terms that would be an evolutionary dead-end, a contradiction in terms. No other species advances itself by consuming its own young. Certainly from a religious point of view, that would also be something that would be unthinkable. But from the point of view of the genome, it would be extraordinary to think that, in the subtle and masterful evolution of the genome over four billion years, the secret to defeating disease lay in using the unborn young. That, as I said, would be an evolutionary dead-end.It seems to be also supported by the body's rejection of unmatched organs or cells, and that is, to my mind, a marker to the likelihood that cures lie within the patient's own stem cells. Certainly the scientific results to date would reinforce that view. I can see that in the future it would be likely that a patient's own stem cells would be used to provide the cure that so many people wait for—for multiple sclerosis, for diabetes, for Parkinson's disease. Quite rightly, no-one would deny those people a cure. But using a patient's own stem cells is a procedure—albeit a sometimes expensive and complicated procedure, but it is a procedure—and we all carry our own stem cells within us. If you use embryonic stem cells, that is a product. That product can be packaged, marketed and sold for profit, which is far more attractive to the biotech companies than the option of using a patient's own adult stem cells. One is a procedure and one is a product. It is only products that generally can be sold, patented and so on. Procedures do not offer the same opportunity—certainly for those who want to invest in them. If we were to go down the path of embryonic stem cell therapy, then the issue of rejection of organs and cells would have to be addressed. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said, it would have to be done by harvesting vast quantities of human eggs. Where would those eggs come from? Would they come from poor women in Third World countries who sell their eggs? If we object to poor women selling their bodies to escape poverty, how much more should we object to them having to sell their eggs?I have heard other speakers who reject the concept of protection for IVF embryos as inconsistent and as an economic waste. I would like to share this with the House: the concept of humanity, and the dignity and respect due to it for the simple fact of being human, is still evolving and developing. There are numerous examples of times and people who saw other humans as less than human. Sadly, we only have to search through recent history, not ancient history, to find examples of humans who were seen as less than human. At one time, certain races were seen as less than human. It was only in 1932 that black American men were lied to and left untreated for syphilis, with the result that many died. How was that possible? How could anyone ignore another human being's need for treatment and diagnosis? Because they were seen as less than human. The Jews were seen as less than human and were experimented on by the Nazis. It is not so long ago that in Massachusetts intellectually disabled teenagers were experimented on by doctors who fed them radioactive materials without their parents' knowledge. These terrible things could only be done because those unfortunate people were seen as less than human.We rightly reject that now. We rightly reject that any race or intellectual or physical incapacity makes one less than human. Our concept of humanity and the respect due to it has evolved, and thank goodness for that. We recognise now that all humans are part of the human family and that none of us are feedstock for science—not those who are of a different race, not those who are aged and infirm, not those who are intellectually or physically incapacitated. But there is one exception at present to our view of those who make up the human family, and that is our youngest members. The unborn are sadly neglected and rejected as part of the human family.My argument goes to the fact that, if we respect and give dignity to every human, we cannot differentiate—and should not, of course—on race, capacity or any other arbitrary category. Nor should we on age. We cannot exclude the youngest humans—albeit they are very, very young. Nonetheless, human embryos have their 23 chromosomes, they are human and they are living. For those who want to continue the argument about drawing arbitrary lines—(Time expired)13:51:005482McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and many other members of this chamber, I have thought long and hard about the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. It is legislation about an emotive issue. It is the type of legislation which does not often come before the parliament, where we get to make a choice ourselves rather than accept the guidance of our parties. We have had a lot of guidance from our constituents on this legislation. We all would have received vast amounts of information from constituents on both sides of the argument, some of whom will be unhappy with the results of this debate and some of whom will be happy. As a member of parliament, I am happy we are having the debate. We probably should have more issues in this House that are decided on members' own views rather than on collective views, but we tend to only have these debates on emotional issues. It is impossible not to feel emotion about this issue. Other speakers have tried to take the emotion out of their consideration but, as my colleague the member for Fremantle said about the debate in her speech earlier this week:It is about our common human feelings and there have to be emotions in these debates; otherwise we are simply ciphers and we should hand the debate over to a computer.She is right in saying that. Those of us who have been here for some time will recall debates in the chamber on abortion and on euthanasia—issues which stirred the emotions and caused all of us to ponder important questions. I was a contributor to both of those debates, and I am on the record as not being in favour of either. I am against abortion and I am against euthanasia, as they are both—to my mind—about consciously killing a human being, and that is the problem. It is a very important problem for all of us. I agree with the member for Aston, whose speech I greatly admired, when he said in the debate:We are not being asked to determine the fate of these embryos. Whatever we decide, their fate is to be destroyed. We are only asked to determine how they should be destroyed: as part of a research program to benefit future generations or simply as discarded waste product.That is the important thing. That is what we are being asked to decide. Like the member for Aston and other members, I cannot bring myself to accept that the embryos created for IVF purposes outside the womb are human beings. They are not the same, in my view, as a foetus or a living, breathing human being. Some say they are potential life, but the truth is that they cannot progress to being a human being without the intervention of being implanted in a woman's womb. To be logical, if you oppose this legislation, you would be in favour of each embryo created for IVF purposes being allowed to develop into a human being; you would not allow any of them to be discarded.Therein lies the rub with the opposition to this legislation. In a lot of ways, this is a proxy argument that some people are making. The proxy argument is that many of those people are opposed to IVF. I am not opposed to IVF. I think it gives people who would otherwise remain childless the chance to have a child, and I think that is a very important improvement in people's capacity. The important thing we should remember is what this bill is about. It is not about IVF; it is about what happens with a product left over from IVF. I think we should be able to use that product for potentially life-enhancing procedures. I am against embryo farming. Some people have raised in this debate that, if you agree to this bill, you will be allowing embryo farming now or allowing embryo farming in the future. I do not think it will. If there is an attempt to cause embryo farming to occur in the future then we should oppose that. This bill does not give an entitlement to embryo farming.Some people have raised rather hysterical arguments about what churches say about these things or about how quickly we might be able to get the results, and I think there is a bit of dishonesty on both sides in some of the examples that have been used. A lot of our constituents have taken the view that this is just a black-and-white issue. It is not a black-and-white issue; it is an issue that has had, to my mind, a few too many untruths told about where we are going with it. If we have the potential to cure some terrible life-threatening diseases then we should take every opportunity we have to do that. For us to say that these embryos are human beings is to misstate the position. I cannot bring myself to believe that these cells that exist on a glass slide or in a test tube in a laboratory are human beings. If they are not human beings then I do not see any reason why we should not be able to use them, as a by-product of IVF, to ensure that we can improve the lives of other human beings. So I am going to support the bill.I also support the right of those people who want to split this bill. In these important debates we have on conscience issues that only come up from time to time, there should not be any element of procedural trickiness. It is unfair to those who are opposed to embryo experimentation to say they have to vote for the bill or otherwise they will be in favour of cloning. I think it would be a fair and reasonable thing for the proposer of the bill, the Prime Minister, to agree at an early stage in the debate to split the bill so that those who are against the bill can say they are against one thing. For the Prime Minister to say it is up to the House is a little bit unfair. Let us have the debate on the two separate issues, if that is what people want, and let it rise or fall on its merits. To get involved in a little bit of procedural trickiness in something that is as important as this is a very unfair thing to do. In short, I will be voting for the bill. If we split the bill, I will be voting for both of the bills. But give people a choice; that is what I say.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Watson will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Ministerial Arrangements548314:00:005483Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services will be absent from question time today. He is attending the Agquip Conference in Gunnedah. The Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice5483548314:00:005483Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, are you aware that a Federal Court found yesterday that a heroin dealer can claim a $220,000 tax deduction for money stolen during a drug deal, with the judge saying:This is an anomaly to which Parliament should give attention.Treasurer, didn't Labor warn you of this problem and urge you to fix it more than two years ago, and isn't this yet another case of you being advised of a serious deficiency in the law but failing to act?5484Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the last part of the question, obviously, is no.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You weren't warned?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer has the call!CT4Mr COSTELLO—This is yet another opportunistic intervention, as we would expect from the Leader of the Opposition.5I4McMullan, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer has the call, Member for Fraser!5I4McMullan, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser is defying the chair!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The law is that proceeds of crime are taxable, and the government certainly supports all proceeds of crime being taxable. In fact, the Australian Taxation Office has sought to establish that point both in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and in the Federal Court. I have encouraged the Australian Taxation Office to appeal the decision to the full Federal Court in the hope that, upon appeal, the court will take a different view. As far as the government is concerned, the full proceeds of crime should be taxable and should be treated as income and, as far as the government is concerned, if, after the appeal process is exhausted, that requires legislative amendment, the government will certainly be very favourably disposed to ensuring that.548414:02:005484Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any recent developments in relation to companies scrapping executive share option schemes? What is the government's response to these developments?5484Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Robertson for his question. I am aware—and I think all members of the House would be aware—of the announcement made by the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Bank, Mr David Murray, that the bank intends to scrap its executive share option scheme. This is precisely the kind of corporate action that I had in mind when, just over two weeks ago, I addressed a meeting of the Securities Institute and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Sydney. It is not appropriate that parliaments legislate away the rights of companies to have share option schemes if they so choose. But, given the abuse that has occurred and given some of the concerns that have been expressed, I think it is entirely appropriate that companies take the lead, and I congratulate John Ralph, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank. Not for the first time, he has shown the lead to corporate Australia, and I hope the lead that Mr Ralph and his fellow directors have shown on this occasion will be picked up by other companies around Australia.I should note in passing that, while the Corporations Act already requires the details of executive options be disclosed in directors' reports, the Australian Accounting Standards Board is currently developing an accounting standard on the issue, including on how options should be valued. The International Accounting Standards Board is also working on a new standard which would require companies to expense stock options granted as remuneration. I also noted with some interest last Thursday the release by the ASX Corporate Governance Council of its directions on governance and best practice to listed companies. What this amounts to is a very obvious response by the business community in Australia to the call that I and others have made for a lifting of the standards of corporate governance. The reality is that we have a choice. We can, à la the Labor Party, dump a whole lot of additional regulation on honest business operators in this country, to the detriment of the operation of our economy or, alternatively, we can do as the government has done and give a lead. I am delighted that people of the prominence in the business community of John Ralph and David Murray, leading the Commonwealth Bank, have responded to that and are giving an example to other company executives around Australia of the need for greater self-regulation. As I said in that speech some 2½ weeks ago, if business does not respond with greater self-regulation, then inevitably governments will end up dumping unnecessary, additional regulation on them. What I think is pleasing from the action taken by the Commonwealth Bank today is that that message is being received in corporate Australia, and I congratulate John Ralph and David Murray on the lead that they have taken.548514:06:005485Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer and it follows his earlier answer. Treasurer, why won't you support Labor's policy to confiscate the proceeds of drugs crime rather than tax it?5485Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Because this government does both: we propose not only to tax it but to confiscate it. In fact, Senator Christopher Ellison introduced the Proceeds of Crime Bill 2002 in March 2002—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—How can you do both?CT4Mr COSTELLO—So you are against taxing it, are you? The Leader of the Opposition just interjected, `How can you do both?' In other words, he is against taxing the proceeds of crime. You can do both and it is certainly our proposition to do both. You said, `Why not follow Labor in confiscating?' and then said, `How can you do both?' In other words, how could you tax as well? So the Labor Party was against doing both, Mr Speaker. DT4Crean, Simon, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—`Oh!' he says. Too clever an interjection by half, as the Hansard will record. He said, `How can you do both?' The answer is: you can do both. You can do both because you can tax the proceeds of crime, which they can pay out of other income which they may have lawfully, and you can confiscate the proceeds as well. That is this government's position, a much tougher position than the Labor Party's position—as comes out of the mouths of babes and knaves with the interjection that he just made. Senator Christopher Ellison introduced the Proceeds of Crime Bill 2002 on 13 March 2002. We call on the Labor Party to support us. We also support taxing the proceeds of crime—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga!CT4Mr COSTELLO—and call on the Australian Labor Party to stand up and take back the interjection he just made and indicate—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. The least I expect from the member for Jagajaga when I draw her attention to her interjections is to cease interjecting. Has the Treasurer concluded his answer?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, Mr Speaker.548514:08:005485Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House of the government's response to the first report of the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry? What reaction has there been to this report?5485Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Dawson for her question. A fortnight ago, Commissioner Cole recommended the establishment of a task force to investigate and prosecute illegalities in the construction industry. I repeat to the House that the government has accepted that recommendation and will move to establish a task force operating under existing law to become operational by the end of next month.It is important to move quickly to ensure that both construction management and construction unions operate under the rule of law. That is why the government has accepted Commissioner Cole's recommendation for a specialist body to be set up urgently, rather than wait for a new body covering wider matters to be established. It is interesting that both Commissioner Cole's recommendation and the government's response have been widely welcomed. I quote from the editorial in today's Financial Review:Terence Cole ... is showing a lively appreciation of the traps that have snared previous would-be reformers of this important but difficult industry.Today's Age editorial says:Honest and fair dealing in the building industry is a goal worth pursuing. The decision to set up an interim taskforce along the lines suggested by Justice Cole is a good one.I should note that the member for Barton and shadow minister for workplace relations has acknowledged the need for effective law enforcement in this industry. I note and indeed welcome the statement of the Leader of the Opposition earlier this week to the Australian Industry Group, when he said:I think that any system requires tough rules. I do not condone crooks wherever they are from. If there are implications out of the royal commission that point to crookedness and corruption, the full force of the law should be brought against them.I welcome those statements. I thank the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Barton and I look forward to their support for the very important work of this task force.548614:11:005486Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to remarks by President Bush overnight warning against a frenzy on the question of war speculation against Iraq. I refer also to remarks by President Bush on 16 August where he welcomed public debate on Iraq, including contributions from those with reservations about US military action. Does the foreign minister recall now his own frenzied remarks in the public debate in this country where he labelled as `appeasers' those who have argued for restraint in Australian policy on Iraq? Does the minister now regard Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger, US Republican majority leader Dick Army and the Australian Wheat Board as appeasers? Minister, when it comes to those who have advocated peaceful diplomatic solutions on Iraq, do you still stand by your earlier accusations of appeasement?5486Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—In answer to that question, I would have thought that in the few questions that have been asked this week on this matter many very clear expositions have been made of the government's position. I note—and the House might be amused to hear this—that on 23 July on radio 3AW, when talking to Stan Zemanak, the member for Griffith said, `We can't afford to appease Iraq.' They were his words. I can only say that, using language like that, the opposition spokesman on foreign affairs uses language to mean that he does not believe the United Nations Security Council, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and others should back down in their attempts to ensure Security Council resolutions are adhered to and, further than that, that any weapons of mass destruction capability that Iraq has will forthwith be destroyed.I think that has to be the thrust, and obviously it is the thrust, of international diplomacy in order to try to resolve this matter in a peaceful way. Nevertheless, as the government has said on many occasions, whilst we very much hope that this is resolved in a peaceful way, the onus for it to be resolved in a peaceful way above all falls on Saddam Hussein and Iraqi leadership. It is very important that the international community maintain strong pressure on the Iraqis.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask if the minister would table the 3AW transcript from which he was just quoting?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Was the minister quoting from a confidential document?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! I have not as yet recognised the Minister for Foreign Affairs!4G4Mr DOWNER—The notes from which I was quoting are confidential. I do not have the transcript with me but, to do justice to the honourable member for Griffith, I am very happy to make available the transcript, which is in my office.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! Much as the Speaker welcomes the movement on the opposition front bench, which has brought the member for Wills closer to my company, I hope the member for Wills is equally as pleased with the move over time!548614:16:005486Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of further initiatives in tax reform that the government is undertaking to ensure that Australian companies remain competitive and to enhance Australia's attractiveness as a business location?5487Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I can inform the House that today, further to its election commitment, the government has released a review of international taxation arrangements, for consultation with the business community, on making Australia's tax system internationally competitive for those Australian companies seeking to do business outside Australia or to bring new investment into this country. These proposals build on what the government has already achieved in relation to a competitive business tax regime: bringing the company tax rate down to 30 per cent, abolishing wholesale sales taxes and taxes on exports, introducing the goods and services tax, halving capital gains tax for individuals, introducing rollovers to allow scrip for scrip rollover and rollover for small business from one business to another, and negotiating changes to the Australia-US tax treaty in late 2001.The consultation paper looks particularly at whether the tax on overseas earnings of Australian companies could be alleviated by giving credit for dividend withholding taxes. It looks at improving Australia's attractiveness as a location for internationally focused companies by examining the question of conduit income. It proposes modernising our tax treaties with other countries overseas, and it looks also at controlled foreign companies and foreign investment fund rules.Many Australian companies are now going out into the world and seeking to do business on behalf of their employees and their shareholders and bringing income back through the Australian taxation system. We want our tax system to have integrity, but we want it to be internationally competitive. Reforming our Australian taxation system will make for a stronger economy. A stronger economy means more jobs for Australians and more job opportunities for younger Australians in an economy which is internationally attractive. We do not want a situation where Australian companies feel that, for tax reasons, they must move overseas.The government's Board of Taxation will be looking at the consultation process, and it will be making recommendations back to the government. We hope to be in a position to produce legislation next year. The important work of government in improving Australia's taxation system will continue under the leadership of this government, which has brought Australia forward but wants to make Australia even more internationally competitive.548714:19:005487Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the foreign minister recall his statement on 24 July when he said:International security can't be held hostage to trade threats.The Treasurer, on 11 August, said:You can't say if other countries threaten you with trade sanctions you will change the foreign policy.Is the foreign minister further aware of a statement by the Australian Wheat Board of 20 August this year, which said:Iraq will resume all its Australian wheat imports for 2003 and beyond to normal levels as long as the Australian government promotes diplomatic solutions to the current situation in Iraq.Minister, what undertakings has your government provided to either the Australian Wheat Board or to the Iraqi authorities on future Australian policy on Iraq?5487Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The government is not changing its position, and it has made it perfectly clear on many occasions that it will stand by its position. I can speak for myself: I have made no undertakings to the Australian Wheat Board or to the Iraqi government that Australia will modify its position. Since you ask the question, I will be meeting with the Australian Wheat Board this afternoon—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—So will I.4G4Mr DOWNER—The Prime Minister is meeting with them as well. We will be making it clear to the Australian Wheat Board that the government have a clear position on the issue of Iraq and that we are standing by our position.548814:21:005488Farmer, Patrick, MPMr FARMER00AMOMacarthurLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister advise the House of the progress of the government's outer metropolitan doctors scheme and how this scheme will benefit areas like my electorate of Macarthur?5488Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I thank the member for Macarthur for his question. In this year's budget, the government announced the `More doctors for outer metropolitan areas' measure, which is aimed at increasing the number of general practitioners and doctors who practise in the outer metropolitan areas of the six state capital cities. This measure entails a commitment of expenditure of some $80 million over four years, which will bring about an increase of about 150 practising doctors in outer metropolitan areas.The scheme, which is scheduled to start on 1 January next year, involves three specific parts. First, it allows specialist trainees and researchers to work in supervised general practice programs and trainees to work after hours. Second, it requires doctors undertaking the general stream of general practice training to train in designated outer metropolitan areas. Third, it allows selected other medical practitioners who undertake vocational registration programs and agree to work in designated outer metropolitan areas to become eligible for higher Medicare rebates.The honourable member for Macarthur asked how this scheme would be of advantage to his electorate. Indeed, the announcement of this scheme and the implementation of it in the coming months are extremely timely for the honourable member's electorate. Earlier this year, at very short notice, the local doctor in the township of Bringelly—which has a population of about 2,000 people and a surrounding population of some 4,500 people—left the township. The member for Macarthur, in association with other residents of that township and the area,has been working to ensure that general practice is provided to the residents of Bringelly. So I am happy to be able to indicate to the honourable member today that the Minister for Health and Ageing has asked the department to fast-track this scheme, particularly in relation to doctors who undertake work in outer metropolitan areas, and to bring it online, if at all possible, sooner than 1 January next year.I notice that the shadow minister for health acknowledged recently that it is only targeted measures like this—targeted measures towards regional and rural areas of Australia—that bring about an improvement as far as health is concerned. The targeted measures that this government has implemented have been successful. For example, if one looks at the number of general practitioners in rural and regional Australia, in the three years from 1997 to 2000 there was an increase in the numbers from 5,700 to 6,363. That sort of substantial increase is because of the measures undertaken by this government to ensure that health services flow to all Australians, and we are confident that this measure for outer metropolitan regions of our capital cities will also bring about an improvement in doctor services for people in those areas.548814:25:005488Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, can you confirm that companies are leaving the Australian Register of Ships to bypass Australian wages, taxes and immigration requirements? Can you confirm that this is in response to your shipping policy, which actively favours foreign flagged ships and guest labour in the domestic transport market? Could an Australian farm business compete with a neighbouring farm that your government encouraged into the domestic market to cut food costs by exempting them from Australian wages, taxes and immigration requirements for its workers? Minister, will you explain to the Australian shipping companies, workers, their families and the community why you are intent on shafting them, their jobs, their communities and their industry?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I remind the member for Batman that the last part of his question was, in fact, entirely advancing an argument. I will allow the question to stand, but his last part entirely advanced an argument and was outside the standing orders.5489Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank the member for his question because it gives me the opportunity to remind him of the legislation passed 25 years ago—as I recollect, by a Labor government—that is, of course, very seminal to the particular circumstance he raises. The coastal licence provisions, contained in part VI of the Navigation Act 1912, provide an appropriate balance between the interests of ship operators and shippers. They have remained unchanged for at least the past 25 years and were in place during Labor's term of government.The circumstances are grossly exaggerated and silly. The fundamentals are that the arrangements continue for people to obtain work for Australian based shipping. But the continued availability of safe and internationally competitive shipping—which is crucial to retaining export markets—assists local producers to be competitive against imports and removes an obstacle to increasing value-adding commodity processing. This is the point where I say the final words of the shadow minister were silly: foreign ships are only permitted to carry coastal cargoes in circumstances where Australian licensed vessels are not available. That in itself is the fundamental point. If the vessels are available, the licences will not be issued; if they are not available, they will be issued. So people working on the land—for instance, construction workers needing cement—and others of that nature can gain necessary employment by provision of the products they need to engage in employment.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—I ask that the document that the minister read from extensively be tabled.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Was the minister quoting from a confidential document?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—I was, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister has indicated that the document was confidential.548914:28:005489Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Is the minister aware of any reaction to the defeat in the Senate of protection for small business from secondary boycotts? What is the government's response to alternative views that exist on this issue?5489Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—I thank the member for Cook for his support for small business and for his question. This week the Labor Party stopped the government's attempt to protect small business from union thuggery by opposing our changes to the Trade Practices Act. We wanted to give the ACCC the power to protect small businesses who were the innocent victims of secondary boycotts, and the Labor Party wants to give more power to the unions at a cost to small business. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has publicly declared that this decision by the Labor Party in the Senate is `a blow to the job creating small business sector'. That is because 1.2 million Australian small businesses now employ around half of the Australian private sector work force. It also represents about one-third of the entire Australian economy.I suppose it should not come as a surprise that Labor senators have chosen to put the unions ahead of Australia's small businesses. Of the 28 Labor senators, 90 per cent are former trade union officials or Labor staffers and not one has ever owned a small business. In fact, we cannot find any Labor senator who has ever worked in a small business. As members of the House will recall, before 1 July there was one—Senator Barney Cooney. We on this side of the House miss Barney—good old Barney. On 1 July, as Senator Barney Cooney was jumping onto his horse and riding off into the sunset like Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti western, in comes Senator Gavin Marshall. From the other end of town, in comes Senator Gavin Marshall. In fact, Senator Gavin Marshall voted down our small business protection bill.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—What's his background?DK6Mr HOCKEY—Very interesting. We did not know why Senator Marshall put this forward, but we found out in a speech yesterday when he said:Australian unions and unionists are part of the moral bedrock of this country ...Are they the morals of Craig Johnston, the AMWU boss who was charged last year with riot, affray, criminal damage and aggravated burglary and now faces sexual charges?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will come back to the question.DK6Mr HOCKEY—Senator Marshall also claimed that the moral bedrock of the Labor Party and the moral bedrock of Australia is the association with the Labor Party and the union movement. This is the same Senator Marshall who in the 1990s was involved with the Electrical Trades Union, was responsible for wildcat strikes to Victoria's transport system and switched off the power to support his comrades in the transport unions. So the same guy who was turning off the electricity to support the transport workers now comes into the Senate and votes down protection for small business in favour of his union mates. Perhaps the most revealing comment about this came yesterday from the new State Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, Dean Mighell—who might be called a high priest or moral bedrock.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—He has been state secretary for a while now, Joe.DK6Mr HOCKEY—He said:I think it is offensive and arrogant the way that federal politicians—read this, Simon—in particular those who have climbed the stairway of trade unions and leapt into federal parliament sit on high and say, `How relevant are the unions?' I am not going to sit back as if we are some failed outfit that is irrelevant. I think we are relevant. They—that is you, Simon—need to understand—R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. You have already drawn the minister's attention to the need to stick to the question that he was asked. This is totally irrelevant to the question and he should come back to it.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I was listening closely to the minister's answer. The minister was asked a question about secondary boycotts and the impact of their defeat in the Senate and the government response. I presumed that his remarks were related to the secondary boycott provisions, and it was for that reason that I heard him out. I have already, as he is aware, drawn him back to the matter on a previous occasion. I will do so again if he strays.DK6Mr HOCKEY—Mr Speaker, perhaps the most telling line from the State Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union—Opposition members interjecting—DK6Mr HOCKEY—in relation to the comments of Senator Marshall is:They—meaning the Labor Party—need to understand if you are looking at us, well, we are looking at you too.No wonder Labor senators put the unions ahead of small business in relation to this. With a pioneer Lucifer as their moral bedrock—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.549014:35:005490Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I ask the minister whether he recalls saying on 29 July, in relation to the sacking of Australian seafarers and their replacement with cheap foreign crews on ships operating in the Australian coastal trade:I certainly would prefer to see Australian crews on Australian ships. But if Australian crews aren't competitive with, say, German crews, you can hardly expect people not to go and seek different arrangements.Minister, isn't it true that these Australian crews are in fact being replaced with crews from the Ukraine and the Philippines who are paid inferior wages? If so, why does the government support a policy of sacking Australian workers working in Australia and replacing them with cheap overseas labour?5490Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The arrangements under which voyages are made and ships are crewed are exactly the same now as they were under the previous government.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPEZ5Mr ABBOTT—The cabotage arrangements have not changed since this government came into power.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—That is simply not true.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Let me confirm to the House that I would like to see more Australian crews on more Australian ships.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Then stop issuing so many single voyage permits.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am all in favour of more Australian sailors and I am all in favour of more Australian ships. But, if this is going to happen, it is very important that our crews and our ships are competitive—very important. The problem is that, at the moment, because of restrictive work practices—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—such as the notorious six weeks on, six weeks off rule and the unwillingness of Australian crews to perform any maintenance whatsoever—they will not even perform routine maintenance—Australian crews are close to double the cost of comparable OECD crews. I am all in favour of greater Australian employment in the maritime industry.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Denison has asked his question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I would like to see greater Australian employment in the maritime industry, but that means an end to these—An opposition member—That was an unimpressive answer!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Almost as unimpressive as the interjections! The House will come to order. Has the minister concluded his answer?EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I have, Mr Speaker.549114:38:005491Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What is the government's record in reducing the incidence of strikes? Are some sections of the Australian industry still ravaged by strikes called by ultramilitant trade unions? Minister, what is the effect of strikes on jobs, and are you aware of any comments supporting these strikes?5491Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for La Trobe for his ultra-excellent question. I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that the strike rate in Australia has halved since 1996 when this government came to power. Strikes are still at the lowest levels since records were first kept in 1913, thanks mostly to this government's constant encouragement of workplace level bargaining. This is very good news for our economy, but it is particularly good news for workers because strikes cost jobs, strikes send businesses bankrupt and strikes stop investment in new industries. The real victims of strikes are shop floor workers who are often hundreds of dollars out of pocket to support the political agendas of union officials whose pay packets are not at risk.These days it seems that most strikes are about politics not pay. For instance, back in May a strike over the protection of long service leave all but paralysed the motor industry even though long service leave is protected under the government's entitlements scheme. Earlier this month 1,000 building workers went on strike because they did not agree with their employer's submission to the royal commission. Right now, I understand that there is an enterprise in Melbourne which is being picketed by some 500 metal workers in support of a sacked worker. I understand that at this enterprise 20 workers have been stood down because they are supporting the picket line. You might ask, Mr Speaker, who is this evil boss; who is this bad boss who has done this terrible thing? It is none other than Dougie Cameron, who is sacking people because they are on the wrong side of a faction fight! This is the moral bedrock of Australia, sacking people because they are on the wrong side of a faction fight. The government's genuine bargaining bill is designed to tackle some of the job-destroying consequences of industrial action. The genuine bargaining bill is likely to be blocked in the Senate. I fear that the opposition's intransigence is only going to get worse as union influence increases. Unfortunately, under the Hawke-Wran proposals, the union block vote at national conferences will increase from zero per cent to 50 per cent. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to demonstrate that he is a real leader, that he can transcend his past and that he is bigger than his background, he would instruct his union mates in the Senate to pass the genuine bargaining bill.Distinguished Visitors549214:42:005492SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Korea led by the Hon. Kim Tai-shik, Vice-Speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice5492549214:42:005492O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr GAVAN O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Minister, will you confirm for the House that, over the last two months, you have told Queensland councils that you are prepared to use an iron bar on them, branded environmentalists on Norfolk Island as Communists, attacked police for setting up a breathalyser on a major highway, advised Western Australian councils to close local roads and beaches, and threatened to withhold funding for Queensland councils? Minister, what have you got against councillors, police and environmentalists? Isn't it time you stopped resorting to threats and coercion whenever you are confronted with views that are different from your own?5492Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I am very grateful that the member for Corio has been reading my speeches because it shows he has some interest. If he reads them for long enough, he might even get some ideas.R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Further, it is quite obvious why the previous minister for education in our government thought it was time to have some literacy testing, because in his attempt to read those speeches, the member for Corio starts to put his own words into the actual subject.84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for McMillan!SJ4Mr TUCKEY—In referring to the most vigorous practices of my activities, the fact of life is that the words I used were that in getting a better deal for local government I would be prepared to use iron bar principles. I stand by that with great pride, because this side of government believes in local government and is very conscious of the huge workload it takes on today on behalf of its ratepayers. Mr Speaker, one of the other issues on which the member for Corio might have extended his reading was to read the weekend Advertiser in your great state, I think on the fourth of this month, where there was a report of the submission to the inquiry into cost-shifting being conducted by a standing committee of this parliament in which the Police Association of South Australia, consistent, I believe—R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Grayndler!SJ4Mr TUCKEY—with the view of their national body, have said that they would greatly support and promote a local government police force, which, of course, the member for Corio referred to as some sort of stupid idea. When you have no ideas, everybody's ideas do not look very good. The realities then go to a very serious issue on which I wish to conclude—that is, what has been going on for about eight years in Queensland. Year after year, the Queensland government and its Commonwealth grants distribution body have been requesting a series of ministers from both sides of the parliament to give them a section 26 dispensation because their distributions are not consistent with the Keating government's national principles on the distribution of funding. That is not going to continue. But to meet a circumstance that has arisen—because I got the same letter again this year: `We'll fix it in the next 12 months'—I have issued a section 26 order for two of the four quotas of moneys which, by the way, are dramatically increased this year. In doing that, I have said that the grants commission newly appointed in Queensland has got to do the right thing. By doing that, some very large councils will get some lesser grants and some very small ones will get some greater grants, but the Commonwealth's contribution will be 100 cents in the dollar and the people—Opposition members interjecting—SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Somebody thinks it is funny that we should ensure that all the money goes and that some little councils are going to get more. Finally, I was interjected upon in relation to land grants in—83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—The Communist Party on Norfolk Island.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—You have done no reading: that is your problem. The government, consistent with its policies on land ownership, is currently finalising negotiations on Norfolk Island to give current day leaseholders, the principal number of whom are of Pitcairn Island descent, private ownership, freehold ownership of their land. I said of those who criticise that practice that they would propose government ownership of land—clearly the view of our opponents here today—and that is a communist principle. I stand by what I said.549314:50:005493Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister advise the House how Australian businesses are benefiting from the current economic and trading environment that has been created by this federal government?5493Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the member for Maranoa for his question and acknowledge his keen interest and that of his electorate in the international business that is being undertaken by Australia's exporters, particularly from the rural sector. Over the duration that our government has been in office, we have seen a significant improvement in the economic circumstances in Australia that have been fundamentally brought about by the reform processes that we have introduced as a government, and business recognises that. Exports have delivered Australia export income of about $154 billion dollars in the last year, up from $99 billion when we came into office. This government's reforms have seen interest rates come down to around 6.5 per cent—reforms that have seen much lower inflation compared to under Labor, reforms that have seen us pay off $60 billion worth of Labor's public sector debt and, most importantly, reforms that have seen unemployment drop to the low rate of 6.2 per cent and have seen 970,000-plus jobs created across Australia in the Australian economy, real jobs created by the private sector.This government has created an economic and trading environment that is great for business. We have seen over 400 international companies set up their headquarters in Australia, doing business from here into the Asia-Pacific region. This is a direct result of having one of the best run and fastest growing economies in the developed world. It has enabled Australian businesses to launch themselves into the international marketplace and for Australian businesses to start buying back icon products. We have seen many Australians complain about the loss of icon products out of Australia over the years. Last week I had the honour of participating in the announcement by an Australian company that they had purchased back from offshore, foreign ownership, a great Australian food brand icon—that is, Rosella. Rosella has been owned by foreigners for the last 40 years and it has been bought back by a company called Stuart Alexander and now has Australian ownership.It is also enabling Australian companies to purchase companies offshore, buy icon products offshore, bring the intellectual property back into Australia and generate jobs in Australia. I will give you a classic example. The company Compumedics—who were in fact a 2001 Australian export award winner—are a small to medium enterprise manufacturing specialist products to combat sleep disorder. They export their products into Malaysia, Japan, Indonesia, Europe and the USA. They have recently bought a US medical technology company who also manufacture similar equipment. They are going to bring all the intellectual property from that company back into Australia and generate jobs in Australia.We have often complained in Australia about the brain drain out of this country. Here there is a brain gain that is coming back into Australia, and it is all because these Australian businesses are operating in a very competitive and efficient economic environment because of the reforms that our government has been prepared to undertake. I might add that they are reforms that have been opposed every inch of the way by the Australian Labor Party. They cannot point to one reform that has delivered benefit to our economy that they have supported. They are still opposing reforms in the Senate as we speak. That is to their detriment and it is to the detriment of the Australian Labor Party in the eyes of the public. There is a challenge to the Leader of the Opposition to prove Laurie Oakes wrong in his article this week.549414:54:005494Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Can you confirm, Minister, that three out of every five asylum seekers who arrive lawfully but have their claims refused then live illegally in the community while your government turns a blind eye? On current numbers, doesn't this mean that more than 5,000 people who have been refused asylum each year are being allowed to remain illegally in Australia because your government will not act to remove them? Minister, why has your government played politics with boat people, including claiming that they have terrorist links, a claim exposed today as untrue, while doing nothing to address this immigration challenge?5494Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for her question, because it is a very useful question. The information that I provided to the parliament the other day—which the honourable member had noted—was that 60 per cent of people who had been refused protection in Australia and are in the community had not left. I made the observation that that was a considerably better outcome than was being achieved in most other countries in the world.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—It's not a very good figure.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—No, and the reasons are very clear. A substantial proportion of those people are on visas. The larger proportion of those visas that they have—I think about 17 per cent of the total number—are bridging visas. Why are they on bridging visas? Because we had the manipulation of the legal system over a period of time by people who were able to join class actions, which we were only able to have discontinued, with your reluctant support, at the end of the last parliament.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—What about the ones who stay against the law?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Let me just make the point. There are reasons why a proportion of them remain lawfully in Australia on bridging visas because of the extent to which they are able to manipulate the legal system. There are some others—and let me make this very clear—where, in response to requests that I even have from members of parliament on your side of the House, I intervene to enable them to remain in Australia. They may have married an Australian or they may be in a relationship with an Australian, and there may be other reasons of hardship which suggest that it would be inappropriate to ask them to go abroad and apply to come back. We have done considerably better than most other countries in dealing with these issues, but the fact is that if people are at large then it is much more difficult in a significant proportion of cases to be able to identify, locate and remove them. It is one of the reasons that we seek to ensure that those people who turn up without lawful authority are detained and are available for processing and removal.The honourable member asked a question about some information that was given in relation to protection visas. It is very important to understand that in section 501 of the Migration Act, which deals with character issues, security is one of those issues which we seek to examine, but there are other issues which we seek to take into account. Those issues can go to such matters as serious crimes such as hijacking or taking hostages, matters of crimes against humanity—83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—They might get an ASIO file on them.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lalor has asked her question. The standing orders make it perfectly clear that any interjections are out of order.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I am simply making the point that the ASIO function deals specifically with security related issues in the broader provisions of section 501.DT4Crean, Simon, MP0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The number is 10. Under the section of the Migration Act which applies the provisions of the refugee convention article 1F, people are able to be excluded if they are broadly of character concern. A number of people have been subject to character exclusion. I identified the number as 10. I do not intend to go further.DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has no licence to interject. The minister has the call.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I will just say this to the Leader of the Opposition: I would not care of it were one, quite frankly. If you have people of substantial character concern that are likely to pose a risk to the Australian community, they should be excluded. The point is that the provisions of the Migration Act and the scrutiny to which people are subjected need to be thorough and efficacious, and that is what this government has been ensuring.549514:59:005495Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister advise the House of the Howard government's initiative to reinforce values such as tolerance, respect and courage in Australian schools?5495Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—I thank the member for Forde for her question and her commitment to building character in young people. We recently visited Emmaus Primary School and the Flagstone State School where $700,000 of Commonwealth money went into some very important capital works projects. The parents of the 3.27 million children who attend Australian schools are increasingly looking for a number of things for the education of their children which relate to the aspirations that they have for them. They are concerned about who is teaching their children, what they are being taught and whether they can read, write, count and communicate when they leave the school. Whilst parents do not always express it in these terms, they are talking about standards; they are interested not only in uniforms and in discipline in schools but also in the kinds of values that underwrite the framework in which the education is being delivered. This government in particular believes that parents should be able to make choices in terms of the schools to which they will send their children, and in making those choices we are equally determined that schools be encouraged to provide a values based education to Australian children. There are many changes in our society today that we do not always understand nor want. It is important that we recognise that the guiding story for education is about building character in young adults as much as it is about transferring skills, knowledge and information. In fact, Benjamin Franklin said, `Freedom and a free society depend very much on character.'It does not matter how many laws we pass in this parliament. Unless we have individuals who are prepared to abide by those laws, we will not be a civil society. The member for Werriwa recently, in expounding on a political doctrine based on hatred, justified that doctrine in part by the observation that the Australian way apparently is for parents to criticise and get into referees at football games, for example—games in which children are participating. That has never been the Australian way, nor indeed should it be.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Why wouldn't you, if you care about your kids?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—What about that South African thug?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa! The Minister for Small Business and Tourism!K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—At least he sees his kids!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa! The minister has the call.K26Latham, Mark, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Werriwa!RW5Dr NELSON—This government is making a first instalment. I have put aside $580,000 from my portfolio to specifically conduct some pilot work. The Australian Curriculum Corporation is to do some detailed work about what values are currently taught in both government and non-government Australian schools, how those values were developed and how that compares with the way values are inculcated in education in other countries. In addition I will be inviting, in the first instance, 60 schools to demonstrate to us the kind of values that they teach in their schools, how they developed them, the kinds of relationships that exist between teachers, parents, local communities and indeed the governments that support those schools. We want to see that schools are, for example, teaching children to be trustworthy, to treat people with respect, to be courteous, to be responsible, to be accountable and to do their best. Surely we want children to leave school being fair and reasonable. We want them to be caring, to be good citizens and volunteers and to protect our environment, amongst many other things.As far as this government is concerned, the principal of the Salisbury High School put it very well. In the Adelaide Advertiser recently she said that students at her school are `groomed to become well-adjusted adults, whether or not they are academic achievers' and that the school `surveyed students and parents to establish which values should be upheld by the school's structuring and teaching'. She said:Our aim is to see every student gain employment or higher education but we also want to see students leave with integrity, to be able to hold down a job, to be organised and to have self-esteem.Our ambition for education as a nation should be not only to prepare young people for the future but also, importantly, to give them the skills, the confidence and the character to create the kind of future that they want.549615:05:005496Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and refers to his earlier answer. Minister, can you confirm that Dennis Richardson, Director-General of ASIO, gave evidence today to the human rights subcommittee of parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. In that evidence he verified that, over the last three years, ASIO had checked 5,986 unauthorised arrivals to assess whether or not they constituted a direct or indirect threat to Australia and found that not one of those persons constituted such a threat. Minister, will you confirm that that is correct?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Not one!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Unless my hearing is failing, the question was addressed to the minister, not to any of the people sitting in front of me.5496Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I will not attempt to try and verify the accuracy of all of the statements that have been recounted by the honourable member for Lalor. I was not at the hearing. I have not seen the evidence. I have had an oral report that the director-general of security advised that there had been no adverse assessments over a specific period of time. I am aware of that. The point I was making was that ASIO has a very specific remit, and that the provisions in relation to 1F of the refugee convention are much wider and the issues in relation to character go to a range of questions that might be beyond the direct issues relating to security that ASIO looks at. That is the only point I was making.I reiterate what I have said: there have been, amongst protection visa applicants, 10 refusals under section 501, under which the provisions of 1F of the refugee convention are applied, and those issues go to a range of matters upon which people are entitled to be excluded under the refugee convention. There are 10 such matters. Some of them are the subject of appeal. They go to very serious issues relating to both the safety and the general security of the Australian community. We have properly and vigorously sought to ensure that people who are likely to receive a positive outcome in relation to a protection visa application are subjected to that scrutiny.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—Mr Speaker, given the minister's inability to answer the question, can I ask that he comes back and reports on the matter later today?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—There is no provision under the standing orders to oblige the minister to report to the parliament at any time.549715:09:005497Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, I refer to the Howard government's mutual obligation policy. Has the government made any changes to its mutual obligation provisions for job seekers? Are you aware of any comments supporting the concept of mutual obligation? What alternative positions exist on mutual obligation and what is the government's response to them?5497Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Eden-Monaro. I certainly enjoyed a recent visit with him down to Captains Flat, about an hour from here, and I congratulate the Work for the Dole participants who have been doing a great job down there. Since this parliament last met, on 1 July, the mutual obligation that this government has had as a keynote to its policy has been extended. In fact, through 2002-03 there will be an additional 5,500 Work for the Dole places throughout Australia providing opportunities for Australia's unemployed, and growing by an additional 8,500 in the following year. We are also promoting the success of this program by building on the great work opportunities that are provided by not only building better communities but also assisting these people by providing them with up to $800 via a training credit. This is money that they can use to assist in buying accredited training to assist them to get into work.As this House would be aware, I often have come here after trawling through web sites, particularly the Labor Party web site, looking for anything at all that the Labor Party might want to say of a positive nature to do with Work for the Dole or mutual obligation. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that I have finally found some comments on mutual obligation on a labour party web site, so I thought they were worth bringing to the House's attention. This web site says:In welfare, for too long the Left have argued for rights but were rather weak on responsibilities. It is right for them, the unemployed, for the country, for the society, that they should get that chance. But with that comes a responsibility on the individual to take the chance, to make something of their lives and to use their ability and their potential to its full.The same web site goes on to say:Ours has to be an enabling welfare state, one which helps people to help themselves ...This is a Labor Party web site, and I can see surprise in some of those opposite. It continues:The concept of mutual obligation has to go all the way through the system. Government has a responsibility to provide real opportunities for individuals. There is growing public support for a welfare state that gets people into work and that offers people hope in exchange for a commitment to help themselves.I can see a few people opposite with some quizzical looks on their faces, because, unfortunately, it is not the Australian Labor Party's web site—it has nothing. It is, in fact, New Labour's—it is New Labour under a real leader, something that is lacking here. Can I suggest to old Labor, decrepit Labor, failed Labor, that it is time you took up that call from New Labour and Prime Minister Blair and supported what this government and every member on this side of the House acknowledge as being a wonderful program for individuals, the community and the nation—and that, of course, is Work for the Dole and mutual obligation.549815:13:005498McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, isn't it the case that the provision in the Corporations Act requiring the disclosure of executive remuneration was reviewed by the joint parliamentary committee in 1999? Isn't it also true that that committee, with a majority of government members, recommended in October 1999 that those provisions be clarified to enhance disclosure of executive remuneration? Isn't it also true that in response to the committee's report—that response tabled on 6 February 2001—your government accepted the committee's recommendation? Why, Treasurer, more than 18 months later, have you still failed to act?5498Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Can I say that section 300A of the Corporations Act requires details of the nature and amount of each element of the emolument of each director and each of the five named officers of the company receiving the highest emolument. Yesterday, the member for Fraser alleged that this was not being observed and he relied upon a report from the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors Inc. Contrary to his assertions in the House yesterday, the finding was that disclosure here was generally quite good. In fact, in relation to the details of the amount, according to this report there was a 91 per cent disclosure. It is certainly a material fact he seemed to leave out.As I said to the House yesterday, the argument is about how one values options. That is what the argument is. You can look around the world and you will not find a standard in relation to valuation. Companies rightly say they have no accounting standard in which to lay down the valuation. This is being coped with in Australia in two ways.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question went directly to a committee report which recommended to this minister that he should amend the law and I asked why he had failed to act to do so. He has not referred to that.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. The Treasurer is responding to the question in my view. In fact, he was asked about a delay of 18 months and I thought he may well have been indicating why the delay had occurred or why he had not acted at all, so I deem it entirely relevant.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—We want to know why he has not acted.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It is entirely relevant and if the Leader of the Opposition would just refrain from his interjections long enough to hear it, he would hear me say that Australian accounting standards have the force of law unless their standard is disallowed by either house of the parliament.In relation to the valuation point which will lay down the disclosure standard on valuation, the AASB released on 31 May 2002 its director, executive and related party disclosures. Once that is made final, unless disallowed by either house of the parliament, that will be the valuation standard which applies in relation to section 300A. In addition to that, because there is no standard in the United States or anywhere else, the International Accounting Standards Board is currently working on its own valuation. The AASB has indicated it will be adopting that as soon as it is made and it is expected to be made in October 2002.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This matter cannot be relevant to this committee report and to this response from the Treasurer to which I referred because in this matter the government said it would be inappropriate to use accounting standards as the vehicle. He is now talking about when accounting standards are going to be introduced. It cannot relate to the question because he has said that accounting standards were inappropriate.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Fraser will resume his seat. I do not understand the details of the Corporations Act, but I do know that the Treasurer was asked to indicate about a delay and I presumed there may have been a reason why he was not prepared to act at all. That is his prerogative, not mine.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I meant within a particular time frame—that is what I was illustrating. For that reason, I had allowed the Treasurer to continue.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Let me take you through it again. Australian accounting standards have the force of law unless disallowed by either house of parliament. There is no accounting standard for the purposes of section 300A in relation to valuation until such time as the Australian Accounting Standards Board issues the final standard. It released a draft standard on 31 May 2002. When that becomes final, it has the force of law for the purposes of section 300A.In addition, the International Accounting Standards Board, which is making a valuation disclosure standard for all of the countries around the world, will issue its own draft in October 2002. Once that is made final, it will be adopted by the AASB and, unless disallowed by either house of the parliament, will apply for the purposes of section 300A, therefore giving the valuation point.We welcome the interest of the Labor Party in this issue, which sort of popped up last week. The member for Fraser took it very hard last week that we were going out to western Queensland. Consequently, he crept up to Laurie Oakes to give Laurie Oakes his big secret research so that Laurie could publish it on the Wednesday and try and derail the trip. Laurie duly had his secret research, but it failed to derail the trip.Then I was driving down the road from Longreach to Roma and I heard the member for Fraser, who had crept up to the Press Gallery, say that we were out of touch out there in Longreach. We were out of touch. We were not in touch with the people of Australia. He broadcast from the Parliament House Canberra studio! He creeps up to that gallery, he creeps here, he creeps there, he creeps everywhere. If you see a dark shadow in Parliament House he may be just creeping out of it.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It is rather spooky. He is creeping everywhere. He may creep through the gallery, but he cannot creep his way through the Corporations Law. He had a bad week and he is wrong.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Even the Chair was having difficulty with the relevance of the latter part of the statement.549915:21:005499Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware of any support that has been offered by the Queensland government to help the important Queensland sugar industry? Has the Queensland government helped during past crises? Could the minister inform the House of any statements he has heard that have been made by the Queensland government?5499Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am certainly aware of the concerns the Queensland sugar industry, and the sugar industry in the honourable member's own electorate, is facing with the economic difficulties at present. The low world price is certainly having a major impact on the viability of the industry and farmers are concerned about their potential to have a viable industry in the future. The federal government is currently considering arrangements to respond to the concerns of the sugar industry. We are also in discussions with the Queensland government on those issues.It is true that the Queensland government has provided very little support for the sugar industry over recent years. Two years ago, when the industry was in trouble, the Queensland government provided a total $60,000 in loans to the industry, whereas this government provided support which in the end was valued at over $60 million in real assistance. That financial support helped farmers to get through a particularly difficult time. We were disappointed that the Queensland government did little at that stage to provide any kind of support to help the industry.However, on this occasion the Queensland government are being a little more constructive. Our discussions with them to date have demonstrated that they have a willingness to participate in reform in the industry and to achieve an outcome that will assure the prosperity of the industry. Those negotiations are continuing. They will undoubtedly, as the Prime Minister suggested yesterday, involve significant reform of the industry, and that is the responsibility of the Queensland government. We indicated when commissioning the Hildebrand report that the single desk for export sales was not on the table. In our negotiations we are dealing with a range of other regulatory issues that are of importance in order to ensure that the industry is able to achieve its potential and that there is a capacity for the flexibility and the versatility that will be necessary to build a new industry.At this stage we are in the processes of developing a response. I hope that very soon there can be an agreement between the governments which will provide meaningful support to growers in Queensland. We will need assistance from the New South Wales and Western Australian governments to ensure that the New South Wales and Western Australian industries are able to participate in a revitalised Australian sugar industry in the years ahead.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice5500550015:24:005500Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—Mr Speaker, during question time the member for Griffith asked if I would table a transcript of an interview he gave on Iraq. I table the transcript of an interview with the member for Griffith of 24 July this year in which he said:Well, together with the government we the opposition think we cannot afford to appease Iraq.I also take the opportunity of tabling a transcript of the Sunrise program of 28 July in which the member for Griffith said: My point about all this is no-one is in the business of appeasing Iraq.And I table a press release from the member for Griffith issued on 23 July in which he said:Downer's language on appeasement is unnecessary in this country, because no-one believes in appeasing Iraq.Personal Explanations550015:25:005500Mr RUDD,MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?83TMr RUDD,MPMr RUDD—Yes.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD—During question time, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said that in a 3AW interview I had made certain remarks on appeasement in relation to Iraq. In the context of those remarks, what I said was:We believe that we need to take a firm and decisive approach in dealing with what is an appalling regime. The difference is this: right now the international community is focused on UN based diplomacy to try to get to a peaceful outcome with the regime in Baghdad to ensure that the remaining weapons of mass destruction are destroyed. The diplomatic process hasn't been finished yet.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Griffith has presumably indicated where he was misrepresented and will resume his seat.Miscellaneous550015:26:005500Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek indulgence from you.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Franklin is seeking indulgence. I allow him to proceed.AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICK—On behalf of the member for Riverina and me, co-conveners of the parliamentary cancer network, I thank all honourable members for wearing their daffodils here today to support the Cancer Network of Australia.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I thank the member for Franklin.Personal Explanations550015:26:005500Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the member for Perth claim to have been misrepresented?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I do, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Perth may proceed.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—During question time, the Minister for Ageing suggested that recent comments I had made about targeted measures to reverse the dramatic decline of bulk-billing in outer metropolitan and rural and regional Australia somehow endorsed or supported the government's election commitment said to improve access to GP services in outer metropolitan areas. I share the scepticism of the AMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners about the practical effect and outcome of that government program.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—For the information of members, I will allow the member for Perth's misrepresentation to stand, but I will look more closely at it. I am not sure if he has indicated where he was misrepresented. I am not accusing him of not doing so; I am saying that I wonder whether I ought to have intervened. I have allowed it to stand.Documents5501Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the House) (3.27 p.m.)—I present papers on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House. Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:That the House take note of the following papers:Treasury—Australia and the Asian Development Bank—Annual Report 2000-01 (25 June 2002/25 June 2002)Treasury—Australia and the IMF—Annual Report 2000-01—section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947. (28 June 2002 / 28 June 2002)Treasury—Australia and the World Bank—Annual Report 2000-01—section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 and section 7 of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (General Capital Increase) Act 1989. (25 June 2002 / 25 June 2002)Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance5501550110000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fraser proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The Government's failure to adequately protect the investments and retirement savings of Australians.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—15:28:005501McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—This week in parliament during question time we have seen a pattern of behaviour by the Treasurer revealed: the Treasurer has been warned time and again about problems emerging across a range of issues within his portfolio and on every occasion he has failed to act. He will talk, he will perform, if pressed he will call another inquiry, but he will not act. The government like to talk big about their desire to make sure big business behaves properly when it comes to reporting properly and fairly their financial affairs. But the performance in question time this week by the Treasurer makes it clear that he is all talk and no action. He is a flashy actor, but his performances are hollow. He has not done the work to back up the rhetoric. In fact, as he has done in so many other areas, he has demonstrably failed to act on repeated warnings that the current regulatory regime is not up to scratch.We have asked the Treasurer a number of questions this week, all aimed at seeking his response to repeated warnings that the system to prevent corporate cover-ups is not working properly. Time and again we find evidence that he does not have the faintest idea of what is going on in his portfolio. In question time today, when he got up to answer a question about his failure to respond to the committee's report—which 18 months ago he said was right and that he would adopt it—we heard him trying to explain that it was going to be resolved by the final implementation of the new accounting standards, failing to recall that 18 months ago he told the parliament, `The government considers it would be inappropriate to use accounting standards.' He has no idea. He is such an actor. He thinks he can get up and put on a theatrical performance and that nobody will analyse what he says. I am sorry, but now he is campaigning for Prime Minister people will put what he has to say under closer scrutiny. It is no good just being the flashy actor. It is no good just resorting to the Shakespearean bluster and bombast. The fact is that he has not answered a single one of the questions.It is clear that the Treasurer will not do anything—at least not until he receives findings from the HIH Royal Commission. But the royal commission is not due to report until the end of February next year. That means there will be no legislation before 2004. So what we know is this: the Treasurer is counting on not being the Treasurer anymore by the time action needs to be taken. He has hopes of having been Treasurer for eight and a bit years, at the end of which he will have managed never to act on any of these warnings. The government has been warned repeatedly about these and other problems, and the Treasurer has simply sat on his hands. He has been asleep at the wheel. He will not do anything about this issue because he does not think it is important. It is part of a pattern of behaviour that, before a magistrate's court, a police prosecutor would be able to say has become incriminating.We all remember the Treasurer's $5 billion bungle over foreign currency when he was asleep at the wheel. Every Australian is conscious of the emergence of the public liability insurance crisis and other insurance crises, while the Treasurer has been asleep at the wheel, passing the buck to his colleagues, who have failed to act. Also, he has repeatedly failed to heed warnings over serious problems in audit and accounting standards that have allowed some less scrupulous members of the business community to indulge in some outrageous corporate cover-ups. Let us think about some of these examples of warnings.In 1997—five years ago—the Ministerial Council of Corporations produced a working paper recommending a number of changes to improve auditor independence. But since 1997 the Treasurer has done nothing. In 1998 the Labor Party moved an amendment in the Senate to the Corporations Act to require the disclosure of details of executive remuneration in a company's annual report. That is the clause the Treasurer keeps referring to when he says `that's the solution'. Do you know why that clause is there? We amended the government's bill in the Senate to put it in. The government did not want the amendment; government members said that they did not support the amendment. They said, `We want to send it off to a committee for more investigation.' But eventually, when the Senate insisted, the government did not oppose the amendment and it became part of the law. But, since the enactment of that amendment in 1998, the government has ignored the widespread failure to enforce it. So, with the assistance of some government backbenchers, we acted again: in October 1999, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Securities advised on changes that were needed to make the law work, to make it clear. The committee, with a majority of government members, recommended that provisions in the Corporations Act requiring disclosure of executive remuneration be clarified. But since that day the Treasurer has done nothing.On 6 February 2001, the government tabled a response to the report. Eighteen months ago the government did not say that report was wrong; it said it was right—but it has still done nothing. That was the basis of the question today that led to that little disquisition about accounting standards, except that the government's response has been that accounting standards are not the appropriate way to deal with this matter. But the Treasurer does not seem to be aware of that either.In March 2000, the then chairman of ASIC told a parliamentary committee that ASIC could not enforce the law requiring companies to disclose details of executive remuneration, but the Treasurer ignored that warning. You do not think that before he went to the parliamentary committee and said this in public he might have told the Treasurer in private? Everybody who has ever met a senior public servant would know that, before March 2000, the chairman would have been to the Treasurer, warning him that this law could not be enforced. But nothing has happened. In October last year Professor Ian Ramsay handed down his report on auditor independence. He said quite explicitly that some of his proposals were the same as those suggested back in 1997. Clearly he had some frustration that after 4½ years nothing had happened. But he did not need to worry; he was going to be treated just the same. Since October last year the Treasurer has ignored Professor Ramsay's advice as well.You have probably heard the Treasurer blustering about additional money in this year's budget for ASIC. In the last election, Labor promised more money for ASIC but the government promised nothing. In this year's budget, after years of warning, ASIC finally acted. In its annual report in 1998-99, ASIC wrote:We are under strain ... Achieving timely enforcement has put unacceptable pressure on our staff, to which they have responded very well. But we may now have too few staff on the ground to achieve the outcomes we and the government want.That was from the 1998-99 annual report. You would reckon they might have already spoken to the Treasurer about that—and the Treasurer did nothing. We then had Ansett, Harris Scarfe, HIH and One.Tel all compounding the serious questions and concerns about audit practice and about auditor independence and accounting standards. They were summarised by ASIC in a study on auditor independence, released earlier this year, which found:The provision of nonaudit services by audit firms to their Australian clients is widespread, at least in respect of major corporates. Audit firms are earning substantial fees for nonaudit services. Processes for dealing with potential conflicts of interest require attention. Rotation of audit partners remains inconsistent, and rotation of firms is almost nonexistent.So with all that, if it has been reported publicly, we know that it was previously reported to the minister and he has done nothing. This establishes a clear pattern of negligence by the Treasurer—a pattern of continued failure to deal with the growing crisis of corporate cover-ups. On at least five occasions, the Treasurer has been warned publicly by committees, officials and reviews of serious issues that needed to be seriously addressed, and he has ignored every single piece of advice. He should take urgent action to deal with these serious problems, because they might not be important to him, they might not be on his road to the Lodge, but they are very important on the road to retirement for every Australian working family who depends on what happens in the share market for their superannuation, and for that growing number of families who invest directly in shares.He has failed to act. He has shown in parliament this week a blatant lack of concern for the consequences of his failure to act. When you ask him one question he will perform like an actor, but if you ask him two or three questions he starts to sound like a parrot. You heard him today suddenly trying to turn the switch to vaudeville—there was something about creeps. I had this feeling he must have been looking in the mirror, but I was not quite sure! Anyway, he started trying to find an excuse to give us the travelogue he has wanted to do all week about what it was like in Longreach. Unfortunately, we kept asking him about the Treasury portfolio, when all he wanted to talk about was the road to the Lodge. He might get away with all that performing and posturing in question time, but the fact that he is not across the detail, the fact that he is an actor but he won't actually act on the matters before him will not serve as a very good basis for getting into parliament as the prime minister of this country. If he sits in that chair, he will have to be across a bit of detail.He referred to the market research that was leaked to the Bulletin. If time permits, I might give it a mention, but I thought I might tell you about another piece of market research that is public but which the Treasurer has not referred to. News Limited had on its web site this week the question, `Would Peter Costello make a good prime minister?' They did not ask, `Is he your preferred prime minister? Would you rather have him than John Howard—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—I would love to know the answer on Simon Crean.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Wait for it, Joe. The result was that 2,643 people voted and Peter Costello got 38 per cent. Given the government's propensity to get all the staff to vote yes in all these surveys, there could not have been anyone else voting yes—or perhaps some of them voted no. But what I want to tell you from this poll is: that makes the Treasurer just slightly more popular than the invasion of Iraq, which on the same web site got 34½ per cent. No wonder: the Australian people can spot a phoney when they see one.In that research, reported in the Bulletin last week, Australians said they thought he was `shifty', `arrogant', `out of touch with ordinary Australians' and `too close to the wealthy and the rich in our community'. But they also said, `He is just after Howard's job.' That is what the research said, and I think that is the key to his behaviour. He is not interested in the problems of ordinary Australians and he is not actually interested in the job of being Treasurer anymore. That is why he is paying no attention to these critical issues that are affecting the welfare of Australian families; he is only interested in the road to the Lodge.The Treasurer has also been making a number of significant claims. He defends his inaction by talking about the government's record in corporate law reform. He is trying to escape the blame for his own inaction. This is a process that we began—remember how often he has said, `It wouldn't have happened'?—when we started CLRP, the corporate law reform program, in 1996. What they did was change the name. The Corporations Law Simplification Task Force was set up by Labor in October 1993 and the First Corporate Law Simplification Bill was produced in July 1994.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr Hockey—Who wrote this for you? He should be sacked.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Minister, you will have your opportunity.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—The progress was simply adopted by the incoming coalition government and they changed the name. This is the great initiative they have taken.XS4Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr Lawrence—They did that in a lot of areas.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Exactly right. The point of all these concerns is this: 50 per cent of Australians now own shares, and 90 per cent of workers depend on shares to boost their retirement income through superannuation. They depend on treasurers, whoever they are, to be alert, to respond quickly as issues arise and to keep their mind on the job. Peter Costello has failed them. For five years he has failed. He has been warned about shortcomings and he has failed to act. When pursued in parliament, he said he would look at further reports next year and that he would act on other issues in 2005. That is just not good enough. Australians need a Treasurer with his mind on the job, not one just obsessed with chasing the Prime Minister's job.15:43:005504Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Small Business and Tourism10—The Labor Party lecturing us on good corporate governance is a bit like Lucifer lecturing us on morality! It is quite the same because—gee whiz, if my memory is not failing me here—there are a couple of odd fellows under the ground out there who had quite a reputation for corporate governance during the Labor Party years. Alan Bond comes to mind. Where is Al, the bedfellow of the Labor Party and the founding architect of WA Inc.?It was fantastic to see old Al out there again. He was an intricate part of the Labor Party's governance in Western Australia but, more significantly, he was a great mate of all those people who were in the Labor Party in government from 1983 to 1996. Do you know what? Even if you adjust for good measure all the activities of Alan Bond—if you add in CPIs and so on—it still remains a fact that the biggest corporate collapse in Australia's history was the Bond Corporation and all its subsidiaries. That occurred when the Labor Party was on watch. It is still the case that the failure of Bond Corporation—the No. 1 corporate failure in Australian history—happened under the Labor Party.I am reminded of some of the other names. I think it is important to remind the House and the members of the gallery of the names of yesterday—the people whom the Labor Party used to hold up as the shining lights of good corporate governance. Those people include Abe Goldberg, of the Linter group. Where is he now? We know where Laurie Connell is. Laurie did not quite make it. Laurie Connell, of Rothwells, is an old name we tend to recall. My friends in Western Australia will remember Laurie Connell—as will the Fairfax family I think. Brian Yuill is another one. What happened to the shareholders of Spedley? Where was the concern of the Labor Party for the shareholders of Spedley? The Labor Party have a rich history of lecturing—in fact, hectoring—about good corporate governance but, in fact, have been guilty themselves of poor governance. Do you know why I say that, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is not just about their own corporate governance practices when they were in government, and I will come to that in a little while. If they cannot get corporate governance right within the Labor Party, how can they get corporate governance right when they are in government for the rest of Australia?Good corporate governance is about principles. It is about putting in place appropriate disclosures. It is about ensuring that the shareholders—in fact, the members of the party—have equal rights with other shareholders and that there is common value. The Leader of the Opposition is promising the people of Australia that he will drag the Labor Party, kicking and screaming, into the modern world—that is what he is promising—but, in the very same breath, the Leader of the Opposition has decided to impose from head office—Sussex Street, New South Wales—a candidate on the poor souls of Cunningham. So much for the open party. Where is the open preselection—the good corporate governance—for the members of the Labor Party rank and file in Cunningham? Where is the good corporate governance that ensures that the electors of Cunningham are given a reasonable choice and a reasonable say about whom they may have to represent them in this place?If the Labor Party cannot get their own corporate governance practices right—and we know that even taking union representation from 60 per cent to 50 per cent means that the everyday shareholders of the Labor Party, the rank and file members, will always be outvoted by a union representative—then you know instinctively that good corporate governance is not a principle that the ALP apply within the ALP. Therefore, they are not fit to lecture others about good corporate governance.00AN4Tollner, David, MPMr Tollner—It's hypocrisy!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Hypocrisy be thy name, and that is the name of the Labor Party. Good corporate governance is as much about principles as it is about activity. The Labor Party have chosen to raise the issue of good corporate governance in the reporting season. It is a bit like groundhog day, isn't it! In 1996, corporate Australia started to reveal its profits. Out came the Labor Party with the old lines about corporate governance. They choose at certain moments to put those corporate governance practices aside—for example, when the government put up legislation on choice of super, which I will come back to in a minute; I won't let that one go away!—but, when it comes to reporting season, they go into the cheap politics of knocking companies that are profitable.There is one thing worse than a company that is very profitable, and that is a company that makes losses. Unfortunately, the Labor Party's view of business is that the Labor Party should sit in the boardroom or sit behind the desk of every business in Australia. The Labor Party believes the government should be in partnership—a permanent operating partnership—with every business in the country. On this side of the House, the coalition believes that business should be able to operate as they choose in a free market within certain constraints. The certain constraints are that they must be honest, and they must focus on treating their shareholders with the appropriate level of respect that should be afforded to a shareholder. When I talk about respect, I am talking about keeping the market properly informed, keeping shareholders properly informed and ensuring that shareholders are aware of all of their rights and entitlements under the Corporations Law and under other legislation. It is also important that the directors act in the best interests of both the company and the shareholders. That is entirely appropriate, and we, on this side of the House, believe it as well.The Labor Party has a rich history of opposing some of our key measures. One key measure which comes to mind is choice of superannuation. We on this side of the House believe that, given there is about $500,000 million to $600,000 million of Australian savings wrapped up in superannuation, individuals should have the right to choose where their money is invested. We fundamentally believe that individuals should have control over the money they have worked damn hard to save during their careers.The Labor Party opposed our choice of legislation lock, stock and barrel. Why? Because their mates in the unions control a large slab of the compulsory superannuation out there. The Labor Party opposed choice for individuals because they thought that their mates in the union movement would suddenly lose some of the control they have over investments in companies. It is quite extraordinary that they should do that. But, as we continue to reveal—every day in the House now—the Labor Party are in the business of taking care of the unions. They do not give a damn about the individuals out there, particularly the workers. They do not give a damn about the rights of workers, let alone the money of workers.So, on the road to Damascus over the last few weeks, we have had a sign from the Labor Party that they are rolling over on choice for superannuation. All of a sudden they have decided that individuals should have the right to choose whether their savings are invested in one company or another—empowering individual shareholders; empowering individual workers. But, unfortunately, the Labor Party are not being honest with everyone. If you heard the shadow Treasurer you would believe that the government has done nothing in relation to corporate governance for the last seven years. That is a joke; in fact, I will go so far as to say it is a lie.We have a corporate law economic reform program. A large number of bills have gone through this House and the Senate—as the shadow treasurer knows—and those bills, which are now law, are widely regarded as amongst the very best corporate regulation in the world. That is so much so that perhaps the most powerful of all economists and central bankers in the world, Alan Greenspan, has said that Australia's economy was unaffected by the recent Asian financial turmoil `arguably because Australia already had well-developed capital markets as well as a sturdy banking system'. We remember Paul Krugman's words: `There aren't enough Australian economies in the world.'The only way you have a strong economy is by having certain levers pulled in the right direction in relation to government debt. You do not spend more than you have. You try to keep interest rates low. You try to keep inflation low. You have industrial relations reform. You do the hard yards on taxation reform. And, aligned with all those reforms, you need to have corporate governance reform. Corporate governance reform is, in part, linked to legislative change that passes through the parliament—the legislative change that we initiated, the legislative change that we put out to the marketplace, the legislative change that we consulted on, the legislative change that we implemented, the legislative change that is now law.That law includes the fact that there need to be mechanisms put in place for the proper disclosure of the remuneration of the directors and five most senior executives of a company. It is also the case that, as part of the accounting reforms we passed through this parliament, we put in place a process for accounting standards to be considered and implemented. In fact, those very accounting processes are now at work in relation to placing values on share options. So the infrastructure and procedures we put in place in relation to accounting standards are now at work. The Labor Party is saying—in its own typical, convenient way—that all of the processes, which have been recognised as world-beating and world-leading in relation to good corporate governance, should be cast aside at this very moment in favour of what I would call cheapjack political opportunism from the Labor Party.The fact remains that we want proper disclosure in the marketplace. We have never been opposed to proper disclosure in the marketplace. We support proper disclosure in the marketplace, and always have supported it. But it goes one step further. We also support proper disclosure in politics. We support honesty, we support integrity, and we believe that the principles we put into our legislation should reflect the principles we apply in our own organisations. So, when it comes to corporate legislation and good corporate governance in the marketplace, I think it is important that we leave the Lucifer activity to the Labor Party. They are the devil in disguise; they are the ones lecturing people about honesty, integrity and transparency, yet not living it themselves. So we are happy to continue the debate about good corporate governance because not only do we believe in it and act on it but we implement it for ourselves and for corporate Australia. When the Labor Party can stand up and say the same thing, perhaps we will take them a little more seriously.15:58:005507Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—Seeing as this matter is so important, I am not going to honour the minister's remarks, because they were so off the point that they were irrelevant. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance but, at the same time, it is profoundly disturbing and disappointing that there is such a need. The investments and retirement savings of all Australians should be sacrosanct, yet we know they are not. This government has sat on its hands and done little more than pay lip-service to protecting the retirement savings of all Australians. The minister's speech just demonstrated the complete lack of concern this government has.The lack of government protection of retirement savings in relation to both corporate governance and superannuation regulation is reducing the security that all Australians should have in this system. Well-managed, profitable corporations and a regulatory system that ensures that both the market as a whole and individual investors can have confidence in it are essential. High-profile and high-cost corporate collapses have shaken community confidence in the government's regimes in these areas; look at HIH, One.Tel, Ansett—the list goes on.I have often spoken in this place about the regulation of corporate governance. Most notably, I have been fairly critical of APRA on matters that have been raised by the committee of which I am deputy chair. But the Treasurer has ignored all these warnings. As the Treasurer, the member for Higgins, has shown continually over the last five years, he will side with big business against the interests of all Australians. Indeed, this government's attitude on corporate crooks is just inertia. All working Australians and the majority of retired Australians have a direct interest in corporate governance principles. Their superannuation and other investments are intrinsically linked to the integrity and performance of the market. The reason for this is that about 46 per cent of the superannuation savings—and it is thanks to the ALP that there are superannuation savings—of ordinary Australians are invested in Australian companies and unit trusts. I remember in the last parliament, the previous speaker—the former Minister for Financial Services and Regulation—was the man getting up and saying that it was fantastic that the mums and dads all had shares, that Australians were the greatest shareholders in the world. But the government have done nothing to protect that nest egg. The operation of corporate regulation has an impact on nearly half of the dedicated retirement savings of Australians. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday reported:One in four of the country's top 100 companies are offering lucrative share option deals to their directors and executives but not fulfilling their legal duty to disclose the details to their shareholders. ... ... ...Corporate law requires companies to disclose the value of share option plans but the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) has found it difficult to enforce, many companies arguing—on legal advice—that the legislation contains no such requirement.It was interesting to hear the Treasurer's comments today. The Treasurer was again asked about this today, but he is not even prepared to enforce his own legislation.Then we have the case of APRA, which Mr Costello has, on numerous occasions, referred to as the world's best practice regulator. Commercial Nominees is a good case to note. Last year, Senator Watson—a Liberal senator, by the way—said in the Senate that he had raised in Senate estimates:... some problems about the oversight of Commercial Nominees Australia Ltd, often referred to as CNAL, by the regulators ASIC and APRA.What came across my desk this afternoon is an interesting insight. It has been alleged that a former director of Commercial Nominees, who was a director in the early 1990s and until the middle 1990s, has potentially absconded with funds from certain investment entities with the Commercial Nominees group ... Reportedly, this director had funds transmitted to him whilst in New York for the purposes of making investments on behalf of the trust company or its entities in companies listed on the Nasdaq.One particular director allegedly left substantial hotel bills to be paid by Commercial Nominees for his stay in New York and failed to return to Australia. It is believed that he is now residing in Nicaragua with the sister of a lap dancer that he picked up in a New York nightclub.That is corporate governance at work! Those members of Commercial Nominees now have no super funds. And to compound the problem, the government have actually refused to fully compensate the victims of this collapse, citing `moral hazard'. There was a moral hazard, but he was over in New York; it was not the investors of Commercial Nominees. They are being penalised for the failure of this government to act.That being said, I believe the majority of Australian companies do act with integrity. I believe that the major companies respect the Corporations Law that they must act under. But confidence in the market as a whole has taken a shake because of the Treasurer's failure to act. He has failed to put in place regulations that will stop the crooks, stop the rip-off merchants and stop those who place their interests above those of shareholders. The government is more prepared to unfairly punish families who have incurred family payment debts, even when they have properly informed Centrelink of changes to their incomes, than it is to take any action against corporate rip-offs. What makes Australians really mad is the greed and the arrogance that the worst side of corporate Australia displays. We are getting some fascinating insights into corporate Australia through the HIH royal commission. The Weekend Australian reported:Dr Raymond Reginald Williams AM—note that: Dr Ray Williams AM—he suggested, was a man who loved his honoraries and donated no end of HIH cash to secure them. Monash University, to which he channelled a good share of the HIH millions, bestowed the honorary doctorate. The Order of Australia came with a citation acknowledging his boundless generosity, but not HIH's role in underwriting it.Anyone in Williams's sights—client, servant or otherwise—was liable for summary reward. Swiss watches worth $10,000 a piece were the standard thankyou for 15 years' service at HIH. An invoice for 38 of them arrived on January 9, 2000, the same day staff were told to stop processing claims because of cashflow problems.There were baubles and trinkets for all—including high-end jelly beans.So that is where the money was going: it was going on jelly beans, not into your super funds. Then we have the previous doyen of the Liberal Party, Mr Elliott. The Age reported that Mr Elliott:... devised an executive share purchase and superannuation scheme that bumped up his personal holdings to more than $40 million and attracted the attention of the then NCSC, the corporate watchdog of the day.Then, of course, he spent a small fortune fighting legal challenges to get out of all this. But it has all come home to roost on the poor Mr Elliott.Where has this government been in respect of these corporate criminals? I am assuming that all Australians and all members of this House find these behaviours outrageous, but what is the government doing? During this week the Treasurer has used the royal commission into HIH as an excuse for not implementing regulations that will actually strengthen corporate governance. Professor Ian Ramsay, who knows a thing or two about this subject, has taken a different view—a view based on improved standards, not on backing crooks and protecting improper practices, as the government appears to do. Professor Ramsay is reported in yesterday's Age as saying:There are some things the government could do in the meantime on issues of auditor independence. At the end of the day, the HIH Royal Commission is an investigation into one corporate collapse involving one audit firm involving a small number of individuals and directors.My report looked broadly across issues of auditor independence both in Australia and internationally, and wasn't focused upon a specific collapse.He recognised that the conduct of the HIH royal commission does not preclude the government from taking action now. The government could act on his report, which has been languishing in the Treasurer's drawer for almost 12 months. But this lack of action is symptomatic of the government's approach: do nothing that may cause offence to major donors, even at the expense of the broader Australian community. There was a letter in the Financial Review today that sums it up beautifully:The swift response from the Howard Government over revelations from the Cole royal commission into the construction industry ... is amazing, given the lack of government interest in clamping down on big business, and on dishonest disclosure, director benefits and share options, and other corporate governance issues revealed from the One.Tel and HIH Insurance inquiries.The government still has not ensured that workers' entitlements are protected and fully payable when companies go bust, except if the company happens to be run by the prime minister's brother.But it is obvious why unions should cop the backlash. They don't donate funds to the Liberal Party like big business does.That was written by Brad Hinton from New South Wales. The government will not attack the goose that is providing its golden egg. The opposition has put forward a series of improvements to the corporate regulation environment. The regulation changes, as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, will work. They will not hamper the growth and prosperity of well-managed companies. What they will do is increase disclosure, treat corporate criminal actions with the severity they deserve and protect the retirement incomes of all Australians. (Time expired)16:08:005509Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I have been fascinated by the opposition's speeches, particularly the speech from the member for Fraser. The opposition are obsessed by the Treasurer; they are mesmerised by him. I do not blame them for that. On this side of the House, indeed throughout Australia and the international community, people are mesmerised by his remarkable successes as Treasurer of this nation: his deft handling of the economic fortunes of this country in the face of global downturns; his capable, commanding and compelling performance as the No. 1 finance minister of this country; and his presiding over a period of one of Australia's strongest economic performances in living memory. Here the opposition are, their leadership in more trouble than Mandrake, and they are focusing on the Treasurer's performance. Come to think of it, I think this obsession is just plain, old-fashioned envy. Bob McMullan, you are no Peter Costello—dream on!The opposition have dressed up their deep-seated envy of the Treasurer's ability with an MPI that charges the government with the `failure to adequately protect the investments and retirement savings of Australians'. This charge can be refuted totally on any number of grounds but, for the purposes of this debate, I will concentrate on two areas. The first one, which the opposition have failed to mention, is the state of this nation's economy and the government's role in the current state of that economy. The second is the state of corporate and prudential regulation in this country and this government's role in modernising corporate and financial laws and introducing world's best practice in the business sector and in the regulation of the investment environment. The opposition has chosen to ignore the state of our economy. That is a matter of considerable importance to investors—mums and dads and shareholders alike. It is churlish to not at least give a balanced account of what does impact upon investments and retirement savings. But perhaps this is an indication of the slender intellectual, indeed rhetorical, resources that the opposition is able to draw upon within its own ranks when it comes to questions of economic management. Investments and retirement savings are affected by the state of the economy. It is no coincidence that, under this government, Australia now has the highest rate of share ownership in the world. Australia has one of the strongest economies in the world; it is more competitive, more open and more vibrant than ever before. Within our comprehensive economic policy framework, we have pursued numerous policy reforms most vigorously to ensure that we have a sound, stable and competitive institutional structure that provides certainty to business, to investors and to those with retirement savings.This government's policies and leadership have ensured that Australia's economy continues to grow, averaging around four per cent in the years of the Howard government. The Economist magazine forecasts Australia to be the strongest growing economy in the developed world in both 2002 and 2003. I suggest to members opposite that investors and those with retirement savings elsewhere in the developed world will be looking with considerable interest at a country whose economy has performed so extraordinarily over the past five years—a country tipped to be the fastest growing economy this year and next year, with growth around four per cent. Australia's buoyancy is the subject of many glowing assessments, particularly during the global slowdown, and that is why Labor is so envious of our Treasurer's record.I enjoy reading the Economist, particularly its enthusiasm for Australia's current achievements. It was not so long ago—I think it was in about 1994—that I read an article in the Economist comparing the Australian economy with that of Mexico, and this was in the wake of Mexico's financial crisis. It concluded that Australia—this is Australia under the Keating government, and a number of members from that government remain in this House, sitting there on the shadow benches—had many of the same symptoms that Mexico displayed before its economy collapsed. It mentioned particularly a large current account deficit and an unacceptable debt burden. We have heard the members opposite come up with any number of lame excuses for the state of the economy under Labor, along the lines of `the dog ate my homework'. But today, after six years of coalition government, our current account deficit has dropped to about 2½ per cent of GDP—that was last year—and this is a watch point for investors. The coalition also has masterfully repaid much of the massive Labor debt legacy.The state of the economy depends not only on global factors but also on the domestic policies of the national government, and Australia's resilient economy has delivered low inflation. You will recall that Labor gave us high inflation rates, and the real purchasing power of your investment is affected by the high prices that follow high inflation. We have delivered low interest rates. Households' interest burden today is a lower share of their income than it has ever been, or certainly in the last 30 years. In fact, the International Monetary Fund in its latest world economic outlook, in providing another glowing assessment of Australia's performance, highlights Australia's low interest rates and also highlights this government's first home owners grant as two of the key factors for our continuing growth. The IMF also notes that our solid economic growth is not expected to generate significant price pressures: inflation will remain stable at around 2.3 per cent. Moreover, the IMF expects the current account deficit to be around 2.7 per cent of GDP and notes that these strong macro-economic fundamentals are expected to lead to a reduction in the unemployment rate. This government has delivered, and it is has delivered consistently, in terms of healthy budgets. A surplus budget would have been quite a novelty to the member for Fraser. When he was part of the ALP leadership and in government, the likelihood of Labor delivering a surplus budget would have been like finding a unicorn in your sock drawer.The subject of all that green-eyed envy, the member for Higgins, ought to have tribute paid to him and I do so for the past seven budgets that he has delivered—budgets that have supported our healthy, growing, productive economy. These were wise, prudent budgets with regard to the future of this country, a future that bodes well for those investing in it. So a healthy budget position, a healthy economy—it sounds like a pretty healthy environment in which to invest. That is why our share market has performed well compared with other markets. But that is not the whole equation. Let us turn to the prudential regulatory environment, the corporate regulatory environment.This government has placed great emphasis on the protection of superannuation and retirement income policy. We are committed to assisting Australians to build financial self-reliance in retirement and this includes enhancing the overall attractiveness, accessibility and security of superannuation. A key element of the government's strategy to address the long-term consequences of our ageing population so competently portrayed in the Intergenerational Report delivered by the Treasurer with this year's budget is superannuation. It is imperative that the community has full confidence that the prudential regulatory framework applying to superannuation is strong and robust and that the trustees of super funds meet the highest standards in carrying out their responsibilities for the viability and prudent operation of super funds. And the government is ever vigilant. Last October, we released an issues paper entitled Options for improving the safety of superannuation, which sets out certain proposals that would impact on the supervision and governance of superannuation entities. A working party was set up. It has recently reported to the government and we are considering its recommendations.In terms of investor confidence in Australian companies, I point out that we have already achieved significant regulatory change in the area of financial reporting through the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program. This is an incredibly comprehensive program of reform. It began in 1996. It is a credit to this government and these reforms have been applauded and, in some cases, emulated overseas. It has put Australia at the forefront of world's best practice in a number of key areas. But in keeping with this government's commitment to ongoing reform, work in this area is continuing and the government will be releasing a further policy proposal paper shortly as part of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program—it will be known as CLERP 9. It is about quality disclosure to shareholders. It will address the recommendations of the Ramsay report on auditor independence as well as broader corporate disclosures issues.The Ramsay report was commissioned prior to the recent US corporate fiascos—ENRON, Global Crossing, WorldCom and others—which have focused the minds of the US Congress and that administration on reforms to auditing and accounting standards. We are ahead of the US in that the government will release the CLERP 9 policy paper at the end of August, seek comments by mid-October and release exposure draft legislation for further public comment in December. The government plans to introduce legislation into parliament in 2003. It will allow final implementation to take account of any relevant recommendations of the HIH Royal Commission and work currently being undertaken by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and further developments overseas, particularly some of the ideas that are being hatched in the US, including a public accountability board, compulsory rotation of auditors and the like.This MPI demonstrates yet again that this government has already introduced reforms to the prudential and corporate regulatory regimes. We have been and we remain mindful of the need to do whatever we can as a government to protect investments and retirement savings of all Australians. We are in many instances leading the world in our reforms. We are taking a long-term view of our regulatory framework, we have incorporated regulatory flexibility and we have avoided unnecessarily prescriptive approaches. We have been mindful of changes in technology, business practices and community expectations. We have placed investor confidence in companies and in retirement funds as a high priority in our reforms. (Time expired)10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Bills5512R15825512Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that this bill be considered forthwith.Bill agreed to.5512Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) (4.19 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills5512R15225512Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that this bill be considered forthwith.Bill agreed to.5512Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) (4.20 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Bills5512The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Family Law Amendment (Child Protection Convention) Bill 2002Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2002Bills5512S3505512Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills5512R16085512Debate resumed.16:22:005512Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—The debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is obviously creating a great deal of attention nationwide, and it certainly needs to be had in an open and honest environment. Australia is currently amongst the world leaders in biotechnology and in using that technology in IVF. There is no nationally consistent enforceable system for embryonic research, and it is the responsibility of this parliament, I believe, to ensure that we have one. The legislation that we are currently debating establishes a national legislative framework which is comprehensive, rigorous, transparent and accountable. It provides a national licensing body that will consider all applications for a licence to work on embryos. It bans cloning, including therapeutic.There are some who say that this legislation throws open the floodgates in terms of embryonic research. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this legislation is quite restrictive and quite explicit in the ways in which it restricts research, particularly in terms of the following points. Firstly, research must be examining the effectiveness of a new culture medium used in the ART practice. Secondly, research could be to obtain a better understanding of embryonic development and fertilisation. Thirdly, it can be used in training people in techniques used under ART. Fourthly, it can cover the area of examination of gene expression patterns of developing embryos. Fifthly, it can be used in improving techniques relating to ART. Sixthly, it can be used in the derivation of stem cells—nothing else is covered in this legislation. This legislation also prevents harvesting of embryos for research: it explicitly states that embryos not in existence prior to 5 April this year will not be eligible to be treated under this legislation.There has been some suggestion that we should be concentrating all our will and all our finances on researching adult stem cells. There is no doubt that that research is already delivering benefits. But there is no certainty that researching adult stem cells will deliver all the cures which we are currently pursuing. Nor is there any certainty—and nor have the most ardent opponents of embryonic stem cells been able to say categorically—that cures to diseases cannot be found through the research of embryos and embryonic stem cells. The whole reason for research is to discover what is possible. This government has, through already funding a centre of excellence, put its support behind both streams of research—both adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. We must explore both streams because, if we do not, the secret to saving life may lie undiscovered because we have made a decision not to pursue both options. The result of that decision not to pursue embryonic stem cell research will cost lives, affect standards of living and cost people the opportunity to take a meaningful and healthy part in Australia's wonderful community. We should be pursuing both with the greatest of vigour.Some say that embryonic stem cell research destroys life and that just allowing the embryo to die on the bench is a different set of circumstances—that is lost on me. I just cannot accept the argument that deliberately removing an embryo from its refrigerated storage and placing it on the bench to die is not an act of wilful destruction. It is a wilful act to take that embryo from its storage knowing that the moment you leave it on the bench it is going to die. You know the end result. It is far better to take that embryo from its refrigerated storage and conduct research that may save lives further down the track or in the near future. It is far better to use the resource, because for the embryo the end is the same: destruction. We accept that. The reality is that one form of destruction, which is deliberate, is to leave it on the bench. The other form of destruction is to take it out, research it and save lives.There is no difference morally, to my way of thinking, just as holding your hand over someone's face until they can no longer breathe and they lose consciousness and then walking away without reviving them is in no way different to murder. What we need to focus on here is, firstly, that removing the embryo from the fridge is a deliberate act. It is what we do afterwards that matters to mankind. What matters to mankind, in my opinion, is that we use that embryo in a way that may save lives.For those who think that by defeating this legislation embryonic stem cell research will not happen, I suggest they really take a look at what is happening in the world. The reality is that embryonic stem cell research is happening all over the world. It is happening in countries who have instigated legislation more liberal than this. If Australia were to ban embryonic stem cell research—and I will come to the possibility of that in a moment—it is quite feasible that we would reach a point in time, in five or 10 years, where a cure is found through embryonic stem cell research and the person considering using the treatment has no idea of the ethics used in that research—that is, it may have been carried out in a country overseas. It is far better that that research be done here under circumstances which we can agree on. It is far better that it be done in a climate where good ethical practice is adhered to.To suggest that agreeing to this legislation is the beginning of the slippery slope in terms of what we use embryos for is an exaggeration and one which I will have no part of. This bill is a deliberate step by this government to put in place legislation which quite clearly restricts the uses of embryos. We need to concentrate just on what this legislation does. It is a compromised piece of legislation: perhaps for some scientists it does not deliver the freedom that they want, and perhaps for others in the community it is more than they would like to see. But the reality is that it lays down a restrictive set of legislative guidelines which are based on ethics and experience.I spoke a moment ago about what would happen if this bill were defeated and we were faced with the current situation, which I outlined at the beginning of my speech—that is, no nationally consistent legislation. The reality is, and it has certainly been indicated this week, that that void would then be filled by the state governments and the opportunity to have nationally consistent legislation would be lost. I ask those who think that defeating this legislation will be the end of the matter in Australia to think again. This is an opportunity for us as a federal parliament to put in place one piece of legislation—on an issue which I accept is charged with emotion and interest from the community—to ensure that this legislation is fair, reasonable and ethically based.In conclusion, I thought the editorial in the Courier-Mail earlier this week had a startling touch of reality which needs to be considered in the global context, in the Australian context and certainly in the context of this legislation. That editorial concluded:The only alternative to allowing the embryonic material to be used for potentially life-saving research is to destroy it.They are the choices. You either use this material in a positive way, to save lives, do so under very strict guidelines under the legislation which is currently before the House, or you leave the material to be destroyed under existing legislation held by the states. This is a decision that is based purely and simply on the reality of the situation. To me, it is better to save lives than waste lives, and I will be supporting the legislation.16:32:005514Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—I support the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 before the House because I believe that it establishes a fairly good balance between the objectives of pursuit of scientific research to improve the overall human condition and the need to restrain science from unduly transgressing what are widely accepted moral boundaries within our community. This legislation does, as many speakers have indicated, raise very fundamental questions about the future of human life. Although I disagree with the conclusion that is reached by some of the opponents of the bill, I believe that they are quite correct to focus on that fundamental question in considering the implications of this legislation.I hold the view that human life as we define it commences at birth, not conception, but I do accept that that decision is ultimately a socially imposed decision, where we collectively decide when we attribute certain rights to an organism, to a human being or to an embryo. My view is that human life commences at birth, but I accept that there are very serious ethical issues that are associated with how we deal with human embryos and to what extent we interfere or permit interference with the process of human procreation.The fundamental problem we face is that once interference is allowed—interference has been happening in the process of procreation for a long time, and technological advances have enabled more and more interference to occur—and indeed institutionalised, it becomes extremely difficult to draw lines that are logical and devoid of anomalies. Science will continue to present us with these kinds of choices and difficult dilemmas, so we should not by any means delude ourselves that this is the last time we will be in this House debating this kind of legislation. There is no doubt that, at some point in the future probably not too far away, we will be back here considering similar kinds of legislative dilemmas associated with the capacity of science to replicate, create or alter human life. If we are to avoid any kind of open slather approach to these issues—certainly, I would wish to avoid that and I am sure that the vast bulk of participants in this debate would wish to avoid that—then we are faced with the responsibility of drawing lines. Therefore, whether we like it or not, we have to seek to get those lines as appropriate as possible even while accepting that inevitably they will involve anomalies.The debate that we are dealing with at the moment is in reality a subset of the broader IVF debate. When IVF first emerged, I had some reservations about the introduction of artificial technology as part of the creation of new human beings, but I accept that IVF is now part of the human landscape and delivers a great deal of good to many people in our society. But I would say that, having allowed IVF, we cannot then discriminate between those who are allowed to use it and others who are not. Once we say that IVF is acceptable, it is ridiculous to then say that it is only for women in particular circumstances. We do not discriminate or seek to ban single women or lesbians from having children by other means; therefore it is ludicrous that we should seek to preclude them from doing so via IVF, if we allow some women to do so. Similarly, if we allow the creation of what are deemed surplus embryos, it seems to me that it is not morally repugnant to seek to use those embryos for a noble purpose—namely, experimentation with a view to improving human life—if the alternative use is that they are simply to be destroyed in any event. The difficulty is, though, that once we allow that we then create a problem of distinguishing that from embryo farming and creating embryos for the purpose of scientific research rather than for the direct purpose of procreation. In order to distinguish one from the other, we end up in a position where we are making definitions based on intent so that it is acceptable to experiment on an embryo that is created for other purposes but it is not acceptable to experiment on an embryo that is created for the purpose of experimentation. I am sure you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that is a fine distinction and one that, in the longer term—sadly, I think—will be difficult to maintain. Therein lies the challenge that we face with these issues: ensuring that we make rules and draw lines that are sustainable and logical.This debate reflects a never-ending tension between two approaches to human life and human progress: between a spiritual view of the world and a utilitarian view of the world. This tension, this conflict, between these two broad views of society and human progress is ultimately incapable of any kind of absolute resolution. It is therefore unavoidable, in my view, that we will end up with significantly messy and anomalous compromises on some of these fundamental issues. This debate raises very basic questions, such as: is there such a thing as `human nature'? What does `human dignity' mean? What do we see as `our common humanity'—how do we define that and how do we seek to protect it, to preserve it and to pass it on to future generations? This is a central question that goes back throughout philosophy and philosophical debates as far even as Aristotle, who argued that notions of right and wrong that we hold dear are basically connected to our own natures and therefore our natural desires, our instincts, our behaviours, which form a human totality which governs our capacity to make judgments about right and wrong, about good and bad, about what is fair and unfair.This question is explored with great insight—indeed, I would say great perspicacity—by Francis Fukuyama in a book that has recently been released called Our Posthuman Future. I had the pleasure of meeting Francis Fukuyama in the United States in 1999, when the article that this book was originally based on had just been released in the journal the National Interest, and I talked to him about these issues. I also met him recently when he was in Australia. I am what I suppose you would say is a fan of Francis Fukuyama. I do not necessarily agree with him on every point, but I believe he is one of the leading global thinkers on the great issues of the day. As an aside, honourable members would recall that he is the author of probably the most misunderstood and misrepresented book in recent history, The End of History, which has been misportrayed by many to argue a line that Fukuyama did not intend. In fact, he is seeking to argue that any sense of intellectual or moral legitimacy that may have ever attached to authoritarianism in any form—be it communism, fascism or even, going back further, monarchy—has effectively gone and that therefore democracy as a form of government, of human organisation, has essentially won the argument. I agree with him. That was the thrust of The End of History.To return to Fukuyama's thesis in Our Posthuman Future: he explores the impact of biotechnology and the potential for both good and harm that is entailed in some of the extraordinary scientific advances that are occurring in our society. He says this `mixes obvious benefits with subtle harms in one seamless package'. He also says that the capacity to re-engineer ourselves, to re-engineer human life and to change our personalities and our characteristics through things such as neuropharmacology, genetic selection and other technological advances, opens up the possibility of social engineering and of changing the nature of what human beings are and how we relate to each other and how we function in society. And this is opening up at a scale which I do not think we yet fully understand. He cites Christian theoretician C.S. Lewis as being almost well ahead of his time in seeing the dangers in these issues and pointing out that the advances in genetic and biological science that were already in sight—even when this was written, which was several decades ago—opened up the possibility of what C.S. Lewis described as `the abolition of man'. Fukuyama argues that biotechnology may ultimately enable us, either deliberately or by accident, to alter human nature and to move us to what he calls a posthuman stage of evolution. He argues that `human nature exists, is a meaningful concept, and has provided a stable continuity to our experience as a species' and that we must build national and international institutions to discriminate between the good and the bad which could be emerging from the use of biotechnology, genetic engineering, neuropharmacology and the array of scientific advances that are proving us with the opportunity to tinker with ourselves. I broadly agree with Fukuyama's assessment.This might seem to be an unnecessarily broad view to be putting in this debate in the context of the specific issues that face us about stem cell research and the prospect of cloning. I do not believe it is. I believe that this debate is one small part of a much broader set of challenges that we are only at the early stages of facing in deciding how we as a society, how we as human beings, will deal with the prospects that are opening up for science to change who we are and what we are.Viewed in this light, I think there are some significant weaknesses in many of the key arguments advanced on both sides of the debate that we have heard in this House over the past few days. First, the argument that embryonic stem cell research will enable us to fund the cure for serious diseases. There is a fundamental flaw in the weight that is placed on this argument, and that is that it implicitly relates to an `end justifies the means' kind of view of the world. The issue is not: how much benefit will we get from embryonic stem cell research? The issue is: is it right or wrong? Are there dangers inherent in that research which should alert us to a need to say that we do not wish to do it? In the same way that we do not allow certain kinds of experimentation on animals, in the same way that we were repelled by Nazi medical experiments, we do not approach these issues from the point of view of the ends justifying the means. Therefore, I think we should accept as a given that the potential for great life-saving and life-enhancing medical advances may lie in this research. But, in a sense, that is not the point.Similarly, on the other side of the argument, the argument that adult stem cell research is sufficient and we have no need to engage in embryonic stem cell research because all that may be achieved from that will anyway be achieved from adult stem cell research also misses the point. Why? Because we do not ban things because they are unnecessary. We ban things because they are wrong. And because something may, on somebody's argument, not deliver a benefit that others contend it will is not a reason for prohibiting it. So, ultimately, that argument is also beside the point.The claim that rogue researchers and science generally will do it anyway irrespective of what parliaments like ours do I think is also misconceived. It is possible that that may occur but I think it can be distinguished from the arguments that are put in favour of allowing personal drug use, euthanasia and some of the other more individualised and personalised activities that it is claimed—in some cases with some justification—that our society will be unable to prohibit. Serious scientific research requires infrastructure. It requires support networks. It is not the sort of thing by and large that is going to be done by one single rogue individual in their garage.We do have the capacity to effectively prohibit these kinds of things if we deem that to be the correct step forward. But we need the consensus—the overwhelming support—of the scientific community that the boundaries we are setting are correct in order that we can effectively enforce such a prohibition. Where a prohibition will be ineffective is if it flies in the face of the widespread, considered view of the scientific community more broadly.Similarly, I believe the argument about Australia missing the boat in terms of scientific research as a driver of economic development misses the point. We could, for example, perhaps enhance our GDP by reintroducing slavery of some people in the South Pacific—in theory. Clearly, we are not going to do that. Why? Not because it may be economically inefficient. Perhaps it might be; perhaps it might not be, but that would not be the argument. Similarly, we should not be dealing with this issue on the basis of reasons of economic development. The issue here is: is it acceptable? We should take as a given that, if it is acceptable, economic benefits are likely to flow from it and concentrate on whether we believe it is an acceptable approach to dealing with human life.In conclusion, I believe that we must have a moral and ethical framework within which scientific research operates in order to retain control over the destiny of our own humanity. I do not believe it is either feasible or desirable to adopt either of the extreme positions at each end of this debate and that we must proceed with great caution. I see the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 as a very good attempt to create a framework which does allow for science to advance but imposes some clear restrictions and some signals relating to outer limits—which we will inevitably revisit in debate in the future, hopefully with greater knowledge about where we are heading.I believe there is such a thing as human nature. I believe there is such a thing as human dignity and common humanity, and these things are worth protecting and preserving, thus ensuring that future generations enjoy the same status that we hold dear. I am not really religious but, unlike some others in the debate, I welcome the contribution of the Christian churches to this debate and, although with some of them I do not necessarily agree with the point of view that they reach, the fact that they are focusing on the big picture questions of the nature of human life and to what extent we should tamper with the way that that is created I believe is a good thing. I believe it is good that those of us who do ultimately believe that science should be enabled to advance the cause of humanity are put to moral tests. That is a good thing, even though we may ultimately come up with a different point of view.We carry a great responsibility, perhaps greater than I think many of us really comprehend, in dealing with these debates. We will have them again. Over the next five to 10 years throughout the world we are going to face some very serious challenges on these issues. I think this bill is a reasonable approach which enables us to move forward. It is not an unrealistic approach but it does set some boundaries and some restrictions. I support the bill, but like others on the right and left of the political spectrum I think we have some very difficult and uncharted territory in front of us in terms of dealing with the changing way in which human life is created and dealt with and the moral and ethical challenges that that poses to us. Thank you.16:49:005517Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—I rise to support the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I do so with a great respect for all of the individual views presented both within this parliament and outside this parliament, within Australia more broadly and more generally. I do so with respect for the fact that it is the role of this parliament—as the appropriate place—to make the choices and to prescribe the limits and conditions which are the subject matter of this debate. I do so with a third element of respect: the fact that it is a conscience vote and that each individual in this parliament is tasked to consider the very nature of what it is to be human and what it is to be part of the progress of humanity.The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 does two things. Firstly, it imposes a ban on human cloning, and it is a ban which I fully support and which I believe all members of this House support. Secondly, it lays out a national framework and strict limits by which surplus IVF embryos which would otherwise be destroyed may be used to contribute to the creation of life-giving, embryonic stem cell research.In looking at this, there are two fundamental questions in deciding whether or not we should allow embryonic stem cell research to continue. The first question is from a therapeutic perspective: is embryonic stem cell research necessary and is it valuable? From a scientific and medical perspective, is it necessary and is it valuable? Secondly, even if there is a therapeutic justification, is it a moral action? The member for Melbourne previously drew this distinction. I welcome this distinction, because it is not enough simply for it to be a good outcome—we have to assess the whole action to see whether or not it is justifiable.My conclusion is that the answer to both questions is yes. But I do recognise that it is not a question about a fundamental truth as to what is right—that is ultimately a matter for each individual judgment—so I have been involved in wide consultation, both within my electorate and more broadly. There are those who have counselled me against the position that embryonic stem cell research should be allowed: Dr Joe Santamaria, whose views I considered very carefully, Mr Gil Mullings and Mr Arthur Ballingall—all from my electorate. On the other side I have also met with Professor Alan Trounson from Monash University and taken a great deal of counsel from my very close friend the Reverend Dr Rufus Black, Chair of the Medical Ethics Board at Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, who is already one of the most articulate voices on medical ethics within Australia and will, I believe, over time become perhaps the leading Australian voice on questions of what it is to be human.Having made those consultations, I came to my conclusions. The first question to be asked then is: from a therapeutic perspective, is embryonic stem cell research both necessary and valuable? In looking at embryonic stem cell research, we look at the problem of human suffering. Last night I spoke with Nancy Taylor of Ipswich in Queensland. A week ago Nancy sent this letter:Dear Sir/Madam,I am 47 years old and I have recently been diagnosed as having Motor Neurone Disease. My husband is 49 years old and has been diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease for the last 7 years. It is highly unlikely that even if embryonic stem cell research is approved that it will resolve either of our problems due to the time needed for research and resulting developments. However, we have children and grandchildren. Neither of our diseases are genetic in origin, nor is there any known reason why we both have them. We ask that you approve this necessary research so that future generations may benefit. I believe that this research, as well as adult stem cell research, needs to be undertaken in a controlled manner. The greatest gift one can give is that of life. These cells would be destroyed otherwise please don't let them go to waste.N TaylorIt is this problem of human suffering which I wish to address and I believe embryonic stem cell research offers the potential for dealing with it. Science advances in waves. The great Sir Isaac Newton said:If I have seen further than others it is because I have stood on ye shoulders of Giants.In this field the first wave has been that of adult stem cell research, which began in the period around 1960. There have been many great advances which have resulted from it: approaches to blood related diseases and the repopulation of bone marrow for leukemia. There is further potential, but it is a significantly limited potential. Whilst there is much to be achieved, there is much which cannot be achieved.Professor Bob Williamson from Murdoch University and Professor Alan Trounson have explained in discussions with me a number of limits to what adult stem cell research can achieve: there is a lack of capability to multiply; adult stem cells are currently difficult to find and they lack the flexibility of embryonic stem cell research—for example, there is no isolation yet of either cardiac or pancreatic stem cells—impacting on the capacity to use this technology to actually help those who are suffering painful and genuinely debilitating illnesses and aliments; adult stem cells may contain DNA damage from ageing and environmental degradation and that poses a risk to those who take them; adult stem cells may also contain genetic defects; and, above all else, there is an inability to address a large number of the core genetic disorders within the population today.So we have a clear need—a human therapeutic need that is unmet by the existing technology. But what is the value of embryonic stem cell research itself? Does it actually offer a way to address some of that need? Embryonic stem cell research is the second great wave in this field and it really commenced in 1998, so it is a new technology. Already in that time we have seen very strong evidence of its capacity to play a great role in dealing with many diseases, including Parkinson's disease, the disease which affects Graham Taylor from Ipswich. The journal Nature in July 2002, just one month ago, reported research from Jong-Hoon Kim, who said that Parkinson's disease was potentially able to be cured through the work of embryonic stem cell research. Similarly, for motor neurone disease, the disease which afflicts Nancy Taylor, Wicherteleand others in the journal Cell in July 2002, again only last month, talked about the way in which motor neurone disease could be treated. We have approaches to treating diabetes—Lumelskelyd in Science, July 2001. There is the potential to increase tolerance in transplants of organs between individuals—an extraordinary potential—that was set out, again, in July 2002 in the journal Nature immunology. All these represent a genuine approach to dealing with human suffering.So the value of embryonic stem cell research is clear. It will, of course, be limited: it will not cure aliments overnight, it will not cure everything, it may not cure anything. But it does offer the greatest hope that we have yet had for sufferers of motor neurone disease, of Parkinson's disease and diabetes. It offers that hope and that is all that we can ever ask from science. Every wave of scientific research begins with an expectation and a hypothesis, and we subsequently go on to verify it. In the first four years, the early indications are that this technology offers an extraordinary capacity to achieve things which we would otherwise not be able to achieve. It must proceed in concert and in tandem with adult stem cell research, but it offers an approach to dealing with diseases which is not available anywhere else.The second fundamental question we face is this: even if embryonic stem cell research offers a therapeutic purpose, does that make it moral? We know that there are situations where, in attempting to achieve a good outcome, we can adopt immoral means; there are things that we would reject. So, in examining this question of whether it is a moral action, there are three issues. Firstly, the great question is: what system of ethics do we apply? Secondly, having chosen a system of ethics, what then is the status of the fertilised eggs from which cells are removed?Thirdly, what are the ethical obligations that emerge in the use of those cells?Turning to the first of the moral issues, what system of ethics we should use, utilitarianism is often used to justify good outcomes, but it can be used to justify good outcomes with dubious means. I do not accept that, as a fundamental principle, we should adopt the view that the ends justify the means. That, in essence, is the core of utilitarianism. Not only must there be a valid end, there must also be a justifiable means. I adopt a position of moral realism. Moral realism says that both the intention and the means themselves must essentially be good and not the object of a disastrous outcome. Dr Rufus Black, whom I mentioned earlier, wrote recently in a paper on embryonic stem cell research:If our intention is to care for others, our character will become a caring one because our ways of thinking and feeling become aligned around taking such action.Intention is an important part. We know that we look to a good outcome, but we must also have a means that is acceptable.What then is the nature of the five-day-old fertilised egg? Is it human tissue only, is it the foundation of a body or is it already a person? There are strong views on each of those fronts. There is a particularly strong view that it is more than tissue and that it might be the person. Then there is the alternative view that it is more than tissue but less than a person; that it is a body but not a body and mind, which ultimately constitutes a person. Neither view is wrong. Each of those views is internally logical and consistent. It is not a scientific decision as to when the person begins; it is an ethical and moral decision as to when the notion of the person begins.Indeed, the Catholic tradition itself has held both of these views. St Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the greatest of all Catholic theologians, argued that the fertilised egg was not a person. He argued that it was not a person until the quickening of the foetus within the womb, which demonstrates mental activity. This was Catholic doctrine for hundreds of years until Pope Leo XIII in 1887 changed that doctrine. Within the Catholic tradition itself, both views exist as to what is the nature of the fertilised egg, and so it is ultimately a question of belief. The only way to resolve the meaning of what is a five-day-old embryo is through this parliament—because it is not about fact, it is about personal judgment. It is not a matter for a panel or a commission; it is a matter for elected representatives to freely express their judgments.My judgment—and I emphasise the fact that it is only my judgment—is that the five-day-old embryo is more than just tissue. But, as with Aquinas, I believe that it is body alone; that it is not a person comprising the indissoluble balance of body and mind. As a friend of mine who is part of the neurosurgical team at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Paula Lindsey, points out, we make this same judgment every day as a society when we allow the transplantation of major organs. That action of transplantation kills the body. The body is not yet dead but it is on life support. This is how the act of transplantation works. Yet as a society we accept the notion of transplants because we intuitively know that, more than just the body, the person has already gone; the person has ceased to exist. We say that the brain is dead but the body is alive, and yet we do not regard that as a violation of the person.Not only is the five-day-old fertilised egg frozen and not possessed of a brain or mental activity, it also is destined to be destroyed, as has been established by many speakers. Each year 3,000 to 5,000 of these fertilised eggs will be destroyed, irrespective of what decisions we make in this parliament today. In that situation, given the nature of the egg, the fact that it is alive but not in my opinion the person, the intention of its use and the extraordinary capacity it has for relieving human pain, I conclude that it is not an immoral use to achieve a good end by allowing the therapeutic research of embryonic stem cells.The third moral issue, however, is how we regulate and use this research. The bill establishes a national framework. It sets up a regime to control that use tightly, just as it should. It bans cloning, rightly. It requires the consent of donors—and early indications are that 50 to 65 per cent of those who create the eggs, the parents who provide the two constituent elements, are willing to donate their eggs for embryonic stem cell research. All these elements are critical to creating a framework that is an acceptable way to deal with this difficult problem. Therefore, I believe not only that there is a therapeutic need and value, the first question, but also that there is an acceptable means and an objective to deal with the fertilised eggs, which would otherwise be destroyed by human action. But, as I said when I began my remarks, this is my view, and I respect the views of others entirely. This is not just a question of fact; there are fundamental questions of faith and belief as to when the person commences as opposed to the body.In conclusion, we hear in this chamber and in this country alternative views not just about the outcomes of stem cell research but about the very highest questions of what ethical systems we should adopt and how they affect our society. This could be the cause of extraordinary division in our society and, in other times and other places, these sorts of questions have led to genuine and great conflict, division and violence. But I believe that the debate we are having is the mark of a truly plural and open society. It transcends party lines; it calls on each individual to make their view but it does so in a way which has compelled and demanded tolerance.This debate gives me hope, not just about the issue but about the nature of democracy and what we can be as a society. I am proud to be a member of this House, I am proud to be a member of this parliament and I am proud to be a citizen of a country such as this which allows and encourages the most difficult issues about what we are as a society to be debated, to be dealt with, but ultimately to be resolved through civil dialogue.I sincerely commend this bill to the House, above all else because of Nancy Taylor's sentiments that we ask that you approve this necessary research so that future generations may benefit. I do so with the greatest respect for all of the views represented by every member of this House and for all of the views and traditions which have characterised this debate throughout Australia.17:09:005521Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—It is a great pleasure to speak on this Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and it is also a unique opportunity. It is not too often in this place that we get a free vote on an issue, but particularly to get a free vote—a conscience vote—on such an important matter I consider to be extremely special. I was quite pleased that so many people have actually spoken in this debate and have spoken here in this chamber and not in the Main Committee. It is fairly unusual—almost unique—that this parliament devotes so much time to a matter involving a conscience vote and, as I said, it is because this is an extremely important issue. For most people it is about life and death.This debate is not much different in a sense to every other debate we have in this place in that, at the end of the day, we still have to make a decision and vote on which way we feel it should go. It is not easy for a lot of people and it is not easy for individuals, because normally the party unit does the work. It does the backgrounding; it does the core work that helps you to make a decision. But when you are left on your own, you have to go and find things out for yourself and you have to do that work on your own. I know that people have done that. They have got extensive files and they have looked at this quite seriously; they have not come into this place to make a decision at the last moment.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—It is a healthy process.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—It is a very healthy process. I am sure we all have extensive files for and against which have formed the basis of the decision that we are going to make in this place sometime shortly. At the same time, I feel that the decision is no more difficult than any other. Difficult moral issues should be in every decision we make in this House and it should be a matter for us to be able to decide those, not based on whether we are experts or not. There would be few times when we would be expert on any particular matter, let alone expert on every matter. So I think there is a great distinction there in terms of people saying, `I'm not an expert in this field.' I could say we are not an expert in most fields. If in this place people were limited to speaking on fields in which they had some expertise, we would have very limited debate, with maybe only one or two people speaking on each area. I assume a lot of people would be able to discuss the law!I have been very impressed with the majority of speeches that have been delivered in this House on this issue; although, as always on these matters, rather than sticking to good debate, some people will resort to emotion and try to convince people by other means. That I find completely unnecessary and I will try and avoid it as much as I can. It is sometimes difficult, but I have been conscious at least of that process when I have put my thoughts on paper.One thing that is important for me, and I know it is important for many members on both sides of this chamber, is the view that, while it is important to have this bill as a whole, it could very possibly be split into two. It has two distinct main components, although they are very closely related. One is the prohibition on human cloning and the other is the use of embryos for research purposes. If a motion were to be put in this place that we split the bill, I would support it. I have not conferred with any of my colleagues about this, but I feel that there would be no loss in this debate if we were to split the bill and vote quite clearly and openly on what we believe are the core issues on each of the separate parts.Most people in this place would have a distinct view on the prohibition of human cloning. I do not think it is very controversial; in fact, probably 100 per cent of people in this place would support a bill that prohibits human cloning. On the other hand, there are quite a number of people who may be opposed to the use of human embryos for the purposes of research. Therefore, it is important that we do split the bill, because it would not give people the opportunity to hide behind a decision that has been based on supporting one part but not the other part. I do not want people to be able to say, `Because the bill contains something I did support and something I did not support, I felt that what I did support had more weight. Therefore, I felt I had to vote for it.' Alternatively, someone might say, `I did support the prohibition on human cloning, but I felt so strongly about the use of embryos for research purposes that I could not vote for the entire bill.' So I think there is merit in the argument that we could split the bill and give people a clearer choice and allow them to make a weighted decision. I think the community would find this acceptable and move that way. I know many other countries have already debated this. The United Kingdom has much more radical legislation than we are proposing here. Singapore, Japan, Israel and Germany and other countries all have—or are in the process of debating—similar legislation. In many of those countries, they have separated their bills to allow for voting on any one particular matter.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Have you got a conscience vote on the split?83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—A conscience vote on the split is a good point. I believe that the split is a matter of process, but I would appreciate having a conscience vote on the process as well as the bill. I would be supportive of that. Just to further clarify my position: my view would be that we have a conscience vote on the process as well as on the bills.I will turn to the prohibition of human cloning. I believe that this section of the bill is not controversial and, as a result, has attracted very little debate in the House. It will be no different with respect to my time today. I am totally and completely against the idea of human cloning for reproductive purposes, and I fully support that section of the bill. There is no place in our society for research or cloning for the purpose of producing a whole human being. I think this is repugnant, and it is not supported by the community or society.I want to turn to arguments put both in favour and against the use of embryonic stem cells for the purpose of research. Before I begin, I have not found that anyone in this debate is either wrong or right. This debate is not about wrong and right; it is about how we feel, based on the weight of evidence and advice given to us and our own belief structures, and our moral and ethical values. All of those things should be weighed up against the core of the debate on this bill. Our decision must be based on those values. I believe very strongly that our decision must not be made on a purely religious basis, although that certainly would have an influence on our ethical and moral standing.Those who are against embryonic stem cell research state reasons such as that embryos become human beings at the point of conception and not at any later point—that, at the point of conception, they have a unique identity and therefore should have the same rights to fully develop into a whole human being. Those against this type of research say that those spare embryos—there are about 70,000 of them, which have been kept in a frozen state and are destroyed as allowed by the states according to law after a certain period of time—die or succumb by being thawed out on a bench and later disposed of. They believe that this is more respectful of human life than it would be to use those embryos as cells for research purposes.The slippery slope argument is: what is next, and is this the thin edge of the wedge that will lead on to further expansion? I think it is a great fear of many—and it is a fear I have—that, potentially, human cloning will be on the agenda one day, and I believe it should not be. The slippery slope argument is a powerful argument, a strong argument, and it is certainly one that has been put forward.Another argument is that the use of embryonic stem cells in research provides absolutely no hope, and that it gives false hope to people who are quite desperate for miraculous cures for very distressing illnesses. Also, that this research is destructive of human life, that adult stem cells are better as a research medium, that embryonic stem cells have produced no cures and no results that warrant the allowance of more or continued research, that embryonic stem cells are potentially dangerous for human patients because of an immune rejection problem and that they cause a variety of cancers and that they have these problems built within them.There are many other reasons. All members would have got a book that lists a range of reasons why they believe it is wrong, the reasons being that it is unethical, that embryonic cells themselves cause cancer, that it is unnecessary because adult stem cells could be used, that any benefits of embryonic stem cells are a long way off and therefore it is not worth doing the research, that tissue rejection would be a problem and that it is in the interest of big business rather than in the interests of the individuals. Another reason is that allowing stem cells to be taken from cloned embryos will open the door—a Pandora's box, in essence—to reproductive cloning.Fairly strong arguments have been put forward against embryonic stem cell research. Those in favour of the use of embryonic stem cells for research have also made some good points, including that, as a result of further research, it may be deduced that these cells could become brain cells; that embryonic stem cells are unique, unlike adult stem cells, and they can literally become other cells because they are not yet differentiated; and that they could become specific muscle cells—the gut, the liver and so forth—and this cannot specifically be done with adult stem cells. There is also the prospect of developing new industries and biomedical innovations, which are important not only to our economy but to our way of life and to our quality of life, which includes searching for a cure for people who have diseases such as Alzheimer's and helping to alleviate their pain.There is also the prospect that this research could provide very specific cures tailored to an individual. Those in favour of embryonic stem cell research say we could tailor something so specific that it would be for one unique person. The great potential is for this research to cure Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes or the many other afflictions we all face.Embryos are human beings, but not at the point of conception. There are different views in the scientific community about when human life—that unique individual; that first spark of what we might determine to be real life—begins. Some say it is immediately at the point of conception. Others say that, after 14 days, something called the `primitive streak' can be identified and that collection of cells becomes something a little bit more: the beginning of what we know as unique human life. I understand from my reading that, prior to those 14 days, the embryo can split into two or re-form; therefore, it is not unique because it has yet to determine exactly what it is.I want to read a quote from Professor Margaret A. Farley, a Catholic theologian from the Yale University Divinity School. She says:Embryological studies now show that fertilization (“conception”) is itself a process (not a “moment”), and such studies provide support for the opinion that in its earliest stages (including the blastocyst stage, when stem cells would be extracted for purposes of research) the embryo is not sufficiently individualized to bear the moral weight of personhood. Moreover, some of the concerns regarding the use of aborted fetuses as a source for stem cells can be alleviated if safeguards (such as ruling out “direct” donation for this purpose) are put in place She goes on to explain a number of other things. I think the parts about conception being a process and not an actual moment, and the need for good guidelines and legislation, are particularly important. But, at the end of the day, all these arguments for and against are just that: arguments. In a sense, I find that disturbing—and I think that might be an appropriate word here. I seek out the information; I will speak to an eminent scientist on one side and then an eminent scientist on the other. To me, both are equally important and both are equally right. I cannot say to a scientist, `You're wrong.' I am not a scientist. But, even if I were, the fact is that they believe in their science and they are working down that path. All I can do is decide on the evidence provided to me. It is the same with jurors. They are not experts; they are ordinary people who come in from the community and—without prejudice, based on the weight of evidence provided to them—make decisions of life and death. That process is the only mechanism we have to make the right decisions. So I am extremely comfortable with the process I have gone through and the debate we are having.As I said, for all the arguments—from the scientific community, from the lay community, from the ethicists—the issue has not changed. It remains with us. To me, this shows how important it is that we have a very strong system of regulation, a very strong system of guidance and a legal framework, and the proper place for those to be created is in this House. It is for us, the elected representatives of the people, to do that. So, as I have said, I have carefully listened and I have followed the arguments; I am not an expert and I do not believe I need to be. In fact, just a few hours ago I had the opportunity, in one of the Senate committee rooms, to listen to four eminent people speak on this very issue. Three were in favour of embryonic stem cell research and one was against it. Do not let the odds worry you: they only had 10 minutes each, and it is pretty hard to make a really compelling argument on such an important issue in a short 10 minutes. But I did not feel that there was any new evidence, from either side, that would sway my view or my vote.It is important that this debate take place in this chamber. Labor were absolutely convinced of that. The Labor Party do have a position, and we have stated it. The Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean, made it clear in his speech that the party support the use of embryonic stem cells and embryos for research. But he has also made it extremely clear—and I can assure everyone listening and everyone here that I felt no pressure from any of my colleagues or anyone in my party; this has been a very healthy process—that we would be given an absolutely free vote. I am extremely comfortable with that.I do not want to spend any time refuting the arguments. While I have looked at refuting the arguments, I do not think that is as important as saying that I believe I have gone through the process to make the right decision. I have one question—which, I think, is extremely important and central to this debate—for those who have argued against this. I have listened intently to them and I respect their view; this is not about changing their view. That question is simply: if they knew that embryonic stem cell research was the only way and that it was 100 per cent guaranteed to deliver a cure, would they still vote against it? I think that defined where I stood but not so much where others stood. It was a matter of how I came to my decision; it was not just that I looked, listened and learned, and then made a decision on that basis.Another important fact is that we are not talking about new embryos; these are spare embryos. There is also a sunset clause in this bill. There is a limit as to number because the embryos cannot be collected after a certain date, which has already passed. If we do not use them for the betterment of mankind they will be thawed and destroyed. I think it would be much more worthwhile to humanity if we used them. Finally, there is a warning to those companies that would use this technology and to those scientists in favour of this: there is a sunset clause. Do good research, get good results, publish those results and have them agreed to in the proper way that scientists have their research agreed to, published and acknowledged. Get those results on the board, because we will not always support you if you do not have results on the board. This is not so much about ethics as about delivering results. (Time expired)Adjournment552510000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being almost 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.552517:30:005525Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Local problems are best solved by local people with local knowledge of their community and by people committed to their communities. That is why the former Labor government established area consultative committees. They facilitate job-creating partnerships between government, business and local communities. In the Hunter there is no greater need than the need to create employment, and the Hunter Area Consultative Committee, under both the former Labor government and the current government, has done an excellent job. Its board has always operated in a bipartisan manner and has remained above politics.Unfortunately, that all came to an end a few weeks ago when the Hunter Area Consultative Committee's Chairman was unceremoniously sacked. Arch Humphrey has been the Chairman of the HACC for about three years. He was, of course, appointed by the Howard government. The appointment surprised no-one: Arch Humphrey is a prominent member of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party and a councillor on Maitland City Council. But the important point to be made about Arch Humphrey is that he enjoyed the unanimous support of his board. Members of that board include former Labor minister David Simmons, a former honourable member of this place, and Newcastle Trades Hall Secretary Gary Kennedy, a former Communist. Indeed, so strong is the board's support for Mr Humphrey that they have made their displeasure at his sacking well known. They want him back.So who sacked Arch Humphrey and why? We know with great certainty that his demise was communicated to him by the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services. But who really made the call and what is the connection, if any, between the application of Paterson based Sepos Transport for Dairy RAP grant funding, the member for Paterson and the recent preselection of Maitland City Councillor Mr Bob Geoghegan as the Liberal candidate for the state seat of Maitland? Further, the question for Ministers Tuckey and Anderson is: what contact, if any, did they have with the member for Paterson regarding Mr Humphrey's position as chair prior to his sacking?Not surprisingly, a few insiders are not very happy with what has happened to Arch Humphrey, and their story is as follows. Joe Sepos of Sepos Transport is a good mate of the member for Paterson. Joe wanted some Dairy RAP funding for a business development in the Paterson electorate. The member for Paterson believed his Liberal Party colleague and HACC Chairman, Arch Humphrey, should help out. When Arch refused to do any special favours, Bob Baldwin was not very happy. He then tried to harass the executive officer of the HACC but got no joy there either. So he embarked upon a campaign of retribution. First, he began to work against Arch Humphrey's attempts to become the candidate for the seat of Maitland. Not surprisingly, using his influence as a federal MP and his usual coercive tactics, the member for Paterson got Bob Geoghegan over the line. The member for Paterson then turned his attention to Arch's role as the chair of the area consultative committee. This provided not only a further opportunity to get square with Mr Humphrey but also an opportunity to create a position for Mr Geoghegan and therefore an opportunity for the candidate to lift his profile in the lead-up to the next state election. I understand that the member for Paterson has since dropped that idea because it all proved a bit too hot. But key questions still require a response from the member for Paterson. Did he put pressure on Mr Humphrey and/or the Executive Officer of the HACC to approve the grant for Mr Sepos? Did he speak to either ministers or their departments about having Arch Humphrey sacked? Did he speak to anyone in the government about the possibility of having Mr Geoghegan appointed as chair of the Hunter Area Consultative Committee? Of course, Mr Baldwin and Mr Geoghegan go back a long way. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! I merely indicate the need to refer to him as the member for Paterson.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—When the member for Paterson was elected in 1996 he moved his offices from High Street, Maitland and took up residence in a building which I understand was purpose-built for Mr Baldwin in East Maitland under a leasing arrangement which was very, very attractive for Mr Geoghegan.552617:34:005526Pearce, Christopher, MPMr PEARCEA8WAstonLP10—I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge in the House the brave efforts of two of my constituents: Mr Wayne Pilbeam and Mr Adam Boag. Having never met, these two gentlemen were brought together by their actions in assisting in the rescue of several members of a family from their burning home in Wheelers Hill on 30 October 2000. Both gentlemen were driving to work shortly after 7 a.m. when they noticed flames and smoke coming from a house. As they arrived at the house, Mr Pilbeam phoned for emergency assistance. As both of these gentlemen approached the house, they found the occupants screaming and distressed.After the front door was unlocked, Mr Pilbeam entered the burning house and assisted a young woman to escape. After rescuing a second occupant, Mr Pilbeam ran back into the house and down the hall to the kitchen where he found an elderly man and also dragged him to safety. While all of this was taking place, Mr Boag was searching the house, room by room, for a fourth person believed to still be in the burning house. Unable to find this man, Mr Boag ran outside. Mr Pilbeam had again entered the house to also conduct a room by room search but had been driven back by the intense heat and smoke. Upon discovering the missing man safe in the garden, Mr Boag doused the flames with a garden hose until the fire brigade arrived.These two gentlemen are true heroes. As a result of these selfless acts, they have, in recognition of their efforts, been nominated for national bravery awards by a police officer who attended the fire. Following their nominations, the two gentlemen were recently inducted into the Australian Honours List with a Commendation for Brave Conduct. The Commendation for Brave Conduct is awarded to individuals for acts of bravery considered worthy of recognition. This honour provides a very important opportunity for our community to recognise and encourage those people who act selflessly to help others. These two are real heroes, and I will quote from the front page of one of Aston's local newspapers, the Knox Journal, where the headline was `Knox pair stay cool in the heat of the moment: fire heroes'. I will quote Mr Pilbeam, who said:I saw a person at the window actually trying to breathe because there was smoke coming right through the house. She was screaming.I would also like to quote Mr Adam Boag. He said:Everything happened so fast. I left my car door wide open with the keys in the ignition and ran over to help these people.These are two real heroes; two people who risked their lives to save the lives of others. I have to say, with the greatest sense of humility, that they both said they did not think about what they were doing at the time. They saw this burning home, they were concerned that there might have been people in the home and, as a result of that, they stopped their cars and ran in to try and save these people who were obviously in a great deal of distress. As a result of this, they have each received the Commendation for Brave Conduct from the Governor of Victoria, John Landy. They are true heroes. I have written to both Mr Pilbeam and Mr Boag extending my congratulations, on behalf of all the people in Aston, for their selfless act. I thank them for their heroic efforts and I am sure you would agree with me that these two heroes are certainly very worthy recipients of national bravery awards.552717:39:005527Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Throughout the electorate of Scullin, public library services are provided by the Yarra Plenty Regional Library Service, which is the coming together of the cities of Whittlesea and Banyule and the shire of Nillumbik to produce a regional library service. Services are provided through eight branch libraries, a bookmobile service and a home library service. On 21 June, the Mill Park branch library was officially opened. The City of Whittlesea built this new library at a cost of $8 million. Some $2 million of that amount was the value of the 60,000 new books that were placed inside the library. Also provided were 38 workstations—well above the national average of two workstations per library. It is truly an example of creating a public library service that, in the jargon of the library service, is `built for hybrid access'. This means that not only does it have paper books but also electronic sources of information are made accessible to the community.One of the most pleasing aspects of the opening of this new library was that on Sunday, 23 June, when the community opening was held, there were 5,300 visits and 3,600 loans. In fact, in the first three weeks following the opening of the Mill Park Library, there were 30,500 visits and 45,000 loans and, more incredibly, some 2,500 new members signed up. We can compare these 30,500 visits with the number of visits to the branch library at Thomastown, which in a full year gets 129,000 visits, and visits to the branch library at Watsonia, which gets 112,000. I was most pleased with the reaction of the local community because it was an absolute statement about the importance the community places on the public provision of library services.One of the great difficulties for municipalities and the providing of library services is that progressively, over the years, the amount of resources that local government has had to provide towards libraries has risen dramatically. When I was first elected to this place, I was the chairperson of the committee of management of the regional library service. At that time, we were complaining about the amount of effort that we had to put in to the provision of resources. The ratio at that time was about fifty-fifty. In the 2000-01 calendar year, state government funding had reduced to 22 per cent. The local government contribution is 67 per cent and, even more worrying, there is in excess of 11 per cent of revenue that comes out of other resources, such as fines, booking fees and the like. There is great pressure on the provision of this free service.I was pleased that on Monday, in private members' business, the honourable member for Werriwa sponsored a private member's motion. Part of that motion indicated that the House supports:Federal responsibility for assisting the development of the local library network, especially with new IT services ...By way of an aside, I congratulate the honourable member for Hunter for the way in which he used the wired capacity of the chamber to read the notes of his speech from his computer tonight. I think that we owe it to the public to show some leadership by our use of technology in this place.In conclusion, I have been an advocate over the years in my support of the public provision of library services and I say that the federal government should have a role. I believe one of the clear ways that the federal government could have a role is by making sure that there is equal access through our local library network to information technology. I am really concerned that there will be a digital divide, where people in society do not have equal access to information technology. There are, in other countries, particular programs where national governments have input into library services, especially in the provision of information technology—for example, in the US they have LSTA program. One of the reasons for putting this in place is to create a level playing field in the provision of information technology through public library services. I believe that is the case we should investigate in Australia. (Time expired)552817:44:005528King, Peter, MPMr KING00AMQWentworthLP10—In February this year, in this House, I spoke warmly in my maiden speech of the marvellous contribution of our serving men and women to the armed forces of this country since Federation and how they have been a bulwark of our precious freedoms and democracy.I was therefore very proud to participate as one of the marchers in this year's Reserve Forces Day march in Sydney, along Macquarie Street from College Street past state Parliament House, on Sunday, 7 July. John Moore, the Chief Executive Officer of the Reserve Forces Day Council of Australia, estimated that there were some 6,000 marchers—current and former Reserve Forces men and women—present that day. Also in attendance were several of my parliamentary colleagues, which was very encouraging to all of those present and their families.Sir Laurence Street, National Chairman of the council, took the assembled parade and introduced Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir, who addressed the marchers and crowd in her usual gracious and eloquent manner. Professor Bashir spoke of the `special tension' between the day-to-day obligations of the men and women who serve in our Defence Reserve Forces and their commitment to the nation's defence. The parade was also addressed by the Maritime Commander, Rear Admiral Smith, who reiterated the white paper defence imperatives of an integrated Defence Force with reservists serving alongside permanent forces. Perhaps the one disappointment of the day, therefore, was the fact that this year no permanent Defence Force unit marched with the reservists to show their support and solidarity with them.Let me pay special tribute to the organisers, who went to such trouble to ensure the success of the day. The city streets were lined with special Australian flags bearing the words `Their Service Our Heritage' and the various units marched behind a series of splendid banners. Of particular general interest were the Royal Australian Engineers and the Royal Australian Ordnance Corps, who were celebrating their centenary and were warmly supported by a large contingent of the visiting Royal Engineers and Royal Hong Kong Engineers. The RAE have a distinguished history, having built Government House and several of the major roads leading out of Sydney. Of particular interest to me were the banners of the Naval Reserve Association, behind which I marched, and of the University of Sydney Regiment with whom I also served while I was a student at that university for some three years.Our reservists have begun to take a major role in the profile of Australia's defence forces, as proposed in the white paper first released in November 2000. In the very week of the parade, a significant unit of Army reservists were to leave Sydney for East Timor, the most important foreign deployment of reservists since the Second World War. Over the previous twelve months, reservists had contributed to several important defence operations, including Operation Slipper as part of the war against terrorism, Operation Relex in defending Australia's borders, Operation Trek in the Solomon Islands, Operation Vartesi in Bougainville, and Operation Tanzanier in East Timor. I was particularly privileged to play my own part in the war in East Timor as a naval officer responsible for vetting the engagement of commercial shipping to ensure the safe, expeditious passage of troops and equipment at reasonable commercial rates to the war zones from Darwin and other parts. To the consternation of my wife, I was earlier given notice of call-up during the Gulf War but, to the relief of all, was never required to serve in that theatre.As Sir Winston Churchill said of the British reservists in the Second World War, `They are indeed twice the citizens for their service in the reserves.' The importance of their role to an early struggling colony was recognised by the second governor, Governor Hunter, who established the Loyal Sydney Association and the Loyal Parramatta Association, each of 50 men. Ever since, that military heritage of service has been present in Australia. It was a proud moment for all marchers to participate in that tradition as we proceeded down Macquarie Street past the podium, casting our eyes right. The meeting of eyes of military men and women and the senior officer on parade goes way back to the Middle Ages, and was repeated dutifully on that day.It was also supported by cadet units, who marched in formations of Air Force, Navy and Army cadets. The new Chief of the Defence Force, General Cosgrove, learned to love his craft as a cadet at Waverley College in my electorate, a school with a fine tradition of service through cadets for many years, thanks principally to the contribution of Captain Frost and others.Another important contribution made on the day was by the magnificent men and women of the SES, most of them volunteers. They acted as assistant police, and participated in the march where their numbers permitted. That fine tradition of voluntary contribution in times of national emergency is one of the most valuable this nation enjoys. In conclusion, it was a great day of national contribution and we should be proud of the service of our volunteers. (Time expired)552917:49:005529Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I rise tonight to talk about a program that I was involved with over the July break, and that of course is the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. It is not often that I stand in this place and actually commend the government for coming up with a program that is very worthwhile, but this Defence Force Parliamentary Program is indeed a tremendous initiative. It is one which the defence forces, I believe, also see as very worthwhile. It is not often I start with thankyous but I would like to start with some regarding that program today. Firstly, I would like to thank Gary Woolbrook from the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program for all his time and effort in organising events and making sure that we were well coordinated, well resourced and we knew where we were going, when we were going and how we were going to get there. I would also like to thank Lieutenant Commander Sam Jackman from the Navy. Lieutenant Commander Jackman actually received her promotion while she was in Darwin as part of the deployment, so it was a great effort to see her being rewarded for some fantastic efforts. We started the program on 15 July. We came to Canberra and we had a briefing from Rear Admiral Adams, who gave us a full briefing on the entire way the Navy operates, from the capabilities that we have, the ships that are in operation, and their strengths and weaknesses. So we actually had a very good understanding of where we were going as a navy and as a defence force. I thought that was an excellent briefing.I had the pleasure of going on to Cairns, where I joined HMAS Ipswich. HMAS Ipswich is a patrol boat, one of the smaller vessels that we have operating in our northern borders. Patrol boats are also involved in protecting our borders through Operation Relex and are looking at illegal fishing—we are trying to catch people who are coming in and trying to take our fish. The crew of the patrol boat are a really tight-knit unit. They are very professional and are some of the most wonderful people you could ever have the pleasure of serving with. When I arrived on Ipswich, I had not even considered the word `Ipswich' and its significance. I was soon told that Ipswich is known for fish and chips shops. They were going to put up photos of Pauline Hanson all over the place, but they decided not to. I thank them for that; I thought that was very good.In the trip from Cairns to Darwin, we were involved in a whole range of activities, from live firing exercises of the weapons, to ensure that everything was operating properly, to boarding exercises so that we could see how to get onto an illegal fishing vessel or indeed a vessel carrying people who are trying to cross our borders illegally. We did toxic hazard exercises so that, if there were toxic gases in the hold or in the ship, people could escape from those, and safety drills. The crew were absolutely professional in their approach. It was the XO's first voyage as the commander of a vessel and it was the navigator's first time in charge of navigating a vessel. While there was some deal of trepidation on my part—thinking that here we were screaming up the inside of the Great Barrier Reef at 20 knots in the middle of the night—you could certainly see from the professionalism of the people on board that it was never, ever going to be an issue. We now have in the chamber the member for Oxley, whose electorate covers Ipswich, and I would like to recognise him.In the short time I have left, I would like to name the members of the crew. We had Lieutenant Commander Doherty, a fantastic boss for the voyage. As I said, it was his first time in command of a vessel, but he did a tremendous job. We had Lieutenant Doolin, who had the pleasure of having me share a cabin with him. I kept him awake at night through my snoring, but he did not complain too badly. Sublieutenant Hibbard, the navigator, is a young man who was very impressed to be in charge of a naval vessel, and the responsibility he had in bringing it through the Great Barrier Reef was really fantastic. I will run through the others quickly: Petty Officer Ray Rosendale, Petty Officer Glenn Lee, Sublieutenant Hooper, Leading Seaman Lowe, Able Seaman Gardiner, Able Seaman Hampshire, Able Seaman Dorward, LSC Trapp, Chief Petty Officer Philip, Petty Officer Morris, Leading Seaman Padmore, Leading Seaman Ah Chee, Leading Seaman Sexton, Able Seaman Houghton, Able Seaman Crawford, Able Seaman Suckling, LS Cook Dwyer, who did a fantastic job keeping us fed, Able Seaman Martin, Able Seaman Thompson and Able Seaman Bentley. It was an honour to serve with those gentlemen. (Time expired)553017:54:005530Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise in the House this evening to recognise the benefits that Croc Festivals offer to young people, especially those who live in remote areas. Last Tuesday night, the culmination of two days work was on show in Kalgoorlie-Boulder, with a free community concert to mark the end of the Croc Festival. My thanks go to Esther Roadnight, local organising committee chair, and her members for their mighty effort in assisting the Croc crew. From all accounts, it was an occasion that will be long remembered. Regrettably, I was unable to attend due to my commitments here in Canberra. However, I was fortunate to attend the Croc Festival in the top end of my electorate in Kununurra last week and at Tom Price last year.It is not unusual for students at some of our more remote schools in Western Australia to have little or no contact with their peers. Members of Karratha Senior High School travelled by bus for approximately 24 hours to attend their second Croc Festival in Kununurra. This festival provides an outstanding opportunity for interaction and opens eyes to a broader horizon. With a focus on respect and culture, the Croc Festival encourages schools from outlying areas to take part in a variety of workshops that would otherwise be unavailable to these young people. It is an opportunity for students from outback schools to interact with other students and demonstrate their diverse theatrical skills. Who knows how many of the stars of the future will have their first performance on a Croc stage? Daytime workshop activities include subjects such as career and lifestyle guidance, information on the hazards of drug and alcohol abuse, sports coaching, art workshops and dietary advice, to mention just a few. The theme `respect yourself, respect your culture' is one that applies to every young person in Australia.The Kununurra experience was truly special. It was hugely popular. It was the largest camp under canvas that has ever been provided by the organisers—some 750 students and 250 staff all accommodated in tents erected by the Croc crew. Organisers such as Di Ausburne and Tess Nekrasov should be commended for the wonderful job they have done in promoting and coordinating the Croc Festival in the Kimberley. In Kununurra an average of 700 filling and nutritious meals, three times a day for three days, were served to a hungry crowd of students and staff—no easy feat for anyone. Also deserving of recognition is the festival executive producer, Peter Sjoquist, whose message to Kalgoorlie-Boulder last Tuesday was one of the need for change. He believes obstacles such as poor health, unemployment, incarceration, family breakdown and domestic violence can all be changed if more time and effort is put into educating, encouraging and devoting time generally to our young people.The Croc Festival is a federally funded initiative, established in 1998. The popularity of the festival in this time has soared from 325 students from 17 schools taking part in 1998 to 5,000 students from 136 schools participating in 2001. This year a record number of more than 7,000 students is expected to take part in the Croc Festival at seven festival sites, including the two held at Kununurra and Kalgoorlie-Boulder. I believe it is an opportunity that every school, if given the chance, should take full advantage of, and I highly recommend it to parents and students alike.553117:59:005531Tollner, David, MPMr TOLLNER00AN4SolomonLP10—I would like to quote from yesterday's Senate Hansard, where Senator Trish Crossin made the following statement:... one example was sent to us from the office of Mr David Tollner, who happens to be the member for Solomon. One woman marched into his office with an overpayment of nearly $3,000—a family debt payment. He simply said to her, `We don't deal with those sorts of street issues here. You had better go off and see either Mr Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, or Senator Crossin.'10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.18:00:005531House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Notices5531The following notices were given:EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott to move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following arrangements applying in relation to the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 unless the House otherwise orders:(1) the Bill stand referred to the Main Committee for the remainder of the second reading stage up to but not including the summing up by the mover of the motion for the second reading of the bill, or his nominee, and the putting of any questions at the conclusion of the second reading debate;(2) in speaking to the motion for the second reading of the Bill in the Main Committee each Member speaking for a period not exceeding 20 minutes;(3) during consideration of the Bill in the Main Committee the quorum of the Committee being three Members comprising the occupant of the Chair and two other Members; and(4) the Main Committee continuing debate on the Bill regardless of any unresolved questions.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr Hawker to move:That this House:(1) recognises the significant contribution Australia's defence servicemen and women are making overseas in places including East Timor, the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan;(2) praises the skills, dedication and professionalism of these fine young Australians;(3) draws these matters to the attention of Parliament and all Australians; and(4) acknowledges the success of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Programme in giving Members of Parliament a greater understanding and better appreciation of the commitment of our defence force personnel.2002-08-22—————The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members5532553209:40:005532Grierson, Sharon, MPMs GRIERSON00AMPNewcastleALP00—It gives me great pleasure to inform the House of the results of the 2002 Newcastle youth survey, Young Novocastrians make their voice heard, which was launched to mark the occasion of International Youth Day. The report is the result of a survey that was distributed to year 10 students and people aged 18 to 20 years living in the federal electorate of Newcastle. It details the views and opinions of over 1,000 young Novocastrians about the issues that matter most to them. The results show that young Novocastrians overwhelmingly consider education and employment to be the two most important issues for the federal government to address. Calls for better funding for education at all levels were made loud and clear, as was the need for government to create more jobs and provide more opportunities and assistance for those looking for work.The disturbingly high rate of unemployment in Newcastle was also noted by many of our young respondents. When asked to rank a set of eight issues in order of importance, health, education, employment and the environment were the four most important issues for young people in Newcastle, each issue drawing more than 100 responses as the single most important item. In response to the question `What do you most like about Newcastle?' an overwhelming majority of young people nominated the beaches as the single most loved feature of Newcastle. But they nominated as their second most important feature the strong community spirit in Newcastle. When asked if there were enough opportunities for young people in Newcastle, 67 per cent said no. The question `What would you most like to change about your city?' drew a range of responses but the two most popular were a strong desire to reduce the unemployment rate and a need to make our community safer, including a reduction of drug and alcohol abuse. They showed great wisdom. With regard to current levels of employment, 50 per cent had some form of paid job but 93 per cent of those were employed on a casual or part-time basis; only seven per cent had full-time work. Notwithstanding concerns about high unemployment levels in Newcastle, the vast majority of young people—88 per cent, in fact—remained overwhelmingly optimistic about finding full-time work in the future. Sadly, though, many young people anticipated having to leave Newcastle to find those jobs.Finally, almost all respondents nominated a range of activities that they are involved in. Music and sport dominated but it is significant that one in eight of 1,000-plus Novocastrians who responded do some sort of voluntary work for their community. I pay tribute to them for that great effort. One respondent said: `Ensure youth opinions are counted. We are the future.' I therefore call on our government to make the best possible use of young people's imagination, their energy and their indomitable spirit in building a better future for their city of Newcastle and for this country.553209:43:005532Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—I rise today with great pleasure to inform the House that we have achieved bipartisan support in my electorate of Flinders for the building of Somerville Secondary College. Somerville is a town that has grown and emerged over the last two decades. It now has over 1,536 secondary school aged children, and this number will grow over the next four years to over 1,600 children of secondary school age, yet there is no secondary college. After much hard work by the Somerville Secondary College Steering Committee, I am thrilled that they have been successful and that, along with others, I may have been able to play a small part in bringing to pass the building of this school for the future. In particular, I want to congratulate the members of the secondary college steering committee led by Phil Brake and comprising Fiona Prentice, Scott Holmes, Bruce Buchan, Rob Hansen and many others, all of whom have contributed over the last two years to a goal that they were initially told was impossible.That is a great feature of the democratic process. They were told that it would be impossible to, firstly, retain the land on which it was proposed the school would be built; and, secondly, to win support for the building of the school. But, through very hard work, and in conjunction with my state colleagues Neale Burgess, Robin Cooper and Ron Bowden, we compiled the figures from the latest census, which proved unequivocally that there was a desperate need for a school within that area. The consequence of that was a rock-solid pledge from the Liberal Party to build the Somerville Secondary College.These figures were initially rejected by the state government, but the force of weight behind them was ultimately accepted and we now have bipartisan support. No matter what happens, the school will be built and it will have a great impact on the future of the town. It will be a centre of excellence in education for the children of Somerville and Tyabb. It will be a centre for community activities, and above all else it will focus on the town no longer being a dormitory. It will be a destination in itself.It is not the end of the work; it is only the beginning. Together with Neale Burgess, we now turn to work on three things: additional police resources for the town of Somerville, additional basketball resources for the children and youth and a second chemist for the town of Somerville on the eastern side of Eramosa Road. All of these factors mean that the town will grow and go forward. In conclusion, I am delighted to announce that the Somerville Secondary College will be built. I congratulate all of those members of the steering committee, who have contributed so much over the last few years.553309:46:005533Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—An interesting problem confronted me as I toured my electorate in the month of July, as I usually do. Comments made to me seemed to come from the fact that there had been an unusually wet winter on the west coast of Tasmania. For west coasters to notice a slightly unusual weather pattern is odd, but to say that it is wetter than usual is very odd, because everybody knows the west coast is wet, particularly in winter. I know that your area needs rain, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, and I have been talking to Mr Cobb, the member for Parkes, on the other side of the chamber, about other parts of New South Wales that are in need of a lot of rain. Nevertheless, as I wandered around Queenstown and other parts of the west coast, I was accosted by people complaining bitterly about the weather. `Tell the Hydro to stop seeding clouds,' they said. `Have they been seeding them?' I asked, unaware of any such situation. There are no catchments to fill on the west coast. The reply from the people of the west coast was, `We hear those aeroplanes. They can't fool us. They come over every night.' So, whatever was going down, I had to find out. I rang the Hydro and asked, `Have you been seeding clouds lately?' They said they had, but not during the recent period. There had been some planes sent up to look at clouds but, as far as they were aware, no seeding had been done since June. So had it been a particularly wet season on the west coast of Tasmania?I recently read a report by an independent scientist who was looking at cloud seeding in Tasmania. The findings indicated that it has not been a particularly bad, wet winter. There have been a number of really bad ones, including 1980 and 1988, with the wettest October on record. It seems that the months of September and October provide more rain than July and August, so perhaps the rains are coming earlier than before. The figures did not tell me what the averages were for June and July; they concentrated on the higher rainfall months.So, no, I do not believe it is wetter on the west coast than usual. It might be more concentrated and more forceful, but can that be said to be wetter? There is another side that I am sure will not cheer people up: predictions from the CSIRO study indicate that Tasmania will tend to be drier in all seasons except winter and that this `wet' may be confined to the west coast, with stronger winds contributing to greater evaporation in the rain shadow in the east. (Time expired)553409:49:005534Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10—I would like once again to draw to the House's attention the incredible disaster that is happening in western New South Wales. The fact that we have already had enormous droughts in Queensland and that drought is spreading to Victoria should also be noted. In the last two weeks, I have travelled extensively in my electorate and gone to the places that seem to be the worst affected. I have gone from Nyngan through to Warren and to places as small as Coolabah and Girilambone, where the crops are dead in places. This is going to have an incredible effect, even thought this drought so far has had more of an effect upon the ability of farmers in the far west to manage their stock—and I will talk about Cobar and places like Ivanhoe in a second. I note that it is disastrous that over 50 per cent of the crops in New South Wales have not been sown or should not have been sown and are probably not going to produce anything. When you go to Girilambone or to Hermidale and see 25 farmers turn up at the drop of a hat—and this is an area that has not had crops for the last two years—you see that they are in a desperate situation.The state government has been very slow in acting, but the Commonwealth does have a duty now to look at those who have a long-term future and to keep them on that land. I went about 50 miles north of Cobar on the Wilcannia Road and met with a group of farmers to find that not only is this drought cutting their wool cut back by some 30 per cent on the previous year—which had been a difficult year—but also the winter rainfall in the Cobar region is the lowest it has been in some 50 years. It is certainly the lowest in recent times, following rainfall way below average in summer, autumn and spring last year. There are areas that have not had 12 months rainfall in almost two years. If you go between Cobar and Ivanhoe on that road, you will see a group of nine properties totally destocked; there is no stock on them. Within the Wilcannia Rural Lands Protection Board area we have a similar situation, with huge areas destocked. There are the odd places around the west that have fodder for stock, but this is the first drought that I can remember where water and feed are running out together. The Commonwealth government has a duty to keep people on the land where it is possible to do so.553409:52:005534Corcoran, Ann, MPMs CORCORAN009CWIsaacsALP00—I rise today to recount an alarming story of a constituent in my electorate, Veronica Kearney, of Cranbourne. Veronica has had a drawn-out and most frustrating experience over the last 13 months in trying to obtain wages owed to her by her ex-employer, Australian Ophthalmic Suppliers Pty Ltd, trading as Merringtons Optometrists. Veronica is a mature person with a long track record as a reliable employee. In June 2000, she undertook a retail traineeship, signed a training agreement and became an employee of Merringtons. Merringtons operates around 50 shops nationally and has taken on many trainees under the Commonwealth government's traineeships program. Veronica proved a valued employee—so much so that Merringtons awarded her a company paid holiday to Northern Australia in recognition of her strong work performance. When Veronica and Merringtons parted company in July 2001, after the 12 months of her traineeship had expired, she believed she was owed around $1,200 in wages and holiday pay. Veronica is still waiting for her pay 13 months later. Veronica is not alone; apparently there are many other Merringtons workers having trouble with their pay.On a broader canvas, Veronica's story illustrates the lack of industrial protection for literally hundreds of thousands of Victorian workers in this era of so-called workplace reform. The situation is a legacy of the Kennett government's abolition of the system of state industrial awards and slashing of workers' terms and conditions. In 1996, Victoria ceded its industrial jurisdiction over these workers to the Commonwealth government under the infamous schedule 1A of the Workplace Relations Act. The Commonwealth Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has investigated Veronica's case and determined that Veronica is owed well over $900 by Merringtons. However, this department appears to have extremely limited powers to force Merringtons to fulfil its responsibilities as an employer. After nearly 12 months of negotiations, the department still cannot make Merringtons pay up for Veronica or for any other of the cases on its books with Merringtons. Veronica's only recourse now is to personally take Merringtons to court, which she cannot afford to do.On the one hand, the Commonwealth is subsidising Merringtons to take on new trainees—and they are still being signed up by this company, which puts its hand out for the cash straight away—and, on the other hand, the Commonwealth Department of Employment and Workplace Relations is literally spending hundreds of work hours and taxpayers' dollars chasing the company to pay the wages it owes to its workers. This is a disgraceful situation, complicated by the way this government has chosen to administer the traineeship program through outsource brokers who have no brief to make sure employers live up to their responsibilities. I am making representations to both the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Education, Science and Training to try to get this matter resolved as quickly as possible and get Veronica paid. Nobody should have to wait for 13 months to get their pay.553509:55:005535Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Occasionally one gets the opportunity in the House to stand up and praise community organisations that do outstanding work not only on behalf of the local community but on behalf of people internationally. I want to praise today a local organisation which has worked hard over many years to establish itself as an international charity group. Helping Children Smile Inc.—and I am the patron of that organisation—was established some six to seven years ago. The organisation sends volunteer medical teams to the Philippines and to developing countries to conduct reconstructive surgery on children and occasionally on adults who suffer from cleft palate and lip abnormalities which are caused by malnutrition in mothers while pregnant.Helping Children Smile sends volunteer medical teams of 12 to 14 people to these developing countries and to the Philippines for a year. During the year, approximately 60 operations are conducted. To pay for reconstructive surgery like this, it would cost the parents of these children some five to seven years of wages. Funding to send the medical team of 12 to 14 costs $23,000 per annum. Money is raised from golf days and charity events, and I was recently pleased to help Helping Children Smile attain tax deductible status. To raise money for this organisation, I am abseiling down a high-rise building in my electorate on 2 October in an attempt to assist the work of this organisation internationally.I want to praise Cam Young, an ABC announcer and the vice-chairman of the group, who has put very many volunteer hours into the organisation and who has been to the Philippines on some of the missions. Also, last week I officially opened the organisation's first charity shop in Queen Street, Nambour, that will continue to raise funds needed each year. Laurie Rowe is the manager of the charity shop, and she has put in long volunteer hours to get the shop up and running.The great thing about Helping Children Smile is that every dollar paid goes to assist people overseas. Nothing is lost in administrative costs. This, of course, is great encouragement to people in the community to support this small group of Sunshine Coast residents who are trying to make and who are indeed making a very real difference. Valerie Smith-Orr, the president and founder of the group, who attends my church, St Mark's Anglican Church at Buderim, has made a great contribution to the Sunshine Coast and the organisation. On behalf of the parliament and on behalf of the community, I want to applaud the outstanding work carried out by Helping Children Smile and the selfless way that so many people give so much of their time. I hope to join one of these volunteer teams, at my own expense, and go to the Philippines to assist in this wonderful work.10000Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills5536R15825536Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion by Mrs Vale:That this bill be now read a second time.09:59:005536Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 includes a number of amendments necessary to make some minor improvements to the operation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. For the record, I will quickly summarise the changes, all of which are supported by the Labor Party. Part 1 of the bill corrects a minor anomaly where a small number of veteran pensioners in receipt of the age pension are in double jeopardy, to the extent that compensation for physical injury from a third party is taken to offset both the veterans' disability pension as well as their income support payment where it is currently being treated as ordinary income. This drafting oversight has resulted in an unfair outcome. In short, compensation for pain and suffering should only be offset against like compensation for the same injury. Where an element of economic compensation is involved, an offset against income support is justified. But this is not the subject of this provision. This amendment removes the element of double counting of third-party compensation and is, therefore, supported. The amendment in part 2 is also a minor one. In brief, amendments were made in 1997 to prevent lump sum settlements to the partner of a veteran being applied to the means test of the veterans themselves. It seems that at the time the operative date was not made clear. Hence, we have the clarification here that the previous amendment applies only to lump sums paid after 20 March 1997.Part 3 contains a more substantial amendment as it seeks to close a loophole which has been exploited by some who have succeeded in having retirement village entry contributions in excess of the threshold treated as rent. Hence, they qualify for taxpayer funded rent assistance. The amendment necessary to close this loophole created by a Federal Court decision has already been made to the Social Security Act but, as usual, it seems the Veterans' Entitlements Act lags behind.Part 4 simply extends the facility of telephone allowances to be available for mobile phones as well as fixed telephones. This is a practical amendment needed to make the benefit relevant. Part 5 is more complicated. Currently, a person cannot be paid rent assistance under the Veterans' Entitlements Act where there is a child for whom the family tax benefit is payable. This is because FTB already has included in it an element of rent assistance, but not for everybody. Those who have a right to receive maintenance for that child—if he or she is over 16, still at school and not in receipt of Youth Allowance—only get the base rate FTB which does not include rent assistance. This amendment will allow the latter class of people to claim rent assistance and so remove the unfairness of the current provision. It is understood that very few people are affected but, nevertheless, the amendment is worthwhile. Part 6 of the bill seeks to correct an error in the provision of the Pension Loans Scheme to those who inadvertently became eligible at the time when provision was made for those on the income support supplement—namely, a small number of people on a partner pension. This oversight is corrected and is accordingly supported. Part 7 relates to the provision of a Commonwealth seniors health card to war widows and widowers between the ages of 57 and 62 who are currently not eligible due to a lack of provision for their lower age eligibility. This has not been an issue until recently, as the benefits of the CSHC were not of significance to widows. Additions to the CSHC, however, such as discounts on Great Southern Railway, have created a demand for the card and, hence, the need to remove this unintended limitation.Finally, part 8 of the bill contains a simple change to clarify the definition of a non-illness separated spouse, which to date has assumed that such a person is a veteran; whereas, in fact, it could also be the veteran partner. This has some flow-on consequences such as the telephone allowance. Mr Deputy Speaker, we support the bill.10:03:005537Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Last Sunday, I joined a number of veterans to celebrate Vietnam Veterans Day, formerly called Long Tan Day. 83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—And a great day it was.AK6Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASH—It was, wasn't it? In fact, I try to involve myself in the veteran community as much as I can because you meet so many of our very special people. Many are down to earth and you feel that you can talk plainly and honestly with them and get an honest answer in return. Because veterans have seen some of the most unpleasant things in life, which many of us have not, they have a different perspective of the world. That is why I have so much time for the veteran community, their families and carers and why I think they deserve all that we can give them. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 is a reflection of this government's continuing commitment to veterans and that is why I gladly support the provisions. Whilst the provisions are certainly not dramatic or headline grabbing, they are nevertheless important in terms of the cumulative effects towards benefits. Each provision and amendment means something to someone and as such has to be addressed. The evolving and changing needs of the veteran community mean that we, as a government, need to keep abreast of changes to ensure that we do not inadvertently create a disadvantage. For instance, the provision to rectify the compensation recovery provisions of the act means that veterans will not be treated unfairly but in line with community expectations. It is not acceptable that situations should exist where certain pensioners are treated differently from others in similar circumstances. Although a small number of veterans will benefit, it is nevertheless an anomaly that we have corrected—as is the provision for addressing the issue of a partner's lump sum compensation payment impacting on the other partner's pension.I also welcome the amendment concerning the entry contributions to retirement villages so as to prevent the misuse of provisions to obtain rent assistance. Whilst this has no direct impact on anyone personally, it is an aspect that needed to be tidied up to make sure veterans are not brought into disrepute. The provision also brings the legislation into line with the Social Security Act, again ensuring equity with the rest of the community.As part of the process of keeping up with modern developments, I note that mobile phones have been recognised for the purpose of eligibility for telephone allowance. A number of veterans prefer this option because of their choice of lifestyle mobility. Such a choice should not disadvantage them and this amendment seeks to prevent this. The provision clarifies policy to ensure a disadvantage is not introduced because of a vagueness of language. I know of cases where individuals have missed out on entitlements because they were not certain of provisions and therefore did not apply. It is not always possible to get to those caught in that situation so we have to make the law as understandable as it can be. The government has introduced a number of initiatives in this direction to ensure that information is accessible in terms of being understandable and readable.Recently, veteran groups in the Shoalhaven have been given a grant to buy computer equipment to make veterans' services information more accessible. These grants were well received, as was the service by the primary users, the welfare officers. I know of two hardworking veterans' welfare officers in my area that are thrilled with the acquisition because it helps them with their work, and I would like to mention them today to acknowledge their contribution. They are Mr Rod Simpson of Jervis Bay and Mr Neal Gage of Nowra. Mr Simpson and Mr Gage would welcome the news that this bill will also advantage veteran pensioners receiving family tax benefit with no rent assistance component. The provision will bring them into line with other social security recipients to make sure veterans pensions are treated equitably.Lastly, the extension of the eligibility criteria for the pensions loans scheme to certain persons who are not a veteran or the partners of a veteran will assist by allowing access from the time of qualifying age rather than pension age. It benefits those who might be on income support but have not yet reached pension age, because the definition of qualifying age is five years earlier. It will benefit war widows and widowers particularly. It will also enable war widows and widowers early eligibility for the Commonwealth seniors health care card. These provisions, although seemingly small, are nevertheless important and I applaud the government's initiative in introducing them. There are still a number of issues to be worked through, and we will continue to explore them under this government. The electorate of Gilmore has a proportionally large veteran community, who take an active interest in issues affecting Australia, particularly in respect of our commitments overseas. Having two naval bases means we see veterans of modern conflicts passing through our doors. Despite the age differences between veterans, they hold similar values and outlooks because of the common bond that service to Australia has brought them. I look forward to further initiatives from this government to benefit the veteran community.10:08:005538Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—I am particularly pleased that I am able to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 because it deals with a group of people in the community who are very dear to my heart. The Australian veteran community deserves generous support, care and compensation through a simple, fair and responsive system unique to their needs. It is vital that the service of our veterans continues to be honoured publicly and proudly by their fellow Australians, particularly by the generations who have never known or witnessed the harrowing experience of war. Never before have we had so much support for our veteran community, with record numbers of people coming out to support our veterans on occasions such as Anzac Day and Remembrance Day.Just last week, 10 World War II veterans were guests of honour at a ceremony in Papua New Guinea to mark the 60th anniversary of the battle of the Kokoda Track. There the Prime Minister unveiled a new memorial at Isurava, which overlooks the Kokoda valley and the site where the Australian forces dug in to face the Japanese invasion. The memorial features four sentinel stones engraved with the words `courage', `endurance', `sacrifice' and `mateship'. The words have a special significance to our national identity and have been embraced by young and old.Still on matters overseas, I take this opportunity to mention how pleased I am by the recent decision by the French government to abandon plans for an international airport in the Somme region. The proposed site for the new airport included an area which contained war cemeteries containing the war graves of 61 Australians killed during the two world wars. It is a credit not only to federal ministers from this government who made personal representations on this matter but also to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.This year we have also seen the passing of a number of fine veterans. Australia's last Light Horseman, Albert Whitmore, passed away at the age of 102. World War I veteran of the Royal Australian Navy Lesley Sykes passed away at the age of 103. World War I digger and Australia's oldest man, Jack Lockett, passed away at the age of 111. World War I veteran Raymond Durston passed away at the age of 102. World War II veteran and Victoria Cross recipient Sir Arthur Roden Cutler passed away at the age of 85. In the last year, we have also seen the passing of the last known ANZAC, Alec Campbell. These men are to be honoured.Before I speak on the various amendments to this bill, I may take the opportunity to recognise those in my electorate whom I caught up with at recent ceremonies for veterans. Last Sunday was Vietnam Veterans Day and the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. The Great Lake Vietnam Veterans Association had planned to march on the day but, when I spoke to them, they were struck by the problem of affording public liability insurance. The association was told they could not march unless they increased their insurance cover, which was a sum too high for the association to afford. Spiralling premium increases have affected so many in our community, and I was appalled that an association like the Vietnam Veterans would be facing a problem like this that threatened to leave them out of the march. Thankfully, the matter was sorted out before the Sunday march, but it certainly brings home the impact that the insurance problem is having on our community—and it needs a quick resolution.I met with the association to present them with a cheque from the government's Building Excellence in Support and Training program, and I caught up with members, including Robbie Campbell, Bill Olson, Peter Craig and Robert Allport. On the same day, I also presented a cheque to Forster Tuncurry Legacy, which is one of the biggest in the region, where I caught up with Lyn Middleton, Alan Dreyer, Joe Dawson, Brian Lennon and Geoff Yarnold. I was also able to meet with some of the members of the East Maitland RSL sub-branch recently when I presented them with a cheque for $1,500. I met with Peter Harvey, Fred Goddard and Harold Jackson. This money was used to assist the branch with the regilding of letters on the honour roll of the cenotaph. The cenotaph itself was dedicated in 1923 and, over time, some of the names on the roll have weathered. It is important that we honour these people and keep their names in the public eye. I also presented a cheque to Ted Gurry from Karuah RSL sub-branch, because that sub-branch also needed to clean up their war memorial after years of weathering. I have been in contact with residents in Morpeth community, including Pam Misner, who is now working to bring a war memorial to this historic town. For years, the residents in Morpeth have had to travel to other towns or simply go without a memorial during Anzac and other commemoration ceremonies. I am happy to be able to assist them and work with the community to try and bring a memorial to life in their town.This bill will assist veterans in my electorate. It contains a number of minor measures to clarify the legislation and to correct a number of anomalies in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. These measures include the removal of the inequity in the way in which various compensation recovery provisions of the act operate. The removal of this inequity will ensure all vet pensioners subject to the recovery provisions are treated fairly. The measures will also ensure that the pension of the partner of the person receiving lump sum compensation payments will not be taken into account in determining the amount to be recovered directly from a compensation payer or insurer. It will prevent the misuse of the provisions relating to the payment of entry contributions to retirement villages or for the purposes of obtaining rent assistance. It will provide for pensioners who operate a mobile telephone instead of a fixed telephone line, such as those living in caravan parks. They will be eligible for telephone assistance.It will align eligibility for rent assistance for veteran pensioners receiving family tax benefits with that of social security pensioners in similar circumstances. It will extend the eligibility for the Pension Loans Scheme to persons who are not veterans or the partners of veterans. This extension will mainly benefit persons eligible for, or in receipt of, the income support supplement. The measure will also enable persons eligible for, or in receipt of, the income support supplement to be eligible for the Pension Loans Scheme from qualifying age rather than from pension age. It will also enable war widows and war widowers to be eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card from qualifying age rather than from pension age.Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, as you would know from your own electorate, all of these measures demonstrate a strong commitment to our veteran community and the need to provide the best system of support possible. That commitment to making sure that government gets it right when it comes to veterans pensions and other benefits is clear. When the Minister for Veterans' Affairs announced the independent inquiry into anomalies in the system earlier this year, there was an overwhelming response to this inquiry from veterans, including from those in my electorate. Some travelled to Newcastle when the inquiry was on and spent a day in the area, just for the opportunity to put their views forward. I am looking forward to the results of this inquiry and I hope that any changes that are proposed to streamline and iron out any problems with the system are quickly implemented by this government. Our service personnel, our veterans, the people who laid it on the line for our country—for your freedom and mine—deserve the best that this country can possibly afford to give them. These are fine men and women and they deserve simply the best.10:16:005540Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I join the member for Paterson in saying that it is extremely important that we honour our veterans. Their contribution to Australia has been enormous. I honour every veteran within the Shortland electorate and thank them for their commitment to Australia and for their ongoing commitment to the community that they live in. The commitment that the veterans made at their time of service continues. They were prepared to make sacrifices for their country, but now they make sacrifices for their communities and they constantly work within their communities to ensure that those communities are better places for everyone who lives in them. I join with previous speakers in recognising the role that veterans have played in protecting Australia, the service that they have given for their country and the ongoing service that they give to their communities.The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 has been introduced to rectify drafting problems in the original legislation. It is unfortunate that so often in this place we have to come back and revisit legislation that has gone through the House and alter it in order to rectify problems. I think that it is a problem that the government should look at. It should ensure that legislation is properly drafted when it is introduced. More emphasis should be placed on looking at the implications that that legislation has. When I was a member of the state parliament, I was involved in the Joint Parliamentary Regulation Review Committee. One of the things that we did there was to ensure that a regulatory impact statement was prepared for every piece of legislation. That tended to pick up a lot of the problems that we constantly see being put before the parliament. I do not remember us having to revisit legislation to the degree that we do in this parliament. I really believe that that is something the government should take on board. It should put more effort into ensuring that it gets it right the first time.The amendments to the original legislation should be supported. They remove double counting, whereby third-party compensation paid to a veteran for the same injury currently receives both the disability and the service pension, and reduce both of those. Obviously, this should not happen; obviously, it should have been picked up in the first instance. I think it is important that this amending bill is passed. The previous bill that went through in March led to a reduction in pensions as a result of third-party lump sum payments. It was restricted to the number of couples to whom the lump sum was paid without affecting the pension which was previously received; however, it was not clear that any necessary recalculations were limited to cases that were after 20 March 1997. Once again, it is purely a technical matter, and it is something that would have been taken care of if the proper steps had been taken when the legislation was introduced.This bill also deals with rent assistance for people in retirement villages; once again, that is something that needed to be fixed. There is a technical amendment that allows payment for mobile phones under the telephone allowance, and I can assure the House that a number of pensioners are now using mobile phones. They are a viable option and they are actually a cheaper option for them than having a land line, and they should not be penalised because they are trying to balance their budgets. Once again, this is something that should have been addressed initially.The bill deals with an entitlement act for the payment of rent assistance to families who receive a family tax payment where a veteran is disadvantaged compared to others. Talking about rent assistance, I think there is another issue that relates to war widows. War widows who are renting and who have a gold card are being denied rent assistance through Centrelink. This is another issue that the government needs to have a look at because I think it is an unintended consequence. It is a consequence that is causing hardship to a number of people and one that needs to be revisited, just as the government has revisited access to a range of welfare benefits for those people who reach the minimum requirement of 57 years of age but are restricted from eligibility for the seniors health card until they are 62 years old. The issue of rent assistance is one that really needs to be looked at. It is pleasing to see that the payment of the partner's pension to partners of veterans has been fixed up, because it is not right that they should be ineligible. Finally, it was important that the telephone allowance was amended. As I have already indicated, these are matters that we should not have had to revisit.There is another issue I feel I should raise in relation to veterans. It is an issue that has started to become quite a problem and one that a number of veterans are contacting my office about. Veterans can no longer use their gold card. General practitioners and specialists are rejecting their gold card when veterans go to see them. I am sure that members on both sides of the House are extremely concerned about this. I believe it is part of a campaign. Doctors are lobbying for an increase in the fees for treatment of veterans under the Repatriation Private Patients Scheme.I am sure that members on both sides of the House have received letters from the AMA setting out why there should be an increase in the fees that are paid. I also understand that the minister has been meeting with doctors. This is something that needs to be resolved immediately. It is having an enormous impact on veterans in communities such as mine. The Shortland electorate has the second highest number of veterans in a Labor-held electorate in Australia, so I am very aware of the implications for those veterans and of the hardships that it will cause and is already causing them. I surveyed 24 doctors in the northern part of my electorate and found out that 21 per cent of those doctors are no longer accepting the gold card for our veterans. That really is not good enough.Our veterans deserve to have the medical treatment that they are entitled to. They were prepared to make sacrifices for our country, and the least that this country and this government can do is ensure that they get the treatment that they deserve. I would have thought that members on the other side of this House would be prepared to join with me in this campaign. It is not about naming one doctor or another; it is about ensuring that our veterans in our communities can use their gold cards in the way that they have been promised they can use them. Doctors argue that they can no longer afford it, that the rates are too low and that the medical indemnity insurance premiums are adding to their costs, but these are not good enough reasons. The government needs to talk to them in order to resolve the problem, and they need to ensure that our veterans can get the medical treatment that they have been promised with that gold card.The problem is exacerbated in areas such as mine because there is a considerable distance between Medicare offices. The government chose to close a Medicare office which necessitates a number of older people having to drive or catch buses that take them over an hour to get to a Medicare office. There is not an appropriate level of Medicare easy claims for them to be able to access their payments through pharmacies. This problem with the gold card is causing hardship to people throughout my electorate and throughout the country. I have received phone calls from a number of veterans from the Central Coast part of my electorate. There is already a chronic shortage of doctors and poor access, as I have mentioned, to Medicare offices. The fees that doctors are charging are increasing, and that relates to the medical indemnity insurance crisis which the government really has not worked on solving.There are a number of really severe problems that our veteran communities are facing. They continue to face them, and the government continues to refuse to act to solve these problems, even to the extent of increasing the problems and hardships that they have. I urge members on the other side of the House to actively campaign within their party room to see that this issue with the gold card is resolved because it is hurting veterans and it is hurting them now. I think it is one of the priorities for the government. I support the amendments that this bill seeks to make to the existing act. In doing so, I urge the government to take more care with their initial legislation to ensure that we do not have to continually come back and revisit legislation. Maybe they should make a little bit more use of regulatory impact statements.10:30:005543Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLPMinister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs10—I am here at the request of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is detained on other business in the House, and I am pleased to be involved in the second reading debate of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 and to sum it up. I would like to thank the members for Cowan, Gilmore, Paterson and Shortland for their contributions. The members for Gilmore and Paterson gave very fine addresses which offered tremendous insight into their commitment to the veterans in their communities. We appreciate the support of the members of the Australian Labor Party on the legislation contained in this package but note the contrast between the member for Cowan and the member for Shortland. While the member for Cowan offered us brevity and credibility, the member for Shortland did not. I, like the members for Gilmore and Paterson, have a lot to do with the veterans in my community. I will delay the House a moment to acknowledge that the Saluting their Service initiative that Minister Vale offered Australia the other day, which is a continuation of a longstanding tradition of good government packages of celebration and commemoration—celebration of the spirit of the people involved and commemoration of the service that they gave so that we can enjoy the freedoms we have in this country—is an initiative worth getting behind.The Stephens RSL is my electorate last week had yet another Victory in the Pacific Day commemoration. It was a very short ceremony where, sadly, this year the numbers were down to just 20 people. Norm Ballard, the president, and Jim Clarkson, the secretary, offer the stewardship they have offered for years. It was saddened by the passing of Keith Boyling, who, after 55 years, was one of the longstanding members of Stephens RSL. It is worth noting also Sherwood RSL's Kokoda Track Memorial, which I had the high honour of opening the other week. President Ron McElwaine, his predecessor, Miles Farmer OAM, Graeme Loughton and others associated with that club ensure that the saluting of service takes place in the grassroots of our community, and that is something worth recording in this place.It is right, as all members in this debate said, that we take time to consider our responsibilities to uphold the commitment we gave service personnel of many years ago and of more recent years that we shall remember them, that we will always honour them and that we will assist them. This Sunday, the Brisbane South branch of the National Servicemen's Association are having the second event of the conferring of National Servicemen's Medals, and they have asked me to come and participate in that. As a representative of the government and as somebody who assisted them in their fight for that medal, it is an extremely high honour that they pay me—as somebody who has never put on the uniform, who has never fought for this country and who has never been prepared because the opportunity has never availed itself due to their efforts. I grew up in an environment where the Vietnam War was on the nightly news and I breathed a sigh of relief when national service was ended and the war itself stopped.The bill before us, while very important specifically to the veterans' community—whether or not it is part of the ongoing effort of government to finetune arrangements and to continue to make them relevant and up to date—is relevant for Australians of all backgrounds. The veterans community share with children. They show children so much of what they have done; they relate to children. In my electorate, Wellers Hill State School now have a wonderful memorial in their grounds where veterans come and tell the tales of what they did when they were in their late teens and early 20s. The kids of today greatly appreciate that service. They do have a greater understanding than many might give them credit for.Acknowledging that it has been the work of governments of both sides of the political spectrum, I suspect that, along with the member for Cowan, the member for Bowman on the opposition side would have a high level of credibility, as he was a fine veterans' affairs minister—as, indeed, the member for Maranoa was and the member for Hughes is now. In paying tribute to the member for Hughes as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I acknowledge the way in which she and the RSL President, Peter Phillips, are trying to involve those who have come from other cultural backgrounds to live in Australia. I believe very fine efforts are being made these days to involve all Australians of all backgrounds in this sense of commemoration and honour.This government and its predecessors have, over the last eight decades, developed a comprehensive repatriation system that recognises the special standing and the needs of the veterans community. The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 is further evidence of this government's continued commitment to improve the compensation and assistance that is provided to veterans and their dependants through the repatriation system. The system provides a wide range of benefits to compensate veterans and their dependants for injury, disability or death resulting from their service during wartime or other conflicts.This bill includes minor policy changes that will improve the operation of the repatriation system by removing some anomalies to ensure that all veterans and their dependants are treated fairly. Other changes included in the bill will improve the delivery of the benefits and services that are provided under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The bill also includes amendments to the VEA to reflect legislative changes to the social security system that will ensure that both systems continue to operate consistently and fairly. The bill amends the compensation recovery provisions to remove the anomaly that has caused some civilian compensation payments that had been offset against a disability pension to also be counted as income for the purposes of the income test. The compensation recovery provisions are also being amended to provide for the direct recovery of debts from compensation payers and insurers in respect of the partner of a person who has received lump sum compensation.The bill will also clarify policy in relation to telephone allowance to ensure that eligible persons with a mobile telephone service and no traditional fixed line telephone service are eligible for the telephone allowance. The bill also contains two measures that will align the eligibility provisions for rent assistance for veteran pensioners with those of the Social Security Act 1991. The first will ensure that pensioners who receive a base rate family tax benefit with no rent component will also be eligible for rent assistance under the VEA. The second measure will ensure that the treatment of retirement village entry contribution payments under both acts is consistent for the purposes of being eligible for rent assistance.Further anomalies which will be removed by measures contained in the bill are those that relate to the eligibility criteria for the Pension Loans Scheme. The Pension Loans Scheme provides additional income support to eligible persons in the form of a loan. Included in the amendments are changes that will enable certain persons who are not a veteran or the partner of a veteran to have access to the scheme. Other changes will enable eligible income support supplement recipients to be eligible for the scheme from the earlier qualifying age rather than from the pension age. Similar amendments to the eligibility criteria for the Commonwealth seniors health card have also been included in the bill to enable war widows and war widowers to be eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card from qualifying age rather than from the pension age.During its six and a bit years in office, this government has had a demonstrated commitment to veterans and their families to improve the repatriation system to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of those who have served our country. The Howard government continues to demonstrate that commitment to veterans and their families with the initiatives contained in this bill. No group in our community is more deserving of our admiration and gratitude than those men and women who have served Australia in times of war and conflict. The passage of this bill will therefore be yet another step forward in meeting the changing needs of the veteran community. The bill will ensure that greater numbers of the veteran community will be able to enjoy the high standard of compensation and care that the repatriation system provides through increased access to its generous benefits and quality health care services—which are, indeed, the envy of the rest of the world. I commend this bill to the chamber.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills5545S351Debate resumed from 27 June.554510:41:005545Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This bill contains two classes of amendments relating to the Health Insurance Commission. The first class of amendments modernises the financial regime applying to the Health Insurance Commission. The commission has been operating under a much less flexible investment, budget estimates and borrowing framework than that which applies to other non-GBE Commonwealth authorities. The effect of the amendments will be to apply the general provisions of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, applying to such authorities in the areas of budget estimates and investment of surplus moneys, to the commission. In addition, the commission will be able to borrow money for the purposes of its functions, with the written approval of the finance minister. Currently the commission is unable to borrow moneys at all and has only a limited ability to invest surplus moneys. The commission will better be able to deliver quality outcomes and substantial savings both to itself and to the Commonwealth with the application of a more flexible and modern—but still properly transparent and accountable—financial regime. The amendments will also remove the `hedging' provisions of the act, reflecting the position that `hedging' is no longer an appropriate feature of the commission's financial regime, given its current functions.The other class of amendments concerns the number of commissioners of the Health Insurance Commission. This proposed amendment relates to legislative changes made at the time of the separation of Medibank Private from the Health Insurance Commission. Under the Health Insurance Commission (Reform and Separation of Functions) Act 1997, the number of commissioners, in addition to the chairperson and managing director, increased for a five-year period from seven to nine, but then was to decrease to five. The amendment contained in this bill will operate so that the number of these additional commissioners will be seven, rather than five. Originally it had been thought that the optimum number of commissioners, in addition to the chairperson and managing director, beyond the transitional period covering Medibank Private's separation from the Health Insurance Commission, was five. However, it is now clear that the commission's continued effective functioning, particularly in terms of its committee structures, will require a complement of seven additional commissioners, looking beyond November 2002.I present the signed explanatory memorandum to this bill.10:43:005546Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill 2002 seeks to amend the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973 to increase the number of commissioners from five to seven, remove the ability of the commission to enter into hedging arrangements, allow the commission to invest its surplus moneys and to borrow money, and modify the budget estimates provisions applying to the commission. Labor recognises the need for the Health Insurance Commission to have a sufficient number of commissioners to adequately conduct its work. The Health Insurance Commission has acquired the responsibility for managing measures, including the private health insurance rebate. For this reason, we on this side of the chamber support an increase in the number of commissioners from five to seven.Given the record of the Howard government and the Treasurer's flippant attitude to his previous gambling losses—an attitude you can only afford when you are gambling with taxpayers' money and not your own—Labor is happy to support the provision that would prevent the Health Insurance Commission from engaging in financial hedging. Earlier this year, Treasury figures showed that under Mr Costello's management of the currency swaps program the government lost $4.8 billion over the past four years. As a result, Australian taxpayers have been landed with Peter Costello's gambling debts. A Productivity Commission report found that Australia's 290,000 problem gamblers lose $3.5 billion a year. Casino Costello single-handedly cost Australian taxpayers even more than that. So we support the measures that remove the capacity of the Health Insurance Commission to enter into hedging arrangements—unless handled with care, it would have the potential for sustained significant financial losses.Provisions that would allow the Health Insurance Commission to borrow moneys for the purpose of its statutory function and which remove the special budget estimates provision applying to the Health Insurance Commission have caused Labor some concern. We have had a number of detailed briefings on these two measures and the HIC has advised us that the commission, not the Department of Finance and Administration, requested these changes. With respect to the provisions which allow borrowing, the commission has indicated that there are no specific projects identified for which borrowings would be made. While the borrowing provision is uncapped, the commission has indicated to the opposition that any single loan would not exceed $30 million, with interest rates fixed at the 10-year bond rate. It is claimed that such borrowing provisions provide efficiencies to the Commonwealth. On the basis of the detailed advice from the government on these matters we are now satisfied that borrowings made under this provision would be required to be adequately reported through the Senate estimates process. During that process we will monitor any implementation of this borrowing authority.The opposition believes that the Health Insurance Commission—with its role in Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the private health insurance rebate—should be subject to strong and detailed reporting requirements. The opposition has every right to be concerned about the accountability of government spending within the health portfolio. In particular, the government has moved the costs of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate into the contingency reserve, where it can no longer be subject to detailed scrutiny as to future projections. As a result, it will be impossible to know just how much the government is spending on a measure which it says is designed to ease the burden on the public hospital system. When the government says it is doing something to ease the burden on public hospitals—something the government in fact rarely says—it is always very difficult to believe. The explicit justification given by the Howard government for the private health insurance rebate initiative was that it would help take the pressure off public hospitals. But the latest figures on hospital admissions seem to indicate that the private health insurance rebate has not taken any pressure off public hospitals. In its first full year of operation, its effect on the rate of public hospital admissions was negligible and the median waiting time for elective surgery in public hospitals nationally was unchanged at 27 days. Labor's ultimate view of the rebate and our policy position on it in the run-up to the next election will be guided by a number of considerations, not the least of which will be an aversion to putting more financial pressure on Australian families. For families, the rebate is not a health issue but a family budget issue.With respect to the changes to the special budget estimates provisions, the bill applies to the Health Insurance Commission and the general provisions of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 that currently apply to the other non-government business enterprises such as the CSIRO. On the basis of the briefings provided to the opposition by the government we have been satisfied that the new reporting requirements which will apply to the Health Insurance Commission are no weaker than those currently in place. Accordingly, Labor does not oppose the bill.10:49:005547Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—I am delighted to speak today on the Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill 2002. I wish to speak on three issues: firstly, how the bill relates to my electorate of Flinders and, in particular, the need for an action plan for health facilities in Rosebud and on the Mornington Peninsula; secondly, the government's general package of reforms for the Health Insurance Commission and how it will assist with the quality of health services in Australia generally; and, thirdly, the specific provisions of the bill and how they will help with the administration of the Health Insurance Commission's work and the quality of health care throughout Australia.I now turn to health facilities, the first of those elements. I wish to focus on the problems and challenges that face my electorate. Recently I have been fortunate to contribute to—and I have announced—a number of initiatives for the Gippsland side of my electorate, all of which have had a profound effect on health services. The first of these is the allocation of 40 aged care beds to Warley Hospital, on Phillip Island, and 27 home and community care places to the magnificent San Remo and District Health Centre. In addition to that announcement, a second medical practice—the Hazelwood Medical Practice—has opened and is a beneficiary of the government's regional health program to assist doctors from regional areas, which has led to the increase in bulk-billing through the Hazelwood practice and through its competitors, which have now adopted bulk-billing. There has been a great improvement in the numbers of doctors, the choices available to patients and the capacity for patients to have their concerns met immediately.Only last week I was at the San Remo and district health and community centre to announce an additional package of approximately $500,000 over three years for mobile services in towns such as Grantville, Corinella, Coronet Bay, Pioneer Bay, San Remo and Rhyll, as well as many of the other small towns in the area, such as Bass and Woolamai. Under the government's Regional Health Services Program, this will bring health services to all of these small towns.On the other side of the electorate, within the areas of Rosebud, Rye, the Mornington Peninsula coastal area and Hastings, we have made significant progress. But it is my view that there are still three challenges that need to be met: firstly, there is extreme difficulty attracting doctors to the southern portion of the Mornington Peninsula, which has been evidenced by the closure of two practices and the likely closure of a third practice in the near future; secondly, there has been a consequential decline in competition, the result being a decrease in the availability of Medicare bulk-billing facilities, which impacts particularly on the elderly and on low-income families. The point that has been made by many of those is that they accept the notion of a copayment but the challenge they face is that, if they pay the whole amount at the time of consultation, they need to be able to get the money back in as short a period of time as possible. So work needs to be done on that. I met last week with the general practice division of the Mornington Peninsula. We are making progress, and I have a number of recommendations.The third challenge we face on the Mornington Peninsula side of the electorate is the imminent closure of the Rosebud emergency services ward between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. due to the Peninsula Health Service's inability to attract doctors to staff the emergency service centre during those hours. That is a matter for the state government, and I urge them to work on it immediately as a matter of priority. I understand from the director of the Peninsula Health Service that progress has been made, but there are significant challenges and risks to the community if the state government does allow the closure to occur. The interim solution is welcome, but we do need a permanent solution.It is my view that there are up to five steps that we can take to help with the fulfilment of the Health Insurance Commission's objectives for the Mornington Peninsula. The first is the inclusion of the Rosebud coastal strip in the outer metropolitan doctors scheme. This strip is more than 60 kilometres by road from the Melbourne GPO. The second is the creation of a special training regime for Rosebud hospital to help attract doctors to the area and to the hospital. I urge the state government to take that on as a priority and to work with the federal government in that area.The third is some form, if it were possible, of direct allocation of provider numbers for the Rosebud area. The fourth, and this is an interesting one, is to approve the capacity of the Australian Locum Medical Service to provide telephone advice without having to directly charge patients referred by their doctors for such action. At present the director of the Australian Locum Medical Service has indicated to me that he would be delighted to offer the service to Rosebud residents. However, due to the lack of a dispensation to do so from the Health Insurance Commission, he is forced to charge patients directly, and this has a massive impact in decreasing the attractiveness of the service and therefore decreasing the ability of local doctors to provide an out-of-hours service. The fifth item in the action plan for discussion with the Health Insurance Commission is the establishment of a Medicare claims desk in the new Rosebud Centrelink office, which is about to be built. Rosebud is having a purpose-built Centrelink office, and it is my belief that, given that there are no Medicare claims offices within the entire electorate of Flinders and given that Flinders has suffered the greatest decline in bulk-billing over the last two years of any electorate nationally, it would be fair and appropriate to include a Medicare claims desk within that new purpose-built facility. I will be seeking the support of both the minister and the parliamentary secretary for this initiative, although I am aware of the challenges that the government are facing. All of those are positive steps which we propose to take in conjunction with the HIC, which brings me to the specific elements of the bill and the HIC more broadly.The HIC plays an important role in administering the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register, the Australian Organ Donor Register and the Medicare program, above all else. These programs are vital in the provision of health services to all Australians. The bill's financial amendments are required because it is necessary to increase the flexibility of the HIC's financial arrangements so that it will be better able to meet its health objectives and be able to bridge operational shortfalls if necessary. The bill will allow the HIC to control its borrowing appropriately. It is part of a wider plan to improve the HIC and its programs. In this year's budget, the 2002-03 Commonwealth budget, there is $30 billion for the Health portfolio for this financial year. This compares with $18 billion in the period 1995-96—the last year of the Labor government. On that basis, there is a 60 per cent increase in the total budget. In addition, we have had a real increase of 28 per cent on the last agreement negotiated by the previous Labor government in relation to the provision of funding to the states and territories under the Australian Health Care Agreement. In the 2001 budget, we spent $22 million to support the Council of Safety and Quality in Health Care, which was itself a creation of the current government. Recently, under the 2002 budget, $300 million was provided for increased Medicare rebates for GP visits, $120 million was provided for GPs to allow them to develop their mental health expertise, $72 million was provided to increase the rates of women being screened for cervical cancer and $43 million was provided to increase the availability of after-hours and emergency care. All of these elements, I believe, are critical. In that context, the current Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill 2002 contains two principal classes of amendments. The first is to improve the financial arrangements of the HIC and the second is to expand the number of commissioners. In looking at the financial arrangement amendments, it can be said that the current financial arrangements have significant room for improvement. That is the very reason why the government is seeking to make the changes. They operate under a position which is less than it should be in terms of flexibility for investment, budget estimates and the borrowing framework. They have no power to borrow moneys, they have very limited investment power and they may only invest surplus moneys for the performance of Medicare functions. The bill would enable the HIC to borrow for the purpose of their functions. However, there will be important legislative and internal controls. On the legislative front they will only be able to borrow with the written approval of the finance minister, and only for the purpose of the HIC's functions.In terms of the internal HIC controls, the HIC policy and procedures will declare that there must be formal financial delegation processes. They will be benchmarked against best practice and there will be external audit reviews. By doing those things, the HIC will be in a more flexible position to deal with the financial requirements of a massive budgetary situation.I want to leave the bill itself at that level and, in my concluding remarks, return to my overview. Significant strides have been made within my own electorate of Flinders and within the country more generally in terms of the operation of the HIC and the practical delivery of services to individuals. From Phillip Island, I have had clear explanations from people that they have found it easier to obtain doctors' services in the last year. They have found that there is more choice and that they have more flexibility. I also make the point that there are challenges, that we live in a time of scarcity. On all of these occasions, we are expanding the range of services. In doing that, I look to my own electorate and say that we have had some challenges. But I have had genuine representations from people who look for greater flexibility. We look to achieve those results through the HIC and expansion of Medicare facilities. My final point is to make a plea to the doctors of the Mornington Peninsula to work with me and Bruce Billson to introduce the HIC online system. This is a system that allows patients to have immediate access to their rebate, paid directly to their own accounts. In that situation, I would urge the doctors of the Mornington Peninsula to adopt this system in their practices and surgeries, to work with us and to outline any challenges they face in implementing it. As a consequence of so doing, they will provide their patients with a service that will mean they will be able to input their Medicare rebate claims from the surgery and have them paid out immediately. It gives me great pleasure to commend the Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill 2002 to the House.11:02:005550Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing10—in reply—In my role today as parliamentary secretary, I will sum up on this bill. Firstly, I thank the opposition for its support and for the timely passage of this bill through the House of Representatives—obviously, because of the lack of opposition. I thank the members for Lowe and Flinders for their contributions, although I am not sure that the member for Lowe spent much time speaking about this particular bill. It was good of him to take part in the debate. The member for Flinders as usual not only spelt out what was in the bill but also spoke passionately about his electorate, in which I know he has a great interest because of the number of letters he writes to both the minister and me about health related issues in his electorate. I compliment him on his contribution this morning and also on his very conscientious work for his electorate.As I said earlier this morning in the second reading speech, this bill relates to two aspects of the operation of the Health Insurance Commission: firstly, the financial regime under which the HIC operates, and, secondly, the number of commissioners which comprise the commission. The bill modernises the financial regime applying to the HIC in the areas of investment, budget estimates and borrowing. The other class of amendments concerns the number of commissioners of the HIC. From November this year, there will be seven commissioners in addition to the chairperson and the managing director. Again, I thank those who have contributed to this debate and commend the bill to the chamber.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Adjournment5550Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY (Dawson) (11.04 a.m.)—I move:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.555011:05:005550Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Shortland electorate is the 12th oldest electorate in Australia. Unfortunately, the resources within the electorate do not meet the needs of the people. As well as being the 12th oldest electorate in Australia, Shortland also has the 10th lowest median income, which I really think reflects to some degree the fact that it is such an ageing electorate. I have been so concerned about this issue that I decided we needed to introduce some local initiatives. For some time I have been holding forums for older people within the electorate. This year I will be holding two. I feel that we still need to do a lot to improve things. Unfortunately, the government has not been making an effort within Shortland electorate. It has failed to ensure that there are adequate places in nursing homes and hostels. It is quite ridiculous that in Shortland electorate we get 1.8 community care packages per thousand people over the age of 70, while the national average is 10.3. Here you have the 12th oldest electorate in the country so far below the national average. It is very apparent to me that, despite the pleas, the many letters I have sent and the submissions that I have made to it, this government is determined to ignore the people of Shortland electorate.As I mentioned, I have been very concerned about the lack of resources and initiatives in Shortland electorate for some time, and about the fact that it is an ageing electorate. Over the last few years, I have been working with the Department of Social Work at Newcastle University and have been offering placements in my office to social work students. This year I have a fourth-year student in my office, Jenny Boddy, who is undertaking some research for me. It all comes from the fact that we have this ageing population in Shortland which has special needs and that we do need special programs and initiatives. In light of this, I believe it is important to understand what the community sees as important for the quality lifestyle that they need and deserve. Jenny Boddy is working from my office, conducting research into what over-55s in the community see as important for outstanding quality of life—the quality of life they deserve. The research is also seeking people's ideas for projects in the community. It is a unique opportunity for people in Shortland to express their views and their ideas on what is important to have an enjoyable lifestyle. The ideas and suggestions will result in a community development project that probably a social work student from Newcastle University will undertake next year. To date, the research is indicating that an overwhelming number of participants see good health as essential for quality of life. Along with that goes access to health care and doctors; in fact, 85 per cent of the respondents said that it is very important, whilst the remaining 15 per cent said it is important. So obviously health is tops, as far as that issue goes. Along with good health, access to shops and services is also seen as essential, as are mental stimulation, exercise, healthy eating, financial security, financial support and companionship. This is not the first time I have done this, as I mentioned. This follows on from research done by another social work student, Michael Whiteside, who did a project on the needs of older people in the electorate.I would also like at this stage to pay credit to Margot Kerley, who is here in the chamber. She is the secretary of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Ageing. That committee is doing some fine work. I thank her very much for meeting with Jenny Boddy yesterday and for giving her the benefit of her expertise in that area. This is an important project and it is essential that it be successful. (Time expired)555111:10:005551Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—It gives me pleasure to say a few words in this committee room about small business and about the things that I am doing for small business in the community of Ryan. In particular, I had the pleasure of having the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony Abbott, visit my electorate a couple of weeks ago to launch the Ryan Small Business and Employment Advisory Committee which I have established to advise me, as the federal member for Ryan, on the major issues affecting local small businesses and the concerns of local operators in Ryan. This committee includes 16 small business people from Ryan. It is made up of small business owners and operators from a range of different backgrounds. It is an initiative that is consistent with my campaign promises during the election to support small business if I were to have the pleasure and the privilege of being the federal member for Ryan.One of the most important things for our country is small business because it is the small businesses of our country that employ people and give the local communities and local suburbs throughout the country community support. I think that it is imperative that all governments at all levels, in particular the federal government, give full support and full weight to all that small and medium sized businesses do in our country. I know that this government, the Howard government, certainly does that and it is a great pleasure to be involved in supporting that as a junior member of the parliament and the federal member for Ryan.As I said, we had the pleasure of the workplace relations minister coming to launch the small business advisory committee, and he had the opportunity of meeting some of the members of that committee. I want to mention a few of those members, the backgrounds that they come from and the sorts of small businesses they have, because these people—the Australians in small business—are the people who are at the coalface, who are at the grass roots base of small business. They and their experiences will help all governments of whatever persuasion and at whatever tier in our system of government to develop good ideas, good outcomes and good policies. The workplace relations minister was certainly very enthusiastic and very supportive of this initiative.One member of the committee, Mr Tony Everett, is from The Gap and he has a business that has two employees. He established his business about 10 years ago, with his wife, and it is called the Safe-T School of Motoring. What he does is teach young people how to drive. This might seem to be an innocuous business but it is very important because he is imparting good habits to and good skills amongst the young people of our community who are beginning their driving lessons. Before he began his own small business, he had many other backgrounds and areas of interest and expertise, particularly with young people, which led him to establish this particular business. It seems to me that he is someone, with his experience of employing two people, who can impart to me as his federal member some of the difficulties, some of the challenges and some of the issues that he faces as an employer of two individuals. Of course, as an employer, he is giving a livelihood to two families, and it is very important that we listen to someone like him in terms of his small business.Someone else who is involved in the committee is Kay Gallagher. She runs The Gap Village News as well as a newsagency and comes into contact with many members of the community. She has all the credentials to be someone that can inform her federal member about the issues that come before her.I am delighted to be able to support small businesses in Ryan and assure them that they have my full support in promoting the issues that come before them into the national parliament. I look forward to working with them very closely to develop good solutions for their businesses. (Time expired)555211:15:005552Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise today to put in the Hansard some words from some remarkable people in my electorate—the year 5 and 6 literacy group from Box Hill North Primary School. Assistant principal and teacher, Miss Saitlik, writes:We hope that you as our Honourable Member of Federal Parliament may be able to relay these thoughts to the powers that be, simply to heighten their awareness that the young citizens of Australia have grave concerns and fears for others who share their world. Enclosed are letters from my students and additional information that will hopefully allow you to further your understanding of the significant contributions that our leaders of the future feel they can make in assisting the plights of those less fortunate than themselves.I will read the letters because I think they speak volumes. Sadly, I cannot read them all.Dear Anna, At the beginning of this year we researched Afghanistan. But it was not until we watched a BBC documentary called The Silent Scream that we realised how Afghanistan has been torn apart by war and corruption. The documentary was about Afghan women and how their rights had been taken away from them. We felt great pain for Afghan women when we saw footage of them being beaten and humiliated in the streets. We were even more distraught when we were shown an execution of a woman who was accused of murdering her husband, yet she was only accused of it. She had been living in a small rundown prison cell with two children. She was killed in a stadium, men filed in by the dozen to watch. But as she lay dead on the ground they simply walked out showing no emotion as if it was no more than a movie. This just isn't right. It is inhumane and unjust. We felt angry, angry that our country has turned away people in such helpless situations. So what that they did not become legal refugees, most of the people sold their homes and most of their possessions to come to Australia under the impression that they would be welcome and kept safe, but instead they have either been turned away and sent somewhere else like unwanted luggage, or sent to detention centres which are by no means any different from what they were living in. They have been insulted by their own religions, so what do they do? What do they believe in now? Is there anything left to believe in? We hope that you will take what we have said into consideration. We may only be twelve year olds, but we are entitled to our opinions and we are not the only ones who feel this way. Yours sincerely, Eleanor Simcoe, Kimberley Phillips and Erin Marsicovetere.Dear Anna, We are writing to you to inform you of the abuse of Afghan women. Recently we have been researching Afghanistan and have uncovered the harsh life of women in Afghanistan. A BBC documentary called The Silent Scream really made us feel angry. It is heart wrenching to think that Afghani women can be treated so awfully. The women in Afghanistan are treated like flies. They are beaten. They are some sort of life size punching bag. They are accused of crimes that they didn't even commit. The Northern Alliance told them they could take off their burquas but only the bravest women do. In Afghanistan animals are treated with more respect and dignity than women. Some of the women follow the Muslim religion and in believing in that religion they get beaten. They get beaten for the tiniest things. They get beaten for not being with men, they get imprisoned for wearing bell bottom trousers. To add to that, would it be so hard to let the Afghanistan women in detention centres become Australian citizens? As the young girl said in the detention centre, `You send us back to Afghanistan, you send us back to die!' We hope you thoroughly read this letter and get it as far as you can to John Howard. From Jaydie and AnitaDear Anna, Yesterday in Literacy our teacher put on a BBC documentary. She warned us before we saw it that it was cruel and harsh but that does not even start to describe it. The documentary includes scenes of starving women, beggars and widows. The documentary was about Afghan women. Some of the scenes were taken from hidden cameras underneath women's burquas, and were not light hearted. We have a question for you. How come when some women in Afghanistan who finally escape the torture and seek help in our country are turned down by the government, when towns are advertising land and jobs and need people? Recently, we have been researching all different areas of Afghanistan and we read a book called Parvana. Parvana was a girl who had to pretend to be a male and dig up bones just for a job, and that was before her father was imprisoned. The book didn't have a happy ending as most books do. This was partly what inspired us to write to you. How heartless would you be to walk into a town, shoot all the men then just leave like nothing happened? This is why we feel so strongly about this topic. Please reply. Yours sincerely, Julia Kathro and Courtney Spreen.These letters go on and on, and I will read from the last one:Dear Anna,At the start of this year our literacy group looked into and researched everything including Afghanistan. To accompany our research, we read a book called `Parvana', the story of an 11 year old girl, struggling to survive all the day to day battles of living in Afghanistan. We also watched 2 documentaries called `Tales from a Suitcase'. They were interviews of Afghan people who moved to Australia and how they got through it all.As I say, these letters go on and on, and they are absolutely heartwrenching. It is just so beautiful that the students of our country can grasp the torture that these people have gone through—but our government cannot.555411:20:005554Baldwin, Robert, MPMr BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—I rise today to speak on an important health issue in my electorate of Paterson. That issue is the need for a public hospital in Forster-Tuncurry, which is at the northern end of my electorate. At the end of July, a newspaper in the Forster-Tuncurry region called the Great Lakes Advocate published a very interesting story. The front page had the headline, `Grey power grows—NSW's oldest median age'. The story gave details of the median age of local government areas according to the 2001 census, and the Forster-Tuncurry district had the highest. The census found that the median age for the Great Lakes area was 47.3. This is the highest median age of any local government area in New South Wales. It also showed the increase in population from previous census figures. In 1996, the population in Great Lakes was 28,722. In 2001, at the time of the census, the population had risen by 2.6 per cent from the 1996 figure to 32,598 people.What these figures also reveal is the need to plan for the future and the lack of planning for health needs in this area. Clearly, the evidence is there to say the Great Lakes area is a growing area, with many pensioners and self-funded retirees moving into the region. And why wouldn't they? The Great Lakes area is one of the most beautiful areas in the nation. But one of the problems facing the region is the need for a public hospital in the Forster-Tuncurry area. Residents currently have access to private hospital facilities at Forster, at the Cape Hawke Community Private Hospital. I need to inform the House that this is an outstanding facility which provides a high quality of care for its patients. But, for residents without private cover, many are finding the trip to the public hospital extremely difficult because the closest public hospital to Forster-Tuncurry is the Manning Base Hospital in Taree, some 50 kilometres away. For some, without a car or a partner to drive them to the hospital, the journey to Taree can be a long, frustrating and expensive exercise. It is an issue, just like the need for 24-hour policing in the town, which will gain momentum in the lead-up to the New South Wales election in March next year. And, with the responsibility for setting up hospitals, it is an issue that the state government cannot ignore. With a growing ageing population, it is clear that the New South Wales government must start planning for the future in this area. They must start providing some funds outside of the Sydney area and to this coastal region, where the funds are needed. These census figures are a blueprint for how the area is growing demographically and how government needs to start spending to cater for services in the future. Failing to recognise these important needs in the local community will cause extreme hardship to elderly Australians, who have paid their taxes throughout their working life and deserve quality care that is affordable. Planning for the future is good government. The New South Wales government must look at these census statistics and carefully plan for the health needs of the Great Lakes area, including provision for public hospital services.One option that has been put to me by a member of the community is whether the state government can lease beds from the Cape Hawke Community Private Hospital. This position is not being rejected by the hospital, but the state government seems reluctant to embrace it. Although this is not a long-term solution, it may help those in Forster-Tuncurry who have difficulty travelling to Manning Base Hospital. The point, though, is that the future health needs of the area must be seriously looked at by all levels of government to make sure the provision of services is fair and affordable.I also take this opportunity to congratulate the volunteers who raise money for the palliative care unit at the Cape Hawke Community Private Hospital, known as Laurel Cottage. This unit provides great services to the local community because there is no public hospital and the unit is funded entirely by community donations. Since the unit first started over 12 years ago, volunteers have raised over $450,000. Every year they hold events such as movie screenings or fashion parades to raise the $40,000 to keep the unit going. There have been many volunteers who have generously given their time to this cause, and I would like to make special mention of the president of the group, Elizabeth Fisher, and Elizabeth Clarke, Robin Fisher and Frank Pushee on their achievements. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, why is it that the things that are most important to us in life are funded by fetes and community fundraising rather than by governments?555511:25:005555Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—The Essendon airport, which is at the fringe of my electorate, has for some decades now been a quite controversial topic, largely because of perceptions in the local community of conflict between the residential character of the area and aviation operations. That is evidenced by a number of fatal accidents and tragedies over that time. Nonetheless, despite the residential concerns, the government has over recent times agreed to continue, at a diminished level, the aviation operations at the airport and has negotiated with a consortium involving Linfox and Becton to operate the airport. There are some positive features in those proposals in that the consortium obviously has a very strong commercial interest in intensifying commercial activity and development and hence jobs on the site, so this particular part of Melbourne is likely to benefit from that.However, there are serious problems in that process, the most notable problem being the exacerbation of very difficult traffic conditions, particularly at the interchange next to the airport between the Tullamarine Freeway leading on to City Link and the Calder Highway at that point. Already anyone who travels into Melbourne or out of Melbourne, particularly at peak hour, through that area knows just how difficult those traffic conditions are—and it is at the edge of a growing part of Melbourne. Intensification of activity associated with Essendon airport is going to really make that problem increasingly difficult. Regrettably, the Commonwealth government, in the process of negotiating management arrangements at the airport, has not done the very obvious thing of excising a portion of the airport land to enable improvement of the interchange at that point. It seems to me fairly negligent not to have done that, because there have been plans around for some considerable time to improve that interchange involving, as it would, the taking of some of the airport's land, but it has not happened. It seems that a very essential step now for the Commonwealth to take is to recognise work needed at that interchange as being part of the Commonwealth program for roads of national importance. The Calder Freeway, as my colleague the member for Burke would be only too well aware, is recognised as a road of national importance and considerable work continues further north and west of Melbourne along that highway. But, at the end of the highway, where the highway reaches the Tullamarine Freeway and ceases to exist as a main road, it is absolute traffic chaos. Frankly, there is a need for the Commonwealth to recognise its need, in partnership with the Victorian government, to sort out the mess, particularly as its policies in relation to the development of Essendon airport are going to make the issue even more important.The state government talks about a figure of some $250 million being required to rebuild the interchange. Whilst I am not an engineer and would not want to second-guess engineering estimates, that seems to me to be very much at the upper end of what one could reasonably expect. Land acquisition costs, which are presumably built into that, ought to be minimised because it ought to be possible for the Commonwealth and the state to negotiate a satisfactory arrangement with the airport operator because the airport operator will substantially benefit from improvement of the traffic conditions around the site. Frankly, the configuration of the airport and the roads into it at the moment are a bit of a mess, but, by some basic clever design, it may be possible for the airport operator to get a substantially better utilisation of parts of the sites which are presently landlocked by some effective design. I would expect land acquisition costs associated with road improvements would dramatically reduce that $250 million estimate and, in fact, depending upon the route across the airport that was agreed, it may be possible to significantly reduce construction costs as well.In this situation, whilst the local community undoubtedly loses through the Commonwealth's determination to continue aviation activities at Essendon Airport, everyone expects that those aviation activities will significantly diminish over future years. With that caveat, a win-win-win situation is possible: a win for the Commonwealth in terms of getting much better access to what is Australia's largest curfew free airport, Melbourne airport, by road improvements; a win for the operator of the airport in getting a better result; and a win for the local community in solving the very substantial problem of traffic congestion. (Time expired)555611:30:005556Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise today to talk about an exciting collaboration occurring in the Dunkley electorate. A number of key stakeholders, training providers, participants in a Job Network program and I are putting together a project called the Mature Aged Career Collaboration. It is aimed at assisting and supporting local unemployed people who are over the age of 45. We know that economic and social drivers will, over time, increasingly promote mature age employment. However, more immediate action is required to ensure that the talent and capacity of the current mature age job seeker is not lost to the economy and to abate the significant personal costs of their joblessness. In 1976, Australia had 1.3 million people over the age of 65, which represented nine per cent of the total population. In March last year, there were 2.3 million people over the age of 65, or 12 per cent of the population. By 2016, there will be 3½ million people over the age of 65, representing 16 per cent of the total population. That will rise to 6.03 million by the middle of this century, meaning that 25 per cent of our entire population will be over the age of 65. Work is a key defining element of an individual's character. As the Nelson committee recognised in its Age Counts report in the year 2000:Work puts us in a social context, defines the framework of our lives and gives each of us a sense of belonging and meaningful purpose.Being without a job not only devastates personal finances but also exacts a heavy social and human toll. In 1997, the ABS reported that nearly half of all men over the age of 45 were out of the workplace through retrenchment, redundancy or retirement. The unemployment rate for mature age people is lower than that for the general population, but the rate of long-term unemployment is much higher. This represents what the Nelson committee described as `the tip of an iceberg of quiet anguish'. Access Economics reported at the start of last year that the working age population currently grows by about 170,000 people but that, if current population trends continue, by the year 2020 the entire working age population will grow by just 125,000 people for the whole decade. Clearly, we need to be cleverer, smarter and more engaged as a nation in ensuring that mature age people are able to fully participate in the workplace.In Dunkley, we are bringing the players together to try to support the re-employment and re-engagement of mature age job seekers. We have found that, in addition to tackling the unjustified bias that many employers have against employing a mature age person, there are things we can do to work with, to support and to encourage the mature age job seeker. Computer literacy is increasingly recognised as a core competency without which it is very difficult to gain employment. We are putting in place an IT skills program for job seekers so that they can display a level of computer competency, or at least the absence of fear of computer technology, to prospective employers. In terms of positivity and self-confidence, there is the need to project an engaging character that is worthy and valued in the workplace. Also, the labour market has changed. Some mature age job seekers have not sought employment in the workplace for about 20 years and find that the tactics, the choices and the opportunities that were appropriate 20 years ago are now not part of the labour market.The last issue, which is the most important one, in my view, is the concept of workplace mobility. A lot of people who have worked in traditional areas of employment only see work opportunities in that area, whereas the skills and competencies they have are quite transferable. We will be working with those job seekers to recognise their abilities and to make sure that they are fully engaged in the workplace. Tzvi Lachman and Melody Rewakowski are working with us, and they have done a lot of good work in the state of Oregon. We also have Your Employment Solutions and Barry Smith helping us. SkillsPlus Peninsula are helping with the training venue, IT capacity and the mentoring that is needed for these mature age job seekers. (Time expired)Main Committee adjourned at 11.35 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing5558The following answers to questions were circulated:5558(Question No. 533)5335558Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 18 June 2002:Further to the answer to question No. 122, for the (a) calendar year 2001 and (b) six months ended 31 December 2001, what was the average sum spent by Members on personalised stationery and newsletters and for each period, what was the average sum spent by (i) members of the Government and (ii) members of the Opposition.5558Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question:The average sum spent by Members on personalised stationery and newsletters was as follows: Calendar year 2001Six months ended 31 December 2001Members$97,773.39$69,009.16Government Members$128,923.76$93,638.88Opposition Members$62,146.17$41,400.065558(Question No. 626)6265558Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek83MSydneyALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 June 2002:(1) What is the composition of the Family Law Pathways Advisory Group.(2) What sum, if any, were members of the group paid for their work.(3) What sum was the Chair of the group paid.5558Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Minister for Family and Community Services and I announced the membership of the Family Law Pathways Advisory Group in May 2000. The members of the Advisory Group were appointed on the basis of the range of experience and expertise they brought to family law. A listing of the membership of the Group appears below. The Advisory Group held its last meeting in March 2001 and launched its report, Out of the Maze - Pathways to the Future for Families Experiencing Separation, in August 2001. Des Semple (Chair), Chair of the Family Law CouncilCatherine Argall, General Manager, Child Support AgencyBettina Arndt, Journalist, Sydney Morning Herald and The AgeProfessor Thea Brown, Professor of Social Work, Monash UniversityJustice Linda Dessau, Family Court of AustraliaProfessor John Dewar, Professor of Law, Griffith UniversityRichard Foster, Chief Executive Officer, Family Court of AustraliaIan Govey, General Manager, Civil Justice and Legal Services, Attorney-General's DepartmentJane Halton, Deputy Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and CabinetJohn Hodgins, Chief Executive Officer, Legal Aid QueenslandSusan Holmes, Executive Director, Relationships Australia, TasmaniaWayne Jackson, Deputy Secretary, Department of Family and Community ServicesWinsome Matthews, Project Development Officer, Indigenous Women's Unit, Women's Legal Resource CentreScott Mitchell, Magistrate, NSW Local CourtPauline Smit, Secretary, Women's Action Alliance (Australia) IncLyn Stephen, Co-ordinator, Community Mediation Service, Bunbury Community Legal ServiceGrant Tidswell, National Manager, Families & Children Customer Segment, CentrelinkGraham Towle, General Manager, Care Services, Wesley Mission, SydneyThe total travel allowances* and sitting fees paid to members was: Susan Holmes$2,810.00Bettina Arndt$1,760.00Winsome Matthews$ 408.00Professor Thea Brown$1,970.00Scott Mitchell$ 840.00Justice Linda Dessau$2,490.00Professor John Dewar$1,610.00Pauline Smit$1,820.00Lyn Stephen$4,293.16Graham Towle$1,670.00John Hodgins$1,950.91Total$21,622.07* airfares, cabcharges and petrol allowances not included. The Chair (Des Semple) was paid $8,250.53.